Charting the Idealism of Intelligent Design: A Small-Scale Map of Local Advocacy

References

• Anderson, F. D., & Prelli, L. J. (2001). Pentadic cartography: Mapping the universe of discourse. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 87, 73–95. doi:10.1080/00335630109384319
   Google Scholar
• Beck, C. T. (2006). Pentadic cartography: Mapping birth trauma narratives. Qualitative Health Research, 16, 453–466. doi:10.1177/1049732305285968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brock, B. L., Huglen, M. E., Klumpp, J. F., & Howell, S. (2005). Making sense of political ideology: The power of language in democracy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burke, K. (1969a). A grammar of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burke, K. (1969b). A rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burke, K. (1973). The philosophy of literary form: Studies in symbolic action. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burke, K. (1984a). Attitudes toward history. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burke, K. (1984b). Permanence and change: An anatomy of purpose. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burke, K. (1985). Dramatism and logology. Communication Quarterly, 33, 89–93. doi:10.1080/01463378509369584
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, J. A. (2003). Why are we still debating Darwinism? Why not teach the controversy?. In J. A. Campbell & S. C. Meyer (Eds.), Darwinism, design, & public education (pp. xi–xxxviii). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, J. A., & Meyer, S. C. ( Eds.). (2003). Darwinism, design, & public education. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ceccarelli, L. (2011) Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14, 195–228. doi:10.1353/rap.2010.0222
   Google Scholar
• Comfort, N. C. (2007). The panda’s black box: Opening up the intelligent design controversy. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Condit, C. M. (2003). The rhetoric of intelligent design: Alternatives for science and religion. In J. A. Campbell & S. C. Meyer (Eds.), Darwinism, design, & public education (pp. 421–440). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Definition of intelligent design. (n.d.). Discovery institute: Center for science & culture. Retrieved from http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
   Google Scholar
• Denton, M. (1986). Evolution: A theory in crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler.
   Google Scholar
• DePalma, M.-J., Ringer, J. M., & Webber, J. (2009) (Re)Charting the (dis)courses of faith and politics, or rhetoric and democracy in the Burkean barnyard. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 38, 311–334. doi:10.1080/02773940802167575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eve, R. A., & Harrold, F. B (1991). The creationist movement in modern America. Boston, MA: Twayne Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Forrest, B., & Gross, P. (2004). Creationism’s Trojan horse: The wedge of intelligent design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, S. (2013). Manufactured scientific consensus: A reply to Ceccarelli. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 16, 753–760. doi:10.1353/rap.2013.0048
   Google Scholar
• Glicksberg, C. I. (1969). Kenneth Burke: The critic’s critic. In W. H. Rueckert (Ed.), Critical responses to Kenneth Burke, 1924–1966 (pp. 71–80). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gold/platinum/diamond book awards: Past award recipients. (n.d.). Evangelical Christian publishers association. Retrieved from http://christianbookexpo.com/christianbookawards/cba2005.php
   Google Scholar
• Goodnight, G. T. (1987). Public discourse. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 4, 428–431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauser, G. A. (1998) Civil society and the principle of the public sphere. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 31, 19–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, J. T. (1983). “Creation science” is not “science”: Argument fields and public arguments. In Conference Proceedings—National Communication Association/American Forensic Association (Alta Conference on Argumentation), 1983 Argument in Transition. Washington, DC: National Communication Association (pp. 416–422).
   Google Scholar
• Join the free speech on evolution campaign. (2005, October 1). Discovery institute: Center for science & culture. Retrieved from http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, P. E. (1997). Defeating Darwinism by opening minds. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, P. E. (2003). The rhetorical problem of intelligent design. In J. A. Campbell & S. C. Meyer (Eds.), Darwinism, design, & public education (pp. 549–554). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, G. D. (2007). Mystery, God, and constructivism. In A. Moore & M. Scott (Eds.), Realism and religion: Philosophical and theological perspectives (pp. 11–31). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. (2011). U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Case No. 04cv2688. Document 342. Retrieved from: <http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf>.
   Google Scholar
• Klope, D. C. (1994). Creationism and the tactic of debate: A performance study of guerrilla rhetoric. Journal of Communication and Religion, 17, 39–51.
   Google Scholar
• Larson, E. J. (1997). Summer of the gods: The Scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over science and religion. New York, NY: BasicBooks.
   Google Scholar
• Larson, E. J. (2007). The creation-evolution debate: Historical perspectives. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lessl, T. M. (2003). Scientific rhetoric as religious advocacy: Origins in the public schools. Journal of Communication and Religion, 26, 1–27.
   Google Scholar
• “Lionsgate names Thomas Nelson, Inc. exclusive distributor in Christian market; In first step of new initiative, Lionsgate shows ‘faith’ in … Lee Strobel, inks three DVD distribution deal … .” (2007, April 12). PR Newswire US.
   Google Scholar
• Lyne, J. (2003). Thinking pedagogically about design. In J. A. Campbell & S. C. Meyer (Eds.), Darwinism, design, & public education (pp. 525–532). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, J. D., Trammel, K. D., Landers, D., Valois, J. M. & Bailey. T. (2006). Journalism and the debate over origins: Newspaper coverage of intelligent design. Journal of Media and Religion, 5, 49–61. doi:10.1207/s15328415jmr0501_3
   Google Scholar
• Marty, M. E. (1991). Modern American religion: The noise of conflict, 1919–1941. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marty, M. E. (1996). Modern American Religion: Under God, indivisible. 1941–1960. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• McClure, K. (2009). Resurrecting the narrative paradigm: Identification and the case of young earth creationism. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 39, 189–211. doi:10.1080/02773940902766771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCoppin, R. (2004, October 7). Local boy makes God: Lee Strobel went from atheist newsman to best-selling Christian author. Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL), Suburban Living section, p. 1.
   Google Scholar
• Meisenbach, R. J., Remke, R. V., Buzzanell, P., & Liu, M. (2008). “They allowed”: Pentadic mapping of women’s maternity leave discourse as organizational rhetoric. Communication Monographs, 75, 1–24. doi:10.1080/03637750801952727
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newport, F. (2010, December 17). Four in 10 Americans believe in strict creationism. Gallup. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Numbers, R. L. (1992). The creationists. New York: A. A. Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Prelli, L. J. (1989). A rhetoric of science: Inventing scientific discourse. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prelli, L. J., Anderson, F. D., & Althouse, M. T. (2011). Kenneth Burke on recalcitrance. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 41, 97–124. doi:10.1080/02773945.2011.553768
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strobel, L. (2004). The case for a creator: A journalist investigates scientific evidence that points toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. A. (1996). Defining science: A rhetoric of demarcation. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. A., & Condit, C. M. (1998). Objectivity and elites: A creation science trial. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 5, 293–312. doi:10.1080/15295038809366718
   Google Scholar
• Wallis, J. (2008). The great awakening: Reviving faith & politics in a post-religious right America. New York, NY: HarperOne.
   Google Scholar
• Wess, R. (1996). Kenneth Burke: Rhetoric, subjectivity, and postmodernism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Woodward, T. (2003). Doubts about Darwin: A history of intelligent design. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, R. (2009). The evolution of God. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
   Google Scholar