DOCSLIB.ORG

Making Evolutionists and Creationists: the Causes and Consequences of Evolution Education in Tennessee, 2009-2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Making Evolutionists and Creationists: The Causes and Consequences of Evolution Education in Tennessee, 2009-2012 By Michael Robert Kohut Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Anthropology August. 2016 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Norbert O. Ross, Ph.D. Tiffiny A. Tung, Ph.D. Edward F. Fischer, Ph.D. Rogers P. Hall, Ph.D. To my wonderful spouse Lauren, who believed in me when I had given up and To my son Darwin, who doesn’t know a life in which his dad isn’t working on his dissertation ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without research grants from the National Science Foundation and a writing grant and mentorship from the Spencer Foundation. Crucial support came also from the Department of Anthropology at Vanderbilt University during the final year of writing, which enabled me to complete the task. In particular, I want to acknowledge the efforts of Tiffiny Tung in securing for me a fellowship that enabled me to move back to Nashville and focus on writing my dissertation. I am grateful to everyone who have contributed their time to help carry out this research, including the many fellow graduate students who helped me to complete interviews with students: Jeffrey Shenton, Werner Hertzog, Monte Talley, Danielle Kurin, Jonathan Attridge, Beck Conway, Lauren Stavish, John Saba and Kathryn DeTore. Furthermore, the willingness of people throughout Tennessee to talk to me was, of course, absolutely essential to its completion. I thank the participating school districts, the office staff and teachers who spent extra time on busy school days to make sure that the interviews could be done. I also thank the pastors and people in the pews at the countless churches I attended during the course of this research. No one has given more time and support than members of my family. Though they did not understand what I was doing with my life for the past decade, both of my parents have nevertheless encouraged me to keep working at it. More notably, my spouse Lauren, who has been very much aware of my doings, having been there through all of the highs and lows of the journey, has been even more encouraging. When I met her I was about to give up on graduate school. Her energy, optimism, brilliance and love inspires me always to do more and do better. I want to thank the graduate writing group in the Anthropology Department for helping me to stay on task during the writing process, setting goals and keeping me accountable to them. I can only hope to find such encouragement and advice in the future as I continue in my career. Finally, I have to acknowledge the support of my advisor Norbert Ross for encouraging me to pursue this project, and for taking the time to help me develop it at each step along the way. His help in securing initial funding and providing feedback on grant proposals was invaluable. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... ix Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction to the Field ............................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction to the Project ........................................................................................................................ 5 Anthropological Significance ................................................................................................................... 7 The Idealist Frame and its Problems ....................................................................................................... 10 Overview of Dissertation ........................................................................................................................ 12 A note on the ethnographer and his fieldwork ........................................................................................ 14 Chapter 1: Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 16 Literature Review .................................................................................................................................... 17 Quantitative/Education Research ........................................................................................................ 17 Qualitative/Ethnographic Research ..................................................................................................... 19 Research Design...................................................................................................................................... 23 Cultural Epidemiology ........................................................................................................................ 23 Modifying the Framework .................................................................................................................. 24 Multi-Sited Ethnography..................................................................................................................... 26 The Setting: the State of Tennessee ........................................................................................................ 28 Churches ............................................................................................................................................. 28 Tennessee Education ........................................................................................................................... 31 The Fieldwork ......................................................................................................................................... 32 March – July 2009 .............................................................................................................................. 34 August – December 2009 .................................................................................................................... 34 January – June 2010 ............................................................................................................................ 38 Year 2: July 2010 – July 2011 ............................................................................................................ 41 2: In the Shadow of Scopes ......................................................................................................................... 45 The Scopes “Monkey” Trial of 1925 ...................................................................................................... 45 Evolution and the Origins of the Conflict ............................................................................................... 47 iv Rise of the Antievolution Movement ...................................................................................................... 52 Rise of Efforts to Teach Evolution ......................................................................................................... 56 Antievolutionism’s Search for Legitimacy ......................................................................................... 60 The Rise of Evolution Standards ........................................................................................................ 64 Creationism Then and Now .................................................................................................................... 66 Conclusion: Evolutionism and Creationism as Frenemies...................................................................... 68 Post-script: Reclaiming Scopes ............................................................................................................... 69 3: The Public Nature of Private Belief ........................................................................................................ 71 Evolution-Creation: Conflicts over Beliefs ............................................................................................. 71 Anthropology of Belief ........................................................................................................................... 74 The Problem(s) of Belief..................................................................................................................... 82 The Inseparability of Faith and Works ............................................................................................... 85 The Public Nature of “Private” Faith ...................................................................................................... 87 Church Attendance .............................................................................................................................. 88 Praise and Worship ............................................................................................................................. 92 Prayer .................................................................................................................................................
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
  • Where Did We Come From?

