I just finished Eugenie Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism. Her approach was to present state laws, court cases, testimony, school board policies and presentations, and books and articles about either.
Creationism and its adaptation, Intelligent Design (ID), are, essentially, Evidence Against Evolution (EAE). I've read several tomes on Creationism such as The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel and Of Pandas and People by William Dembski et al both of which are EAE. None of the Creationism tomes provides any science to support their thesis although they punctuate their argument with contentions such as Irreducible Complexity which itself has no scientific support.
In any case, I recommend Scott's tome and others on this subject.
I still don't get why this issue is so contentious. It strikes me as navel gazing. What is the harm in allowing people to believe this? So you can lord how much brighter you are than a working class guy (not really on your own ability to comprehend the actual science but to repeat the talking points of some expert)? People are probably happier and more content overall if they can at least believe it has some ultimate purpose.
Should probably ask Mr. Kierney. I guess if you're Italian, you should be in prison. I've read the RICO Act, and I can tell you it's more appropriate... for some of those guys over in Washington than it is for me or any of my fellas here
