The Darwinian Earthquake
Never in the history of man has so terrific a calamity befallen the race as that which all who look may now behold advancing as a deluge, black with destruction, resistless in might, uprooting our most cherished hopes, engulfing our most precious creed, and burying our highest life in mindless desolation….The flood-gates of infidelity are open, and Atheism overwhelming is upon us.[1]
For many Americans educated in the late-twentieth century, the current furor over evolution and its concepts of natural selection and non-supernatural theories on the origins of life on earth may seem overwrought, perhaps antiquated. However, as late as May 2005, the struggle between creationists and evolutionists continues, having moved from academia and social theory to the public school system. In Dover, Pennsylvania, the school board voted to have high school biology teachers inform students that “Darwin's theory is a theory ... not a fact," and that “Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.”[2] This attempt to move creationism from the church into the science class has met with fierce opposition from educators and some parents. Eleven Dover parents, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, have filed a lawsuit against the school board in order to remove mention of creationism from public high school science classes.[3]
This is the latest battle in the fight mapped out by the Intelligent Design movement to overturn evolution’s position as the accepted scientific theory of the beginning of life. The leaders of the movement recognize the fundamental shift in worldview made possible by the migration of Darwin’s concepts – nature’s constant flux as well as the compelling, but non-supernatural, story of the genesis of life on earth, and the singular utility of the scientific method – into American social and philosophical thought. Yet the secular observer of this new attack on the naturalist scientific method can be forgiven for not comprehending the earthquake that shook the world with the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. To understand what battle is really being fought by the Intelligent Design movement, one must look at the new ways of envisioning reality made possible by the concept of evolution.
Darwin’s Earthquake
Darwin has demonstrated this force, this process of Nature; he has opened the door by which a happier coming race will cast out miracles, never to return. Every one who knows what miracles imply will praise him, in consequence, as one of the greatest benefactors of the human race.
David Strauss, German Biblical critic[4]
Darwin’s use of the scientific method allowed him to find evidence in support of a theory that could disprove the physical reality of the metaphysical biblical account of creation. This discovery allowed subsequent social thinkers to divorce reality from a supernatural foundation, making it possible to claim that reality is man-made, and that the only meaningful questions are the ones whose natural processes can be tested and either verified or falsified.
Darwin himself grasped the import of his theories. He solicited the advice of his friend, Charles Lyell, regarding his submission of On the Origin of Species to John Murray for publication:
"Would you advise me to tell Murray that my book is not more un-orthodox than the subject makes inevitable. That I do not discuss the origin of man. That I do not bring in any discussion about Genesis, etc, etc, and only give facts, and such conclusions from them as seem to me fair.
Or had I better say nothing to Murray, and assume that he cannot object to this much unorthodoxy, which in fact is not more than any Geologica Treatise which runs slap counter to Genesis."[5]
Religious leaders were quick to see the religious and social implications of Darwin’s theory. In planning a counter-offensive to Darwin’s dangerous ideas, his former teacher, Professor Adam Sedgwick (characterized by his biographer as a man that held “next to scientific truth, his main concern was to demonstrate the teleological value of such truths”[6]) became the nucleus for a group of opponents of Darwinism. Among the members of “Sedgwick and Co.”[7] was the Archbishop of Dublin, who gave voice to the importance of stemming the damage inflicted by ideas of evolution and natural selection:
"I felt alarm at the apparent high favour and wide celebrity of Darwin’s theory…because it was likely to establish our descent from Molluscs or Insects….But my own paper emphasizes the improbability of the last step of all – the advance of the savage-man into the civilized, without external help. I doubt the conversion of oats into rye: their conversion into apple-trees, I disbelieve: but what I have undertaken to disprove is the conversion of the unaided savage into the civilized man."[8]
When evolution began to be taught in the schools and colleges of the United States, citizens who held the Bible as the source of ultimate truth saw the popular teaching of evolution as devastating. William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925), three-time populist Democratic candidate for President, became a leader in the Fundamentalist crusade to banish Darwin's theory of evolution from American classrooms in the first decade of the 1900s.[9] The same deep Christian impulse that led Bryan to champion women’s rights became the foundation of his passionate belief that teaching evolution in schools would destroy the foundational American belief in the Bible as the literal Word of God, with destructive social consequences. In 1921 Bryan wrote The Menace of Darwinism, and in 1923 began to focus his energies on outlawing the teaching of evolution in public schools.[10] By 1925, fifteen states had anti-evolution statutes pending,[11] but, after the publicity of the Scopes Trial, only two states – Arkansas and Mississippi – passed laws restricting the teaching of evolution.[12] By that time, Pragmatism, with its adherence to Darwinism, had become firmly entrenched as the dominant intellectual philosophy in the United States.