    Where Did We Come From?

    Reading 10.2 Where Did We Come From? Lottie L. Joiner or a year, Martha Wise listened to presentations, vis- investigate and critically analyze all aspects of evolutionary ited constituents’ homes, took phone call after long theory.” The statement made Ohio the first state to require F phone call, and spent hours answering e-mail. She districts to let criticisms of evolution be examine din class- was often up until the wee hours of the morning, trying to rooms. However, a disclaimer insists that the board did not understand the latest issue dividing her state: the teaching support “the teaching or testing of intelligent design,”a the- of “intelligent design,” one of the alternative theories of the ory that the complex features of life are the result of intelli- origin of species. gent planning and activity. “I’m not a scientist. I don’t know much about science,” For many, it was a compromise that satisfied both sides. says Wise, a member of the Ohio State Board of Education. Some felt that it was not enough. Others believed that the “There’s nothing the intelligent design people showed me Ohio board had caved to the pressure of Darwin’s critics. that the science people couldn’t say,‘That’s not evidence,’or “Science education has not convinced a lot of ‘That’s not a fact.’ I can’t refute them because I don’t know Americans that Darwin was right,”says Charles Haynes, se- that much about it. I can’t believe either side.” nior scholar at the Freedom Forum’s first amendment The question of which side you believe is central to the Center, based at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
  • The Scopes Trial, Antievolutionism, and the Last Crusade of William Jennings Bryan

    The Scopes Trial, Antievolutionism, and the Last Crusade of William Jennings Bryan

    University of Mississippi eGrove Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2012 Six Days of Twenty-Four Hours: the Scopes Trial, Antievolutionism, and the Last Crusade of William Jennings Bryan Kari Lynn Edwards Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd Part of the History of Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Edwards, Kari Lynn, "Six Days of Twenty-Four Hours: the Scopes Trial, Antievolutionism, and the Last Crusade of William Jennings Bryan" (2012). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 96. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/96 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SIX DAYS OF TWENTY-FOUR HOURS: THE SCOPES TRIAL, ANTIEVOLUTIONISM, AND THE LAST CRUSADE OF WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN A Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Southern Studies The University of Mississippi by KARI EDWARDS May 2012 Copyright Kari Edwards 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT The academic study of the Scopes Trial has always been approached from a traditional legal interpretation. This project seeks to reframe the conventional arguments surrounding the trial, treating it instead as a significant religious event, one which not only altered the course of Christian Fundamentalism and the Creationist movement, but also perpetuated Southern religious stereotypes through the intense, and largely negative, nationwide publicity it attracted. Prosecutor William Jennings Bryan's crucial role is also redefined, with his denial of a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis during the trial serving as the impetus for the shift toward ultra- conservatism and young-earth Creationism within the movement after 1925.
  • Eugenie Scott

    Eugenie Scott

    Expert Witness Statement by Eugenie C. Scott Contents: 1. Qualifications as an Expert Witness 2. The Nature of Science 3. The Scientific Meaning of “Theory” and “Fact” 4. History of the Creationism/Evolution Controversy Definitions: evolution, creationism, creation science Fundamentalism; Banning Evolution Creation Science “Evidence Against Evolution” and Creation Science Evolution of Creation Science Into Intelligent Design “Theory Not Fact” Policies Are Promoted By Creationists to Denigrate Evolution and Advance Creationism 5. History of Creationism in Georgia 6. History of Creationism in Cobb County 7. “Theory Not Fact” Policies are Pedagogically Harmful Respectfully submitted: Date: November 17, 2006 _________________________ Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., D.Sc. 420 40th St #2 Oakland, CA 94609 1. Qualifications My name is Eugenie C. Scott. My curriculum vitae is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A. I have a Ph.D. in physical anthropology from the University of Missouri and honorary doctorates (D.Sc.) from McGill University, Ohio State University, and Mt. Holyoke College. In December 2006, I will receive an honorary doctorate from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and in May 2007, from Rutgers University. I am the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland, California. NCSE is a nonprofit membership organization of scientists and others that defends the teaching of evolution in the public schools. NCSE is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The NCSE monitors the creationism/evolution controversy and maintains an archive of information on the recent history of the controversy, including materials relevant to the history of the creationism/evolution controversy in Cobb County.
  • Unified Conspiracy Theory - Rationalwiki

