Difference between revisions of "McCuskey 2012"
(→Links) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Citation= | =Citation= | ||
| − | McCuskey, B. (2012). Sherlock Holmes and Intelligent Design. The Quarterly | + | McCuskey, B. (2012). Sherlock Holmes and Intelligent Design. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 87(3), 225-235. |
=Links= | =Links= | ||
*https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/666749 | *https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/666749 | ||
*http://hawaiireedlab.com/pdf/m/mccuskey2012.pdf (internal lab link only) | *http://hawaiireedlab.com/pdf/m/mccuskey2012.pdf (internal lab link only) | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Published Abstract= | ||
| + | This article examines how both scientists and creationists, as they argue over intelligent design, invoke and quote the fictional character of Sherlock Holmes to support their opposed positions. Rhetorical analysis of Holmes's repeated contributions to the debate reveals not only how the argument for design falls apart, but also how the argument for Darwin compromises itself when following the detective onto shaky logical ground. The sciences and the humanities must work together to combat the corrosive influence of pseudoscientific reasoning on our students and the general public; this article contributes to that joint enterprise. | ||
[[Category:Publication]] | [[Category:Publication]] | ||
Latest revision as of 02:56, 3 October 2018
Citation
McCuskey, B. (2012). Sherlock Holmes and Intelligent Design. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 87(3), 225-235.
Links
- https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/666749
- http://hawaiireedlab.com/pdf/m/mccuskey2012.pdf (internal lab link only)
Published Abstract
This article examines how both scientists and creationists, as they argue over intelligent design, invoke and quote the fictional character of Sherlock Holmes to support their opposed positions. Rhetorical analysis of Holmes's repeated contributions to the debate reveals not only how the argument for design falls apart, but also how the argument for Darwin compromises itself when following the detective onto shaky logical ground. The sciences and the humanities must work together to combat the corrosive influence of pseudoscientific reasoning on our students and the general public; this article contributes to that joint enterprise.