The American Pragmatists
Rufus: He said mankind got it all wrong by taking a good idea and building a belief structure on it.
Bethany: You’re saying having beliefs is a bad thing?
Rufus: I just think it’s better to have ideas. I mean, you can change an idea; changing a belief is trickier. People die for it; people kill for it.[13]
The American Pragmatists were all touched by the incredible brutality and waste of the Civil War (Oliver Wendell Holmes having been wounded three times in his military service). The onset of modernity initiated new psychological pathologies – such as depression – by shaking patterns of behavior and belief previously held immutable.
The most groundbreaking scientific development of the pre-Civil War era was the codifying of the theory of evolution in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Concepts of natural selection and the role of chance in determining survival were often seen as a direct challenge to religious orthodoxy, as the physical forces of evolution were presented as natural, thus amoral, and therefore challenging religious concepts of reward and punishment, as well as bringing into dispute the “facts” set forth in the Bible – notably moving the age of the earth from a few thousand years to possibly several millions of years. In response to the cataclysmic changes produced by modernization, Pragmatists such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Saunders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey developed a philosophy that would reject formalism, embrace change, and provide a useful method for living in the world.
Pragmatism as a theory rejected Formalism (the widely held system of thought that held reality as static, mechanistic, absolute). It is operationalist, with Pragmatic theoreticians seeking operation over cause in philosophical questions – the “how” rather than the “why.”[14] Pragmatists embraced Darwinian “process” and interpreted evolution in social terms. As naturalists, they understood the world to be intelligible through natural (not supernatural), material processes.
Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935), influential and long-serving Justice of the United State Supreme Court, applied Pragmatic philosophy and Darwinian contextualism to his concepts of the law. “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience,”[15] Holmes stated in rejection of legal formalism, resisting the image of law as some abstract truth to be discovered. Rather, Holmes presented law as being formed by judges in a particular cultural milieu. The practice of law is the method for predicting the reaction of judge and jury, the lawyer earning his fee by developing arguments to help his client avoid legal sanctions, not as an exercise of pure logic and precedent.[16] As an opponent of strict-constructionism, Holmes was comfortable with the idea that law should change as society changes, with its utility being expressed in the law’s ability to meet current cultural needs, not in its ability to be loyal to some abstract, higher legal truth.
Charles Saunders Peirce (1839-1914), who originated the term Pragmatism from Kant’s Pragmaticism (to Kant’s irritation), was an anti-nominalist who defined himself as a realist. He provided the Pragmatic Method to satisfy the human drive to establish beliefs – habits that settled uncomfortable feelings of uncertainty. Peirce believed this drive to be evolutionarily beneficial, with the establishment of “salutary” habits enhancing the likelihood of survival.[17] Though chance would never disappear (tychism), the cosmos was moving toward order.[18] This progressive view of evolution was a particular characteristic of the American Pragmatists.