    Unified Conspiracy Theory - Rationalwiki

    Unified Conspiracy Theory - RationalWiki http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Unified_Conspiracy_Theory Unified Conspiracy Theory From RationalWiki The Unified Conspiracy Theory is a conspiracy theory, popular with Some dare call it some paranoids, that all of reality is controlled by a single evil entity that has it in for them. It can be a political entity, like "The Illuminati", or a Conspiracy metaphysical entity, like Satan, but this entity is responsible for the creation and management of everything bad. The Church of the SubGenius has adopted this notion as fundamental dogma. Michael Barkun coined the term "superconspiracy" to refer the idea that the world is controlled by an interlocking hierarchy of conspiracies. Secrets revealed! Similarly, Michael Kelly, a neoconservative journalist, coined the term America Under Siege "fusion paranoia" in 1995 to refer to the blending of conspiracy theories CW Leonis of the left with those of the right into a unified conspiratorial Doug Rokke [1] worldview. Guillotine List of conspiracy theories This was played with in the Umberto Eco novel Foucault's Pendulum , in Majestic 12 which the characters make up a conspiracy theory like this...except it Pravda.ru turns out to be true. Shakespeare authorship Society of Jesus Tupac Shakur Contents v - t - e (http://rationalwiki.org /w/index.php?title=Template:Conspiracynav& action=edit) 1 See also 1.1 (In)Famous proponents 2 External links 3 Footnotes See also List of Conspiracy Theories Maltheism Crank magnetism (In)Famous proponents David Icke Alex Jones Lyndon LaRouche Jeff Rense 1 of 2 7/19/2012 8:24 PM Unified Conspiracy Theory - RationalWiki http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Unified_Conspiracy_Theory External links Flowchart guide to the grand conspiracy (http://farm4.static.flickr.com /3048/2983450505_34b4504302_o.png) Conspiracy Kitchen Sink (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConspiracyKitchenSink) , TV Tropes Footnotes 1.
  • 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.
  • Bryan Life 14:4

    Bryan Life 14:4

    Summer 1989 Vol. 14 Number 4 Special Graduation Section EVOLUTION ;^:RACE J...-S Thoughtful Gifts Mean More! By carefully planning your present and future gifts, you can help provide a distinctly Christian education for many years to come. The best investment you can make is in the lives of Christian young people who will witness to future generations. HOW TO GIVE Insurance 5. If you want to provide income for a If you are tike most people, you are loved one, annuities are an excellent not able to give a large gift to the Lord's way to do it. work without depleting your savings and investments. However, it is possible Trusts through an insurance policy to give a large Trusts are like automobiles: there are gift. so many varieties that it is hard to decide Relatively few dollars in premium which one is right for you. The right trust, payments can buy a substantial amount of however, may be very useful to you in insurance that could provide a large gift to carrying out your estate plan. Trusts Bryan College at your death. If you name should be considered when you want to Bryan College the irrevocable owner and provide for the following: beneficiary of your policy, you may deduct 1. care for minor children or invalids the premiums and the cash value of the 2. professional management of assets left policy as a charitable gift. to an heir 3. income for your retirement or for a Annuities loved one For more information and/or one or more of our free brochures: If you would like to make a lasting gift 4.
  • Black Helicopters - Rationalwiki Black Helicopters

