On the evidence for evolution: Coyne, J. A. (2009). Why Evolution is True. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Dawkins, R. (2009). The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. London: Bantam Press; Prothero, D. R. (2017). Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters (2nd edition). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

“Nothing in biology makes sense …”: Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher 35(3): 125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Creationism and intelligent design: Numbers, R. L. (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press; Pigliucci, M. (2002). Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar

Blind watchmaker and tinkerer metaphors: Dawkins, R. (2006 [1986]). The Blind Watchmaker. London: Penguin Books; Jacob, F. (1977). Evolution and tinkering. Science 196(4295): 1161–1166.Google Scholar

“Make respondents feel uncomfortable”: Rughinis, C. (2011). A lucky answer to a fair question: Conceptual, methodological, and moral implications of including items on human evolution in scientific literacy surveys. Science Communication 33: 501–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

“Forced to choose”: Elsdon-Baker, F. (2015). Creating creationists: The influence of “issues framing” on our understanding of public perceptions of clash narratives between evolutionary science and belief. Public Understanding of Science 24: 422–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Articles on the acceptance of evolution in Science: Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., and Okamoto, S. (2006). Public acceptance of evolution. Science 313(5788): 765–766; Hameed, S. (2008). Bracing for Islamic creationism. Science 322: 1637.Google Scholar

On the distinction between believe in and believe about: McCain, K. and Kampourakis, K. (2018). Which question do polls about evolution and belief really ask, and why does it matter? Public Understanding of Science 27(1): 2–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

On evolution and design: Ruse, M. (2004). Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Paley and Hume: Paley, W. (2006 [1802]). Natural Theology or Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Hume, D. (1993 [1779/1777]). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Natural History of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

The studies discussed are Evans, M. E. (2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: Creation versus evolution. Cognitive Psychology 42: 217–266; Kelemen, D. (2003). British and American children’s preferences for teleo-functional explanations of the natural world. Cognition 88: 201–221; Kelemen, D. (2004). Are children “intuitive theists”? Reasoning about purpose and design in nature. Psychological Science 15(5): 295–301; Kelemen, D. and DiYanni, C. (2005). Intuitions about origins: Purpose and intelligent design in children’s reasoning about nature. Journal of Cognition and Development 6(1): 3–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

On the blind watchmaker: Dawkins, R. (2006 [1986]). The Blind Watchmaker. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Studies on what scientists think about religion: Ecklund, E. H. (2010). Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Ecklund, E. H., Johnson, D. R., Vaidyanathan, B., Matthews, K. R. W., Lewis S. W., Thomson, Jr. R. A., and Di, D. (2019). Secularity and Science: What Scientists Around the World Really Think About Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

On the views of Dawkins, Gould, and Conway Morris: Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press; Conway Morris, S. (2003). Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Gould, S. J. (1999). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar

On knowledge and belief: Audi, R. (2011). Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

On concepts and conceptual change: Arabatzis, T. (2019). What are scientific concepts? In McCain, K. and Kampourakis, K. (Eds.) What Is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 85–99; Vosniadou, S. (Ed.) (2013). International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

“Interesting study as an example”: Goldberg, R. F. and Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2009). Developmental “roots” in mature biological knowledge. Psychological Science 20(4): 480–487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

The studies on teleology discussed are reported in: Kelemen, D. (1999). The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. Cognition 70: 241–272; Keil, F. C. (1992). The origins of an autonomous biology. In M. R. Gunnar and M. Maratsos (Eds.) Modularity and Constraints in Language and Cognition: Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology, Vol. 25. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 103–138; Kelemen, D. (1999). Why are rocks pointy? Children’s preference for teleological explanations of the natural world. Developmental Psychology 35: 1440–1452; Greif, M., Kemler-Nelson, D., Keil, F. C., and Guiterrez, F. (2006). What do children want to know about animals and artifacts? Domain-specific requests for information. Psychological Science 17(6): 455–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

The studies on essentialism discussed are reported in: Gelman, S. A. (2003). The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Asher, Y. M. and Kemler-Nelson, D. G. (2008). Was it designed to do that? Children’s focus on intended function in their conceptualization of artifacts. Cognition 106: 474–483; Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, Kinds and Cognitive Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

On the essences of artifacts and organisms: Bloom, P. (2004). Descartes’ Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human. New York: Basic Books; Walsh, D. (2006). Evolutionary essentialism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57(2): 425–448.Google Scholar

