Full Name

Instructor

Class

Date

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

numerous courtroom challenges” (2379). The article presents a detailed summary of

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

a growing trend in reverse thinking about evolution.

Bleckmann, Charles A. "Evolution and Creationism in Science: 1880-2000." Bioscience 56.2

(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

changes in debating tactics—like creationist attempting to argue that evolution is a

 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

role of famed journalists H. L. Mencken, Baltimore newspaperman and editor, and

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

of evolution and creationism relevant to the trial, he is primarily interested in analyzing

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

revealing the inconsistencies and resistance to Bryan’s agenda (529).

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
 the Scopes trial highlighted changes in the perception of masculinity in relation to

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

and compassionate Christians, or tough-minded and skeptical rationalists?” (sic) (122).

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

events like the Scopes trial (138).

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

Holiness tradition, especially from fundamentalists, Pentecostals, and other sects

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

exegesis” (127). As a result, he asserts they perceive evolution as less of a priority. In

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.
 In short, they are posting a call for vigilance on behalf of all evolutionists, asserting that

creationists are attempting to undermine evolution with pseudo science or “intelligent

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,

“for science suffers if the public understanding of science suffers” (284).

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

research surrounding the trial. To balance scholarly investigation of newspaper coverage

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
 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

traditionalism toward modernity (48).