DOCSLIB.ORG

Measuring and Understanding Public Opinion on Human Evolution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Measuring and Understanding Public Opinion on Human Evolution A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science of the College of Arts and Sciences by Misook Gwon, M.A. Political Science, University of Cincinnati December 2012 Committee Chair: Stephen T. Mockabee, PhD ABSTRACT The theory of evolution has long generated controversy in American society, but Americans‘ attitudes about human evolution are often neglected in studies of ―culture wars‖ and the nature of mass belief systems more generally (Berkman and Plutzer 2010; Freeland and Houston 2009). Gallup and other survey organizations have polled about evolution, but offered limited response categories that mask complexity in public opinion (Bishop 2006; Moore 2008). The main problems concerning the leading survey questions about evolution are: first, questions measure only a single dimension, thus they ignore the potential for multidimensionality in people‘s attitudes. Second, depending on question wording and response options, the results of public opinion surveys vary by polling groups. This is an example of measurement error which misleads the interpretation and impression of American public opinion on the origin of humankind. A number of studies have analyzed Americans‘ beliefs about evolution and hypothesized about the influential effects of several factors (Deckman 2002; Mazur 2005; Mooney 2005; Miller et al. 2006; Newport 2006; Forrest 2007; Nisbet and Goidel 2007; Scott 2009). However, there remains a lack of complete understanding of what Americans know and believe about human evolution. Given the salience of this issue and the significant influence of public opinion on policy-making in America (Page and Shapiro 1992; Stimson 2004; Newport 2004), the measurement error and explanation of polling results on controversial issues related to this topic are in need of clarification. In this study, I address these deficiencies with analyses of data from a 2008 national survey by Harris Interactive (n= 4,626) that included numerous measures of factual knowledge and beliefs about evolution. The items offer more nuanced response options than the standard three-category question asked for decades by the Gallup poll. The Harris survey also had multiple measures of religiosity and the Right-Wing-Authoritarianism personality scale. Using this uniquely rich data set I develop a model of the nature and organization of these various attitude structures. Data analyses on explanation of public acceptance or rejection of evolution indicate that the Right-wing-authoritarianism and religious factors including beliefs in God‘s existence, views of the Bible, frequency of church attendance, and Evangelical Protestant affiliation are significant predictors across all measures. Scientific literacy, genetic science knowledge and familiarity, in general, are another contributor to prediction of public attitudes toward evolution. On measurement validity, consistency of measurement and responses are examined. The results from data analyses reveal the effect of question wording form and context is at play. In addition, public beliefs and knowledge about evolution are not consistent, rather contradictory, and are susceptible to framing effects. As scholars of public opinion warn, we should avoid the referendum view of polls on controversial issues (Schuman 2008; Moore 2008; Bishop 2005). Findings from this research lead to two key conclusions. First, great caution should be taken interpreting poll results on human evolution. Second, for better understanding of public opinion on this issue, a modified standard question should replace the current question. ii iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS During my time in graduate school, I have received support and encouragement from a great number of individuals. Thank all of you who helped me throughout these past years as I tried to juggle raising children, working, and completing my dissertation. I would like to thank the staff and faculty in the Department of Political Science. In particular, I would first like to thank my dissertation committee for all their help to improve the overall quality of my work. My chairperson, Stephen Mockabee, has been a mentor, colleague, and friend. I would like to thank him for his generous support and extreme patience during numerous obstacles in completing this project. His enthusiasm in research and teaching, as well as his willingness to help students, has motivated me to pursue a career in political science. I am also grateful to Barbara Bardes for her support in numerous ways throughout my graduate studies. Without her encouragement and inspiration, this project would not have been accomplished. Additionally, I would like to thank Andrew Lewis for his insightful feedback on this research. Finally, special thanks to George Bishop for his timely guidance on various aspects of this project. I would like to extend my gratitude to Randy Thomas for generously providing the Harris survey data