On teleology and essentialism as obstacles to understanding evolution: Kelemen, D. (2012). Teleological minds: How natural intuitions about agency and purpose influence learning about evolution. In Rosengren, K., Brem, S., Evans, E. M., and Sinatra, G. M. (Eds.) Evolution Challenges: Integrating Research and Practice in Teaching and Learning about Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 66–92; Gelman, S. A. and Rhodes, M. (2012). “Two-thousand years of stasis”: How psychological essentialism impedes evolutionary understanding. In K. Rosengren, S. Brem, E. M. Evans, and G. M. Sinatra (Eds.) Evolution Challenges: Integrating Research and Practice in Teaching and Learning about Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On the account of teleology followed, see: Lennox, J. G. and Kampourakis, K. (2013). Biological teleology: The need for history. In Kampourakis, K. (Ed.) The Philosophy of Biology: A Companion for Educators. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 421–454; Kampourakis, K. (2020). Students’ “teleological misconceptions” in evolution education: Why the underlying design stance, not teleology per se, is the problem. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 13(1). DOI: 10.1186/s12052-019-0116-z.Google Scholar

Bowler, P. J. (2013). Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World Without Darwin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Endersby, J. (2009). Charles Darwin: On the Origin of Species. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hodge, J. and Radick, G. (Eds.) (2009). The Cambridge Companion to Darwin (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kohn, D. (Ed.) (1985). The Darwinian Heritage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Numbers, R. N. & Kampourakis, K. (Eds.) (2015). Newton's Apple and Other Myths about Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ospovat, D. (1981). The Development of Darwin’s Theory: Natural History, Natural Theology and Natural Selection, 1838–1859. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ruse, M. and Richards, R. J. (Eds.) (2009). The Cambridge Companion to the “Origin of Species.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Secord, J. A. (2000). Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges on Natural History of Creation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Spencer, N. (2009). Darwin and God. London: SPCK.Google Scholar

On the Huxley–Wilberforce debate: Lucas, J. R. (1979). Wilberforce and Huxley: A legendary encounter. The Historical Journal 22(2): 313–330; Brooke, J. H. (2001). The Wilberforce–Huxley debate: Why did it happen? Science & Christian Belief 13(2): 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Darwin, ’s writings, as well as the reviews of the Origin discussed, are available at: http://darwin-online.org.uk. Darwin’s correspondence is available at www.darwinproject.ac.uk.Google Scholar

On the human genome and design: Avise, J. C. (2010). Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 108–112.Google Scholar

On microbial evolution and the universal common ancestor: Margulis, L. (1998). Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution. London: Basic Books; Margulis, L. and Sagan, D. (2002). Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species. New York: Basic Books; Koonin, E. V. (2011). The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press; Doolittle, W. F. and Brunet, T. D. (2016). What is the tree of life? PLoS Genetics 12(4): e1005912; Koonin, E. V. and Novozhilov, A. S. (2017). Origin and evolution of the universal genetic code. Annual Review of Genetics 51: 45–62.Google Scholar

For a comprehensive discussion of how evolutionary trees are constructed and read, see: Baum, D. and Smith, S. (2013). Tree Thinking: An Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology. Greenwood Village, CO: Roberts and Company Publishers.Google Scholar

On digits and insect appendages: Hall, B. K. (2003). Descent with modification: The unity underlying homology and homoplasy as seen through an analysis of development and evolution. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 78: 409–433; Wagner, G. (2007). The developmental genetics of homology. Nature Reviews Genetics 8: 473–479.Google Scholar

On homologies and homoplasies: Carroll, S. B. (2005). Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo-Devo. New York: W.W. Norton, pp. 61–72; McGhee, G. R. (2011). Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

On deep homology: Shubin, N., Tabin, C., and Carroll, S. (2009). Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty. Nature 457: 818–823.Google Scholar

On the origin of multicellularity: Knoll, A. H. (2011). The multiple origins of complex multicellularity. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 39: 217–239; Libby, E., Conlin, P. L., Kerr, B., & Ratcliff, W. C. (2016). Stabilizing multicellularity through ratcheting. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371(1701): 20150444.Google Scholar

On whales and bats: Thewissen, J. G., Cohn, M. J., Stevens, L. S., Bajpai, S., Heyning, J., and Horton, W. E. Jr. (2006). Developmental basis for hind-limb loss in dolphins and origin of the cetacean body plan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103(22): 8414–8418; Sears, K. E., Behringer, R. R., Rasweiler, J. J., and Niswander, L. A. (2006). Development of bat flight: morphologic and molecular evolution of bat wing digits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103(17): 6581–6586.Google Scholar

On changes in development that affect evolution: Arthur, W. (2011). Evolution: A Developmental Approach. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

On the inversion of the dorso-ventral axis of arthropods: De Robertis, E. M. (2008). Evo-devo: Variations on ancestral themes. Cell 132: 185–195.Google Scholar