William James (1842-1910), noted psychologist, developed his philosophy of Pragmatism in service to his desire to alleviate suffering, especially psychological suffering. He denied the objective reality of the Idealists, maintaining that there is only experience, with humans moving from one experience to the next, experiences that are related to one another in a similar fashion to the frames of a movie. In “Pragmatism and Humanism,” James illustrated the all-encompassing effect of human thought in the shaping of reality, with interest driving the very creation of reality.[19] For James, there was no pre-reality; therefore, only sense-ible experiences make sense. Ideas are open to modification and revision. To claim ultimate truth for any idea is dictatorial, since no truth is final and infallible.[20] Future discoveries will modify today’s truth just as surely as Galileo’s proof of a Copernican, sun-centered solar system forced eventual modification of the concept of a geocentric planetary structure. While James accepted mystical experience as important and real, as any experience is important and real, he maintained that the personal religious experience is only important to the individual’s internal reality and development, since it was noetic and ineffable – deep knowledge beyond ordinary communication.[21]
No other Pragmatist has had as strong and long-lived influence on American public education as John Dewey (1859-1952). Underpinning his pedagogy is the shared Pragmatic devotion to Darwinian process, naturalism, and the applicability of the scientific method to social sciences. Because science had undermined the solid foundation that religious faith and dogma had provided to the western world, “[t]he problem of restoring integration and cooperation between man’s beliefs about the world in which he lives and his beliefs about the values and purposes that should direct his conduct is the deepest problem of modern life. It is the problem of any philosophy that is not isolated from that life.”[22] The human construction of the Great Community was a human’s fundamental responsibility, not a “change made within the mind by contemplation of the realm of essence.”[23] He had no use for metaphysical ideals: “…to-day many persons find a peculiar consolation in the face of the unstable and dubious presence of values in actual experience by projecting a perfect form of good into a realm of essence if not into a heaven beyond the earthly skies, wherein their authority, if not their existence, is wholly unshakeable.”[24] Dewey eulogized Darwin himself “for liberating science from the shackles of teleology by destroying the old idealistic notion of a species as a fixed form or final cause.”[25]
A common thread in the philosophies of the American Pragmatists is not just the acceptance, but the embrace of constant change. Tracing evolution backward, they were presented with the earthshaking concept of simple organic forms – life – rising from inorganic matter through natural processes and evolving through eons into the hugely varied life forms currently observable. Because it was now possible to define a reality in which nature was the driving force, not God, the process was amoral, and therefore open to manipulation by humans for their benefit and the benefit of humanity. Since there was no absolute to be called upon to validate social structures, those structures could be recognized to have been erected by human design, open to human intervention and human innovation. The American Pragmatists also tended to ignore the darker societal concepts that could be implied by natural selection – that protection of the weak only circumvented processes that were responsible for maintaining the fitness of the human race, or so-called Social Darwinism. The American Pragmatists were eager to perform social husbandry in the way that agriculturalists had long performed animal husbandry, making a society that was more in line with human concepts of desirable social characteristics.
The Logical Positivists
The fundamental thesis of modern empiricism consists in denying the possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge.
Hans Hahn, Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap, WissenschaftlicheWeltauffassung.
Der Wiener Kreis[26]
Although their efforts to return the intellectual pursuits of academia to the ivory tower would have been anathema to a Pragmatist like John Dewey,[27] the Logical Positivists continued the eradication of religion, of transcendence, of metaphysics from the realm of legitimate inquiry. Because metaphysics is not verifiable or falsifiable by scientific means, it is non-sense, poetry, unavailable for testing:
"Metaphysicians cannot avoid making their propositions non‑verifiable, because if they made them verifiable, the decision about the truth or falsehood of their doctrines would depend upon experience and therefore belong to the region of empirical science. This consequence they wish to avoid, because they pretend to teach knowledge which is of a higher level than that of empirical science Thus they are compelled to cut all connection between their propositions and experience; and precisely by this procedure they deprive them of any sense."[28]
Logical Positivists became highly influential in American academia after several members of the Vienna Circle – Rudolf Carnap, Herbert Feigl, Philipp Frank, Kurt Gödel, Carl Hempel and Hans Reichenbach – fled Nazism in Europe and settled in the United States.[29] They sought to peel away ambiguity inherent in language and thought to premises and propositions that could be manipulated logically, mathematically, scientifically. The Logical Positivists followed four basic lines of research in America:
Philosophy of physics, mainly performed by Reichenbach and Frank. Reichenbach wrote about the theory of relativity, quantum physics, philosophy of time; Frank wrote a biography of Einstein and an analysis of the theory of relativity.