for my dissertation research. I would like to thank my fellow doctoral students for their support, feedback, and friendship. For all the sharing of time, knowledge, and insight in class and in preparing for comprehensive exams, I thank Ashley Kanotz, Rike Rothenstein, Chad Kinsella, and Jason Wood. I also thank Brad Nestheide and Jenn Dye for proofreading, commenting, and providing feedback on my early manuscript. Lastly, I am especially thankful to Nate Ramsey and Dan Birdsong for their longtime friendship, intellectual stimulation, and endless support. I am grateful to Dan Birdsong for sharing his time and insightful ideas during graduate school. Nate Ramsey has been an ideal research partner who constantly provided thought-provoking ideas and research opportunities. Next, I would also like to thank all the staff at the Institute for Policy Research - Eric Rademacher, Kim Downing, Chuck Hulen, Richard DePrato and others - for giving me a chance to develop my research skills. I am especially grateful to Eric Rademacher for sharing valuable research skills and teaching me to set a high research standard. My special thanks to the staff at the UC Women‘s Center. I am thankful to Barb Rinto, Amy Howton, Ann Brown, Kim Fulbright, and Brandy Turnbow for all their encouragement, insights, and reminding me to maintain balance between work and life. To all of my family, especially my parents and in-laws, I deeply appreciate your unconditional love and support throughout my life. To my late father, who has been in my heart along this long journey, it was your strong faith in me made this possible. I am also grateful to my brother-in-law, Euisuk Park, for introducing me to graduate school, and for constantly providing encouragement and guidance early in my graduate studies. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my husband, Young, for his complete support and unwavering love. Without him, my soul mate, I could not dream of this long journey. And just as he has provided me with quiet patience and unending encouragement, I will repay and support him in achieving his dream. Lastly, to my beautiful sons, Yun and Yul, thank you for giving me a push every day to finish ―mommy‘s homework.‖ iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter1: Evolution in Scientific and Religious America 1 Chapter 2: Culture Wars and Human Evolution 28 Chapter 3: Validity of Measurement 46 Chapter 4: Social, Religious, and Psychological Roots of Public Attitudes toward Human Origin 72 Chapter 5: Conclusion 130 Bibliography 137 Appendix A 159 Appendix B 161 Appendix C 162 Appendix D 166 v LIST OF TABLES/FIGURES Figure 1: Acceptance or Rejection of Evolution in 34 Countries, 2005 9 Table 3-1: Trends in Beliefs About Human Evolution 52 Figure 3-1: Trends in Americans' Knowledge about Human Origins 54 Figure 3-2: Gallup Poll Trends in Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design 56 Figure 3-3: Trends in Americans' Belief in God 59 Table 3-2: Cross tabulation Results for the Modified Gallup by the Harris Five views 60 Table 3-3: Cross tabulation Results for the GSS question by the Harris Five views 61 Table 3-4: Cross tabulation Results for the Modified Gallup by the GSS question 62 Table 3-5: Cluster Membership of variables 65 Figure 3-4: Dendrogram of Cluster Analysis Result 66 Table 3-6: Distribution Consistent Believers of Each Explanation of Human Origins in the Harris Five Views 68 Table 3-7: Cross tabulation Results for Consistent Believers by the GSS question 69 Table 3-8: Cross tabulation Results for Consistent Believers by the Modified Gallup question 70 Table 4-1: Distribution of the Modified Gallup Evolution Question 106 Table 4-2: Demographic Summary: Gallup ―None of these comes close to my beliefs‖ 108 Table 4-3: Demographic Summary: Gallup ―Not at all sure‖ 109 Table 4-4: Multi-nominal Logistic Regression Results For the Modified Gallup question 112 vi Table 4-5A: Distribution of the GSS Evolution Question 116 Table 4-5B: Findings from the GSS Evolution Question Cross-tabulation Results 118 Table 4-6: Demographic Summary: Natural Evolution believer in the GSS evolution question 119 Table 4-7: Demographic Summary: Natural Evolution Denier in the GSS evolution question 120 Table 4-8A: Models of Attitudes about Human Origins for The GSS evolution and the Modified Gallup evolution 121 Table 4-8B: Changes in Predicted Probability of Endorsing Selected View by Demographics, Religious, Science, and Psychological Factors 122 Table 4-9: Distributions of Five human origins views in Harris Interactive 2008 survey 124 Table 4-10: Models of Attitudes about Human Origins for Harris Five World Views 126 vii Chapter 1: Evolution in Scientific and Religious America “The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science — Darwin made it up‖ (Kentucky Rep. Ben Waide, quoted in the Lexington Herald-Leader, August 14, 2012) ―To see the integral role of evolution in biomedical research, consider Nobel Prizes, a good indicator of the most important breakthroughs in biology.
Recommended publications
  • Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals

    Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals

    UNDERSTANDING THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONIST MOVEMENT: ITS TRUE NATURE AND GOALS A POSITION PAPER FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY AUTHOR: BARBARA FORREST, Ph.D. Reviewing Committee: Paul Kurtz, Ph.D.; Austin Dacey, Ph.D.; Stuart D. Jordan, Ph.D.; Ronald A. Lindsay, J. D., Ph.D.; John Shook, Ph.D.; Toni Van Pelt DATED: MAY 2007 ( AMENDED JULY 2007) Copyright © 2007 Center for Inquiry, Inc. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the reproduced materials, the full authoritative version is retained, and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the Center for Inquiry, Inc. Table of Contents Section I. Introduction: What is at stake in the dispute over intelligent design?.................. 1 Section II. What is the intelligent design creationist movement? ........................................ 2 Section III. The historical and legal background of intelligent design creationism ................ 6 Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) ............................................................................ 6 McLean v. Arkansas (1982) .............................................................................. 6 Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ............................................................................. 7 Section IV. The ID movement’s aims and strategy .............................................................. 9 The “Wedge Strategy” .....................................................................................
  • Discussion & Study Guide

    Discussion & Study Guide

    DISCUSSION & STUDY GUIDE By Ryan Huxley COURTESY OF Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 1: The Cambrian Explosion............................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2: Darwin’s Dilemma ........................................................................................................ 7 Chapter 3: Chinese Fossils ............................................................................................................ 11 Chapter 4: The Phyla .................................................................................................................... 16 Chapter 5: Biological Information ................................................................................................ 19 Answers......................................................................................................................................... 25 Chapter 1: The Cambrian Explosion..................................................................................... 25 Chapter 2: Darwin’s Dilemma .............................................................................................. 27 Chapter 3: Chinese Fossils .................................................................................................... 30 Chapter 4: The Phyla ............................................................................................................ 35 Chapter
  • Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover Or Eliminate God?

    Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover Or Eliminate God?

    University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 4 Issue 1 Fall 2009 Article 5 January 2009 Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover or Eliminate God? Peter M.J. Hess Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp Part of the First Amendment Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter M. Hess, Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover or Eliminate God?, 4 U. ST. THOMAS J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 102 (2009). Available at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp/vol4/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UST Research Online and the University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy. For more information, please contact the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected]. CREATION, DESIGN AND EVOLUTION: CAN SCIENCE DISCOVER OR ELIMINATE GOD? PETER M. J. HESS, PH.D.* NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth his handiwork." Psalms 19:1 INTRODUCTION: THE PLAYING OUT OF THE DESIGN ARGUMENT IN THE WEST Every culture has its views about the universe, about the human person, and about the great metaphysical questions that confront us. How ought we to think about the relationship between cosmology, anthropology, and theology? This may be a challenge for us in our increasingly secular post- modem culture, but for most of human history it was not an issue. In the Judeo-Christian tradition these areas of human reflection were naturally bound up together, as in the Hebrew psalmist's proto-statement of the argument from design: "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth his handiwork."' The scholastic university culture of the High Middle Ages held as its ideal the "unity of knowledge," or unitas scientiae, approaching the study of the universe as a coherent and knowable whole.
  • Alleged Scientific Opposition to Evolution