On adaptation, see: Sober, E. (1993 [1984]). The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; Brandon, R. N. (1990). Adaptation and Environment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; Reeve, H. K. and Sherman, P. W. (1993). Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. Quarterly Review of Biology 68(1): 1–32; Mayr, E. (2002). What Evolution Is. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson; Gould, S. J. and Vrba, E. S. (1982). Exaptation: A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8(1): 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On selection for and selection of, and the toy example, see: Sober, E. (1993 [1984]). The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

On selection for and against, see: Depew, D. (2013). Conceptual change and the rhetoric of evolutionary theory: “Force talk” as a case study and challenge for science pedagogy. In Kampourakis, K. (Ed.) The Philosophy of Biology: A Companion for Educators. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On stochastic processes: Millstein, R. L., Skipper, R. A., and Dietrich, M. R. (2009). (Mis)interpreting mathematical models: Drift as a physical process. Philosophy & Theory in Biology 1: e002, DOI:10.3998/ptb.6959004.0001.002; Skipper, R. A. (2006). Stochastic evolutionary dynamics: Drift versus draft. Philosophy of Science 73(5): 655–665; Nei, M. (2013). Mutation-Driven Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Picket fence example: McShea, D. W. and Brandon, R. N. (2010). Biology’s First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

On evolutionary contingency: Gould, S. J. (2000 [1989]). Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. London: Vintage; Kampourakis, K. (2018). Turning Points: How Critical Events Have Driven Evolution, Life and Development. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books; Losos, J. (2017). Improbable Destinies: Fate, Chance and the Future of Evolution. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar

On adaptive radiation: Losos, J. B. (2010). A tale of two radiations: Similarities and differences in the evolutionary diversification of Darwin’s finches and Greater Antillean Anolis lizards. In Grant, P. R. and Grant, B. R. (Eds.) In Search of the Causes of Evolution: From Field Observations to Mechanisms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 309–331.Google Scholar

On evo-devo and speciation: Minelli, A. and Fusco, G. (2012). On the evolutionary developmental biology of speciation. Evolutionary Biology 39: 242–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On species selection: Jablonski, D. (2008). Species selection: Theory and data. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 39: 501–524.Google Scholar

On the K–Pg extinction: Cleland, C. E. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science 69: 474–496; Cleland, C. E. (2011). Prediction and explanation in historical natural science. British Journal of Philosophy of Science 62: 551–582; Cleland, C. (2020). Is it possible to scientifically reconstruct the history of life on Earth? The biological sciences and deep time. In K. Kampourakis and T. Uller (Eds.) Philosophy of Science for Biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

On the evidence that people can be religious and accept science: Ecklund, E. H. and Scheitle, C. P. (2017). Religion vs. Science: What Religious People Really Think. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

On the arguments of antievolutionists: Miller, K. R. (2009). Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul. New York: Penguin Books; Pennock, R. T. (1999). The Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

On nature of science: Kampourakis, K. and McCain, K. (2020). Uncertainty: How it Makes Science Advance. New York: Oxford University Press; Firestein, S. (2015). Failure: Why Science is So Successful. New York: Oxford University Press; Firestein, S. (2012). Ignorance: How It Drives Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

On scientific understanding: De Regt, H. (2017). Understanding Scientific Understanding. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Virtues of a good theory: McMullin, E. (2008). The virtues of a good theory. In Psillos, S. and Curd, M. (Eds.) The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 498–508.Google Scholar

On Tiktaalik: Shubin, N. (2008). Your Inner Fish: The Amazing Discovery of our 375-Million-Year-Old Ancestor. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

On scientism: Haack, S. (2017). Scientism and Its Discontents. n.p.: Rounded Globe; Boudry, M. and Pigliucci, M. (Eds.) (2018). Science Unlimited? The Challenges of Scientism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; Rosenberg, A. (2011). The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions. New York: W.W. Norton; Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press; Dennett, D. (2006). Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. New York: Viking; Coyne, J. (2015). Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible. New York: Viking, pp. 202–204.Google Scholar

On the ontological argument: Plantinga, A. (1967). God and Other Minds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, quoted in Oppy, G., Ontological arguments. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (spring 2019 edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/ontological-arguments.Google Scholar

Effect of prayer on recovery: Benson, H., Dusek, J. A., Sherwood, J. B., et al. (2006). Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. American Heart Journal 151(4): 934–942.Google Scholar

On metaphysical and methodological naturalism: Giere, R. N. (2006). Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Quotations are from: Ruse, M. (2001). Can a Darwinian be a Christian? The Relationship between Science and Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 217; Kitcher, P. (2007). Living with Darwin. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 165–166.Google Scholar