Theory of probability and inductive logic, a field in which Carnap produced many works.
Logical analysis of the structure of a scientific theory and its language.
Carnap wrote several works on both classical and modal logic and about semantics.[30]
Although their hegemony has been challenged in the last few decades by Existentialism and Post-Modernism, Logical Positivists still have a lot of clout in the social sciences. Carl Degler points to the development of co-evolutionary theories of culture,[31] of politics,[32] of economics,[33] and of sociology,[34] even the inspiration that “evolutionary theory has…potentiality to unify the social sciences, to provide an umbrella of large theory that would subsume the increasingly diverse fields that make up the once celebrated and hoped for “science of man.”[35]
It is on this battle field that the current Intelligent Design warriors have chosen to engage the modern root of humanist social thought – Darwinism.
The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture
Christians in the 20th century have been playing defense….They’ve been fighting a defensive war to defend what they have, to defend as much of it as they can….It never turns the tide. What we’re trying to do is something entirely different. We’re trying to go into enemy territory, their very center, and blow up the ammunition dump. What is their ammunition dump in this metaphor? It is their version of creation.
Phillip E. Johnson[36]
The Discovery Institute, a creationist think-tank based in Seattle, Washington, is promoting the goal of undermining Darwinist evolution and natural selection for social and religious purposes, not scientific purposes. Although one of its goals is to develop scientific credentials[37] (the goal that it has failed to achieve, however), those credentials are purely for the purpose of lending support to its aim to foster “nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.”[38] Some of these legacies include denial of “objective moral standards,” undermining “personal responsibility….The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare,” and the advocacy of “coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.”[39]
In service of this goal, the “Wedge” strategy was developed (the “Wedge Document appeared anonymously online, and Discovery Institute authorship has never been affirmed or denied by the think tank).[40] Of all the phases of the Wedge strategy – Scientific Research, Writing, and Publication; Publicity and Opinion-making; and Culture Confrontation and Renewal[41] – the Institute has made major strides, except in the area of scientific research, writing, and publication, the only area that would lend true academic legitimacy to the movement.[42]
However, by concentrating on establishing a beachhead in the arena of public opinion, the Intelligent Design movement has positioned itself as “negative,” – only able to poke holes in theories of evolution and natural selection, unable to provide a “positive” hypothesis in its own right.[43] In deed, by the very nature of its dependence on the supernatural, it cannot provide a scientific hypothesis since the scientific method relies on the observation of verifiable or falsifiable, observable, natural phenomena. To allow Intelligent Design into the science classroom, science itself must be redefined.
What’s the Matter with Kansas?
Did Darwin figure,
Examining finches' beaks,
There'd be a Kansas?
Doug Linder
Professor of Law,
University of Missouri, Kansas City[44]
In Topeka, Kansas, the conservative state Board of Education is considering changing the definition of science in the introduction to the state’s science standard from “a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us” – preferred by a majority of educators – to “‘a systematic method of continuing investigation,’ without specifying what kind of answer is being sought.”[45] Stephen Meyer, of the Discovery Institute, maintains that the new definition would have the benefit of not “freezing out” questions about how life began on earth.
Science groups boycotted the public hearings regarding the choice, stating that the debate was “rigged” against evolutionists. The continuing argument illustrates the tug-of-war between a less-conservative board, which reinstated the references to evolution deleted by a previous board, and the more conservative board that has recently regained control.[46]
The board plans to make a choice between the competing definitions by August.[47]
Dover Revisited
You won’t find any opposition to the idea of evolution among sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States. Not in Europe, not in Britain, but in the United States.