    Alleged Scientific Opposition to Evolution

    Evolution Features Alleged scientific opposition to evolution Nick Matzke (University of California, Berkeley) Biological evolution — descent with modification — became generally accept- from chemical precursors through chemical laws. Explore Evo- ed in the scientific community in the same fashion as all other major theories, lution blithely cites Schwabe as if this bizarre view was a serious i.e. it survived repeated testing against research data. Creationists, especially contender in the scientific community. Schwabe’s most surpris- creationists who support the notion of ‘intelligent design’, are so desperate for ing molecular incongruency was his finding of pig relaxin in this kind of secular credibility that they will trumpet any quote, citation, or scien- tunicates, but this finding has not been replicated in the Ciona tist that can be interpreted or misinterpreted as authoritative dissent from the genome and thus was probably due to contamination. Michael mainstream evolutionary theory. This occurs whether or not the cited authority Denton’s 1985 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis assembled is actually dissenting, or is actually an authority. In an almost automaton-like quote-mines and misunderstandings in support of the conten- Downloaded from http://portlandpress.com/biochemist/article-pdf/31/1/23/4256/bio031010023.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 fashion, creationists compile collections of such ‘authorities’ and deploy them in tion that evolution was about to collapse and be replaced by a an attempt to convince school boards, teachers, students, and eventually judges typological view of biology. For example, Denton thought that that there is scientific ‘controversy’ over evolution. on evolutionary theory, frog sequences should be intermediate between fish and mammal sequences, not realizing that living The most spectacular recent example is a 2007 supplemental textbook for high-school biology fish have been evolving for just as long as living frogs and mam- classes, misleadingly entitled Explore Evolution: the Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism.
  • Was Hitler a Darwinian?

    Was Hitler a Darwinian?

    Was Hitler a Darwinian? Robert J. Richards The University of Chicago The Darwinian underpinnings of Nazi racial ideology are patently obvious. Hitler's chapter on "Nation and Race" in Mein Kampf discusses the racial struggle for existence in clear Darwinian terms. Richard Weikart, Historian, Cal. State, Stanislaus1 Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel? Shakespeare, Hamlet, III, 2. 1. Introduction . 1 2. The Issues regarding a Supposed Conceptually Causal Connection . 4 3. Darwinian Theory and Racial Hierarchy . 10 4. The Racial Ideology of Gobineau and Chamberlain . 16 5. Chamberlain and Hitler . 27 6. Mein Kampf . 29 7. Struggle for Existence . 37 8. The Political Sources of Hitler’s Anti-Semitism . 41 9. Ethics and Social Darwinism . 44 10. Was the Biological Community under Hitler Darwinian? . 46 11. Conclusion . 52 1. Introduction Several scholars and many religiously conservative thinkers have recently charged that Hitler’s ideas about race and racial struggle derived from the theories of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), either directly or through intermediate sources. So, for example, the historian Richard Weikart, in his book From Darwin to Hitler (2004), maintains: “No matter how crooked the road was from Darwin to Hitler, clearly Darwinism and eugenics smoothed the path for Nazi ideology, especially for the Nazi 1 Richard Weikart, “Was It Immoral for "Expelled" to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Racism?” (http://www.discovery.org/a/5069.) 1 stress on expansion, war, racial struggle, and racial extermination.”2 In a subsequent book, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress (2009), Weikart argues that Darwin’s “evolutionary ethics drove him [Hitler] to engage in behavior that the rest of us consider abominable.”3 Other critics have also attempted to forge a strong link between Darwin’s theory and Hitler’s biological notions.
  • 1 in the Matter of the Termination of John

    1 in the Matter of the Termination of John

    IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF JOHN FRESHWATER Mount Vernon City School ) District Board of Education, ) ) R. LEE SHEPHERD, REFEREE Employer ) ) vs. ) ) REPLY BRIEF FOR MOUNT John Freshwater, ) VERNON CITY SCHOOL ) DISTRICT Employee. ) ) ) ) Mr. Freshwater’s one hundred and sixty six page brief is long on scurrilous personal attacks and short on supporting facts and law. Much of his brief contains arguments and statements that are irrelevant to the issues before this Referee. Therefore, this reply will attempt to address only those misrepresentations, mischaracterizations and misapplications that are germane to the termination of his teaching contract. I. MR. FRESHWATER MISCHARACTERIZES THE APPLICABLE LAW Mr. Freshwater spends up to twenty pages attempting to flesh out outdated provisions of the law and to manufacture a heightened burden of proof. (Freshwater Brief (“FB”), p. 6-26). Each of these arguments is easily dispelled by looking to the text of the statute itself and to the applicable case law. A. The Statute, as Amended in 2009 In 2009 the Ohio legislature modified the statute, eliminating the delineated categories of: (1) gross inefficiency or immorality, (2) willful and persistent violations of reasonable regulations of the board of education, or (3) other good and just cause. The statute now permits termination simply for “good and just cause.” O.R.C. 3316.19. As any decision on Mr. 1 Freshwater’s contract termination will occur after the effective date of the amendment to O.R.C. 3319.16, the amended version of the law is applicable in this case. B. The Burden of Proof is a Preponderance of the Evidence Contrary to Mr.
  • Finding Shared Values in a Diverse Society: Lessons from the Intelligent Design Controversy