    Black Helicopters - Rationalwiki Black Helicopters

    5/13/2017 Black helicopters - RationalWiki Black helicopters From RationalWiki Black helicopters are to the 1990s what snake oil was to the age of traveling salesmen pushing patent medicines, in that it is an example of a term that was seriously used by proponents but was so preposterous that the term took on a life of its own as a means of ridicule. A Black Helicopter spying Contents on RationalWiki 1 Origins Some dare call it 2 Helicopters, but not as we know them 3 Real black helicopters Conspiracy 4 Pop culture 5 See also 6 External links 7 References Origins What THEY don't want you to know! Allegedly, the United States government and/or the United A440 Nations were preparing fleets of Holy Lance unmarked black helicopters Phantom island Sexual Bolshevism which were to become the The Obama Deception means of military occupation of Walid Shoebat the United States in the name of Helicopters and tanks such as these were the New World Order. This was Sheeple wakers used by Pharaoh to terrorize the Ancient first seriously proposed by Egyptian population. Mark "from Michigan" Koernke Brian Gerrish Doug Rokke and Linda Thompson circa PESWiki 1993-1994 in their videos America Under Siege (Thompson) and America Salvador Borrego In Peril (Koernke). The book Black Helicopters Over America by Jim Keith WWCR followed shortly thereafter. Talk radio hosts picked up the term from there William Schnoebelen mostly to ridicule the idea and it took on a life of its own, largely as an v - t - e ironic joke through talk radio and the internet.
  • Measuring and Understanding Public Opinion on Human Evolution

    Measuring and Understanding Public Opinion on Human Evolution

    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.
  • Teach the Controversy” Slogan?

    Teach the Controversy” Slogan?

    What’s Wrong with the “Teach the Controversy” Slogan? WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE “TEACH THE CONTROVERSY” SLOGAN? EUGENIE C. SCOTT National Center for Science Education ABSTRACT. Teachers are often exhorted by creationists to “teach the contro- versy.” Although such encouragement sounds on the surface like a proposal for critical thinking instruction, the history of the creationist movement in North America belies this claim. Rather than teach students to analyze and evaluate actual scientific controversies, the intent of “teach the controversy” exhortations is to have teachers instruct students that evolution is weak or unsubstantiated science that students should not take seriously. Such instruc- tion in alleged “evidence against evolution,” or “critical analysis of evolution” would seriously mis-educate students, and should be resisted by teachers and administrators. EN QUOI LE SLOGAN « ENSEIGNER LA CONTROVERSE » POSE T’IL LE PROBLÈME ? RÉSUMÉ. Les créationnistes encouragent souvent les professeurs à « enseigner la controverse ». Même si au premier abord de tels encouragements peuvent ressembler à la proposition d’une méthode de pensée critique, l’histoire du mouvement créationniste en Amérique du Nord dément cette affirmation. Plutôt que d’enseigner aux étudiants comment analyser et évaluer des con- troverses actuelles scientifiques, la finalité des exhortations à « enseigner la controverse » consiste à faire en sorte que les professeurs enseignent aux étudiants que l’évolution est une science faible ou non corroborée et que les étudiants ne devraient donc pas la prendre au sérieux. De telles directives quant à la présumée « preuve contre l’évolution » ou l’« analyse critique de l’évolution » contribueraient à sérieusement inculquer aux étudiants des con- naissances erronées, et les professeurs et les administrateurs doivent résister à ces directives.
  • Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online Alice Marwick and Rebecca Lewis CONTENTS

    Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online Alice Marwick and Rebecca Lewis CONTENTS

    Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online Alice Marwick and Rebecca Lewis CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................... 1 What Techniques Do Media Manipulators Use? ....... 33 Understanding Media Manipulation ............................ 2 Participatory Culture ........................................... 33 Who is Manipulating the Media? ................................. 4 Networks ............................................................. 34 Internet Trolls ......................................................... 4 Memes ................................................................. 35 Gamergaters .......................................................... 7 Bots ...................................................................... 36 Hate Groups and Ideologues ............................... 9 Strategic Amplification and Framing ................. 38 The Alt-Right ................................................... 9 Why is the Media Vulnerable? .................................... 40 The Manosphere .......................................... 13 Lack of Trust in Media ......................................... 40 Conspiracy Theorists ........................................... 17 Decline of Local News ........................................ 41 Influencers............................................................ 20 The Attention Economy ...................................... 42 Hyper-Partisan News Outlets ............................. 21 What are the Outcomes? ..........................................