Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
ENG 508.001
26 October 2009
Annotated Bibliography
Antolin, Michael F., and Joan M. Herbers. “Perspective: Evolution’s Struggle for Existence in
America’s Public Schools.” Evolution 55.12 (Dec. 2001): 2379-2388. Antolin and
Herbers attempt to convince teachers and school boards to resist pressure from creationists
to remove the teaching of evolution from public schools. The authors fear “that teaching
the science of evolution is endangered in American public schools, despite having survived
arguments from both creationism and evolution in hopes to clarify the two ideologies.
Antolin and Herbers stress the importance of evolution in research relating to medicine,
biotechnology, and agriculture. Ultimately, they hope to prevent, in what they perceive, is
(2006): 151-158. Bleckmann reviews the evolution and creation debate from 1800 to
2000. While the article is intended as a brief history of the evolution controversy, it does
occasionally make a strong case in support of evolution, but it should be noted that this
fact is not at all disguised by the author. Bleckmann summaries and evaluates significant
events and findings in the evolution and creation debate, and he does this primarily by
examining old publications of Science and its affiliate journals; he even emphasizes
religion (156).
Harrison, S.L. "The Scopes `Monkey Trial' Revisited: Mencken and The Editorial Art of
Edmund Duffy." Journal of American Culture 17.4 (1994): 55-63. Harrison examines the
Edmund Duffy, cartoonists and satirists, had on the Scopes trial. He discusses the influence
of these two figures on the American public, and how, with biting satire and creative
interpretation, the two journalists managed to shape the trial into a carnival of opposing
views; however, more specifically, the article focuses on how the two journalists conflated
rhetorical strategy to guide public perception of the trial. Harrison also examines the
motivation of both Mencken and Duffy, and attempts to contextualize it within the period.
Larson, Edward J. “The Scopes Trial and the Evolving Concept of Freedom.” Virginia Law
Review 85.3 (Apr. 1999): 503-529. Larson purports that a trial is both a cultural narrative
and historic event, meaning it reveals both the story and significance behind a cultural
dispute; thus, he asserts that the Scopes trial is a narrative about majoritarian oppression, or
“majority rule versus minority rights” (508). While Larson does cover the key components
how Bryan managed to inadvertently challenge the minority’s right “to dissent in thought,
word, and deed from majority-backed policies and programs.” (508). He contends, despite
the loss, that the Scopes trial narrative eventually struck a victory in American law by
Nolan, Andrew "Making Modern Men: The Scopes Trial, Masculinity and Progress in the 1920s
United States." Gender & History 19.1 (2007): 122-142. Nolan’s article examines how
Ferrier-Watson 3
advances in technology and rational thinking in the early 20th Century, focusing primarily
on what kind of new male model would emerge after World War I. He speculates that the
Scopes trial presented two possible outcomes for male identity: “Would men be strong
He labels these two forms of identity as “masculine virtue” and “scientific masculinity.”
Despite the apparent legal resolution between these perceptions of masculinity, Nolan
argues that the debate over the modern man continues today and has only been refined by
Numbers, Ronald L. “Creation, Evolution, and Holy Ghost Religion: Holiness and Pentecostal
Responses to Darwinism.” Religion and American Culture 2.2 (Summer 1992): 127-158.
Ronald Numbers attempts to chart the response to evolution and Darwinism across the
considered to be extreme by critics (128). He evaluates the varying levels of their response
to evolution and attempts to formulate theological reasons for why their responses differ.
For example, he notes the “conservative Wesleyans tended to place experience above
conclusion, he contends that some sects, like Wesleyans, are more concerned with
behavior and saving the soul than with staunchly supporting a creationist agenda.
Scott, Eugenie C., and Glenn Branch "Antievolutionism: Changes and Continuities." Bioscience
53.3 (2003): 282-285. Eugenie and Branch attempt to explain how the debate over
evolution has changed since the Scopes trial, and how creationists have attempted to adapt
their arguments to contend with modern legal standards for separation of church and state.
Ferrier-Watson 4
In short, they are posting a call for vigilance on behalf of all evolutionists, asserting that
design.” They argue that journals and programs catering to this theory are nothing more
than religious supporters in disguise, but they advise scientists to not take intelligent design
lightly, that ignoring the issue might lead to more troubles. “The scientific community
must keep its collective eye on antievolutionism as it evolves,” writes Eugenie and Branch,
Scott, Julie A. "More Than Just Monkey Business." Kansas History 30.2 (2007): 74-91. Julie
Scott argues that too little attention has been paid to the less popular and seldom circulated
newspapers covering the Scopes trial. Small presses within Kansas and near Dayton have
been largely ignored by scholars, and Scott speculates that this has created a hole in
around the trial, Scott examines the contribution of small time presses to the media frenzy
in 1925. She argues that localized news coverage provides a more in depth coverage of
William Jennings Bryan and tends to focus more on the fundamentalist-modernist religious
controversy than the more popular news papers of the day (77).
Tontonoz, Matthew J. "The Scopes Trial Revisited: Social Darwinism versus Social Gospel."
Science as Culture 17.2 (2008): 121-143. Tontonoz warns against drawing too close a
comparison between the evolution controversy during the Scopes trial and the
contemporary debate. He claims that Bryan was more interested in evolution’s ethical and
political impact than its scientific and religious repercussions. According to Tontonoz,
Bryan, a man politically and ethically concerned with the common man (middle class
American), was worried the teaching of evolution in school might open doors for Social
Ferrier-Watson 5
Darwinism, and this separates him from contemporary creationists. In short, the article
attempts to partially redeem Bryan in light of the cultural context of the 1920s.
Wood, L. Maren "The Monkey Trial Myth: Popular Culture Representations of the Scopes
Trial." Canadian Review of American Studies 32.2 (2002): 147-164. Wood argues that the
Scopes trial’s significance has been misinterpreted by both scholars and the general public
from the start. He asserts the trial was actually a battleground for modernity, and that
science, religion, and education were all side players to that end. He argues that this myth
was originally forwarded by magazines and other media at the time, and that it has
continued to dominate the popular imagination around the issue. Wood thesis asserts that
the trial was actually about discovering a post Great War identity that pushed away from