    Finding Shared Values in a Diverse Society: Lessons from the Intelligent Design Controversy

    FINDING SHARED VALUES IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY: LESSONS FROM THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CONTROVERSY Alan E. Garfield∗† If we are to be as a shining city upon a hill, it will be because of our ceaseless pursuit of the constitutional ideal of human dignity.1 INTRODUCTION American society is destined to become dramatically more diverse over the course of this century. The Census Bureau estimates that non- Hispanic Whites will constitute less than half the population by mid- century2 and that foreign-born residents already outnumber the entire population of Canada.3 Although the Census Bureau does not track people’s religious affiliation,4 other surveys indicate that America is also ∗. Professor of Law, Widener University School of Law. This Article is a product of my work as the 2005–2007 H. Albert Young Fellow in Constitutional Law and was originally presented as the 2007 H. Albert Young Lecture at Widener University School of Law on April 25, 2007. †. I am grateful to the Young Foundation for its generous support of my scholarship, and to Erin Daly, Michael Goldberg, Stephen Henderson, Patrick Kelly, Laura Ray, and John Wladis for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this work. 1. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Address at the Georgetown University Text and Teaching Symposium (Oct. 12, 1985), in THE GREAT DEBATE: INTERPRETING OUR WRITTEN CONSTITUTION 11, 25 (2005 ed.), available at http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/id.50/default.asp. 2. Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, An Older and More Diverse Nation by Midcentury (Aug. 14, 2008), available at http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/012496.html.
  • Darwin's Doubt

    Darwin's Doubt

    Debating Darwin’s Doubt A Scientific Controversy that Can No Longer Be Denied DAVID KLINGHOFFER, EDITOR DISCOVERY INSTITUTE PRESS SEATTLE 2015 Description This book contains essays responding to criticism of Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer. The book explores topics such as orphan genes, cladistics, small shelly fossils, protein evolution, the length of the Cambrian explosion, the God-of-the-Gaps objection to intelligent design, and criticisms raised by proponents of theistic evolution. Contributors include Stephen Meyer, Douglas Axe, David Berlinski, William Dembski, Ann Gauger, Casey Luskin, and Paul Nelson. Edited by David Klinghoffer. Copyright Notice Copyright © 2015 by Discovery Institute. All Rights Reserved. Publisher’s Note This book is part of a series published by the Center for Science & Culture at Discovery Institute in Seattle. Previous books include Signature of Controversy: Responses to CritiCs of Signature in the Cell, edited by David Klinghoffer; The Myth of Junk DNA by Jonathan Wells; The Deniable Darwin & Other Essays by David Berlinski; and DisCovering Intelligent Design: A Journey into the SCientifiC EvidenCe by Gary Kemper, Hallie Kemper, and Casey Luskin. Library Cataloging Data Debating Darwin’s Doubt: A SCientifiC Controversy that Can No Longer Be Denied Edited by David Klinghoffer. BISAC Subject: SCI027000 SCIENCE / Life Sciences / Evolution BISAC Subject: SCI080000 SCIENCE / Essays BISAC Subject: SCI034000 SCIENCE / History ISBN-13: 978-1-936599-30-1 (Kindle) 978-1-936599-31-8 (EPUB) 978-1-936599-28-8 (paperback) Publisher Information Discovery Institute Press, 208 Columbia Street, Seattle, WA 98101 Internet: http://www.discoveryinstitutepress.com/ First Edition.
  • Explore Evolution Exhibition

    Explore Evolution Exhibition

    Museum Visitors Interact with Explore Evolution Exhibition Formative Evaluation Report for the Explore Evolution Project by Amy N. Spiegel, E. Margaret Evans, Wendy Gram, Brandy Frazier, Deborah Kay, Cindy Loope & Linda Allison December 2005 Explore Evolution Evaluation Team: Amy N. Spiegel, Ph.D., University of Nebraska-Lincoln E. Margaret Evans, Ph.D., University of Michigan Wendy Gram, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma Prototype Data Collection Team: Linda Allison, E. Margaret Evans, Brandy Frazier, Deborah Kay, Cindy Loope, & Amy Spiegel This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant #0229294. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation (NSF). © 2005 Please do not quote without permission Contents Executive Summary...................................................................................................... iii I. Introduction ................................................................................................................1 Purpose of the Evaluation ........................................................................................1 Evaluation Questions and Instruments...................................................................1 II. Description of Explore Evolution Project...............................................................1 III. Methods....................................................................................................................2
  • A Study of the United States Influence on German Eugenics