Richard Dawkins, author[48]
Doug Linder
Professor of Law,
University of Missouri, Kansas City[44]
In Topeka, Kansas, the conservative state Board of Education is considering changing the definition of science in the introduction to the state’s science standard from “a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us” – preferred by a majority of educators – to “‘a systematic method of continuing investigation,’ without specifying what kind of answer is being sought.”[45] Stephen Meyer, of the Discovery Institute, maintains that the new definition would have the benefit of not “freezing out” questions about how life began on earth.
Science groups boycotted the public hearings regarding the choice, stating that the debate was “rigged” against evolutionists. The continuing argument illustrates the tug-of-war between a less-conservative board, which reinstated the references to evolution deleted by a previous board, and the more conservative board that has recently regained control.[46]
The board plans to make a choice between the competing definitions by August.[47]
Dover Revisited
You won’t find any opposition to the idea of evolution among sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States. Not in Europe, not in Britain, but in the United States.
Richard Dawkins, author[48]
Even as the trial in Dover, Pennsylvania starts in September, voters will be considering two competing slates for the seven open seats on the nine-member school board that mandated the Intelligent Design statement be read by biology teachers to their classes.[49] Both Republican (who support the statement) and the Democrats (who support “discussing intelligent design as a religious concept in Humanities courses instead of biology classes”),[50] had hoped to sweep the primaries and thus avoid a showdown. Since the fourteen candidates are allowed to run in both the Republican and the Democratic primaries, a victory in both primaries would have allowed the concept touted by one side or the other to essentially run unopposed in November. The race was the “most hotly contested in memory.”[51]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Burg, Evelyn, Lecture, American Philosophy and Intellectual History 1880-1960,
(February 10, 2005)
Carnap, Rudolf, “The Rejection of Metaphysics,” Philosophy and Logical Syntax, (1935)
Dao, James, “Ballot Battle Over Evolution Ends in a 7-to-7 Tie,” The New York Times,
(May 19, 2005, Section A)
Degler, Carl N., In Search of Human Nature, (Oxford University Press: New York, 1991)
Hanna, John, “Kansas Debate Challenges Science Itself,” Washington Post website, (May
15, 2005), www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051600368.html
Himmelfarb, Gertrude, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, (Doubleday & Co, Inc.,
Garden City, New York, 1959)
Holmes, Oliver Wendell, “The Path of the Law,” Harvard Law Review, (No. 457, 1897)
James, William, The Varieties of Religious Experience, (Dover Publications, Inc.:
Mineola, NY, 2002)
Linder, Doug, “Speech on the Occasion of the 75th Anniversary of the Opening of the
Scopes Trial,” Famous Trials, University of Missouri, Kansas City, website, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/ftrials.htm
Linder, Doug, “William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925),” Famous Trials, University of
Missouri, Kansas City, website, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/ftrials.htm
“Logical Positivism,” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, University of Tennessee
at Martin website, http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/logpos.htm
McDermott, John J., ed., The Philosophy of John Dewey, “The Construction of the
Good,” (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1981)
McDermott, John J., ed., The Philosophy of John Dewey, “The Influence of Darwinism
on Philosophy,” (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1981)
McDermott, John J., ed., The Philosophy of John Dewey, “Philosophy’s Search for the
Immutable,” (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1981)
McDermott, John J., The Writings of William James, “Pragmatism and Humanism,”
(University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1967)
Peirce, Charles S., “The Fixation of Belief,” Popular Science Monthly, (No. 12, 1877),
http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html
Pennock, Robert T., ed., Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, “The Wedge at
Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream,” by Barbara Forrest, (The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2001)
Slack, Gordy, “The Atheist,” Salon website, (April 30, 2005), http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/print.html
Smith, Kevin, Dogma, (Columbia Tri-Star Studio, December 3, 2002)
“Teaching Darwin Splits Pennsylvania Town,” Yahoo News website, March 27, 2005,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1548&ncid=1548&e=1&u=/afp/20050327/lf_afp/uspoliticsreligion
White, Morton, Social Thought in America, (Beacon Press, 1963)
[1] Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, (Doubleday & Co, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1959), p. 370
[2] “Teaching Darwin Splits Pennsylvania Town,” Yahoo News website, March 27, 2005, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1548&ncid=1548&e=1&u=/afp/20050327/lf_afp/uspoliticsreligion
[3] “Teaching Darwin Splits Pennsylvania Town”
[4]Himmelfarb, p. 368
[5] Himmelfarb, p. 241
[6] Himmelfarb, p. 257
[7] Himmelfarb, p. 259
[8] Himmelfarb, p. 259
[9] Doug Linder, “William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925),” Famous Trials, University of Missouri, Kansas City, website, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/ftrials.htm
[10] Linder, “William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925)”
[11] Linder, “State v. John Scopes”
[12] Linder, “State v. John Scopes”
[13] Kevin Smith, Dogma, (Columbia Tri-Star Studio, December 3, 2002)
[14] John J. McDermott, ed., The Philosophy of John Dewey, “The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy,” (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1981), p. 34
[15] Morton White, Social Thought in America, (Beacon Press, 1963)
[16] Oliver Wendell Holmes, “The Path of the Law,” Harvard Law Review, (No. 457, 1897)
[17] Charles S. Peirce, “The Fixation of Belief,” Popular Science Monthly, (No. 12, 1877), http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html
[18] Dr. Evelyn Burg, Lecture, American Philosophy and Intellectual History 1880-1960, (February 10, 2005)
[19] John J. McDermott, The Writings of William James, “Pragmatism and Humanism,” (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1967), p. 451
[20] McDermott, “Pragmatism and Humanism,” p. 457
[21] William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, (Dover Publications, Inc.: Mineola, NY, 2002), p. 380
[22] John J. McDermott, ed., The Philosophy of John Dewey, “The Construction of the Good,” (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1981), p. 577
[23] McDermott, “The Construction of the Good,” p. 590
[24] John J. McDermott, ed., The Philosophy of John Dewey, “Philosophy’s Search for the Immutable,” (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1981), p.377
[25] Himmelfarb, p. 325
[26] “Logical Positivism,” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, University of Tennessee at Martin website, http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/logpos.htm
[27] McDermott, “The Construction of the Good,” p. 576
[28] Rudolf Carnap, “The Rejection of Metaphysics,” Philosophy and Logical Syntax, (1935)
[29] “Logical Positivism”
[30] “Logical Positivism”
[31] Carl N. Degler, In Search of Human Nature, (Oxford University Press: New York, 1991), p. 312
[32] Degler, p. 313
[33] Degler, p. 314
[34] Degler, p. 314
[35] Degler, p. 314
[36] Robert T. Pennock, ed., Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, “The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream,” by Barbara Forrest, (The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2001), p, 30
[37] Pennock, p. 16
[38] Pennock, p. 6
[39] Pennock, p. 14
[40] Pennock p. 6
[41] Pennock, p. 16
[42] Pennock, p. 19
[43] Pennock, p. 89
[44] Doug Linder, “Speech on the Occasion of the 75th Anniversary of the Opening of the Scopes Trial,” Famous Trials, University of Missouri, Kansas City, website, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/ftrials.htm
[45] John Hanna, “Kansas Debate Challenges Science Itself,” Washington Post website, (May 15, 2005), www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051600368.html
[46] Hanna
[47] Hanna
[48] Gordy Slack, “The Atheist,” Salon website, (April 30, 2005), http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/print.html
[49] James Dao, “Ballot Battle Over Evolution Ends in a 7-to-7 Tie,” The New York Times, (May 19, 2005, Section A), p. 16
[50] Dao
[51] Dao
No comments:
Post a Comment