    A Study of the United States Influence on German Eugenics

    East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 8-2020 A Study of the United States Influence on German ugenics.E Cameron Williams East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd Part of the European History Commons, History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Williams, Cameron, "A Study of the United States Influence on German ugenics.E " (2020). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3781. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/3781 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Study of the United States Influence on German Eugenics _________________________ A thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of History East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in History ______________________ by Cameron Williams August 2020 _____________________ Stephen Fritz, Chair Daryl Carter Tom Lee Keywords: Eugenics, United States, Racial Hygienists, Racial, Law, Health ABSTRACT A Study of the United States Influence on German Eugenics by Cameron Williams This thesis is a study of the influence and effects that the United States had upon Germany from the rise of eugenics to its fall following the end of World War II. There are three stages to this study.
  • Betweenoccultismandnazism.Pdf

    Betweenoccultismandnazism.Pdf

    Between Occultism and Nazism Aries Book Series Texts and Studies in Western Esotericism Editor Marco Pasi Editorial Board Jean-Pierre Brach Andreas Kilcher Wouter J. Hanegraaff Advisory Board Alison Coudert – Antoine Faivre – Olav Hammer Monika Neugebauer-Wölk – Mark Sedgwick – Jan Snoek György Szőnyi – Garry Trompf VOLUME 17 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/arbs Between Occultism and Nazism Anthroposophy and the Politics of Race in the Fascist Era By Peter Staudenmaier LEIDEN | BOSTON Cover illustration: Illustration by Hugo Reinhold Karl Johann Höppener (Fidus). Staudenmaier, Peter, 1965– Between occultism and Nazism : anthroposophy and the politics of race in the fascist era / By Peter Staudenmaier. pages cm. — (Aries book series. Texts and studies in Western esotericism, ISSN 1871-1405 ; volume 17) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-90-04-26407-6 (hardback : alkaline paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-27015-2 (e-book) 1. National socialism and occultism. 2. Germany—Politics and government—1933–1945. 3. Fascism and culture— Italy. 4. Italy—Politics and government—1922–1945. 5. Anthroposophy. 6. Steiner, Rudolf, 1861–1925— Influence. 7. Racism. I. Title. DD256.5.S7514 2014 299’.935094309043—dc23 2014000258 This publication has been typeset in the multilingual ‘Brill’ typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 1871 1405 ISBN 978 90 04 26407 6 (hardback) ISBN 978 90 04 27015 2 (e-book) Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing.
  • December 2007 Beacon

    December 2007 Beacon

    The BEACON News from The Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education Volume XI, No. 4 Copyright © December 2007 In this issue: President’s Message—Dave Thomas, Toon by Trever Copyright Albuquerque Journal, 11-14-07—John Trever, used with permission, A Better Metric—Walt Murfin,Flock of Dodos (film) coming in February—see page 8. PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE ingly explained how Behe was misrepresenting his actual position: “What I wrote was that this Things are once again heating up in the is a machine that looks like it was designed by never-ending assault on science education. a human. But that doesn’t mean that it was And this week (I’m writing this mid-November) designed, that is, the product of Intelligent De- included several events that bring the issue sign. Indeed, this, more, has all the earmarks of into sharp focus. The most significant of these something that arose by evolution.” And then, was the long-awaited airing of the PBS/NOVA DeRosier showed real microphotographs of an special on the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School assembly containing a subset of the same pro- District court case of 2005, titled “Judgment teins forming the base of the flagellum: “This is Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” (aired Novem- a structure found, for example, in Yersinia Pestis, ber 13, 2007). the bacterium that causes the Bubonic Plague. The two-hour production was splendid. Look at the similarities. … It’s like—sort of like At times it was like a biology class most of us a syringe… So, indeed, the [flagellum] structure would have been delighted to attend.