Throughout American history, the relationship
between science and religion has been an uneasy one. Either has had to adjust
to the other, having to redefine, reconsider or reconstruct itself as the other
gained prominence. Sometimes there have been efforts to integrate and create
synergies, at other times we have witnessed retractions and redefinitions in
the face of the other. From the early paradigm-changing scientific breakthroughs
in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries – among those most
prominently the work of renowned English physicist Isaac Newton – and the
Enlightenment period with its focus on rational thought and empirical proofs, both
challenging the position of the Church, through to the present-day debate
between creationists and evolutionists creating headaches for school boards
throughout the United States, the tension between scientific and religious
approaches to individual morality, communal organizations, the larger American polity
and society, and the origin and make-up of creation itself has defined many of
the most important existential debates in American history.
Thus, my guiding principle for this essay will be this: To identify and
analyze not only interactions, but also reactions and proactions, effected and
effectuated in the one by the presence and changing form of the other: Accordingly,
my main inquiry for this essay will be: How have religion and science defined
each other throughout American history?
Although a substantial portion of early
colonizers dared the passage of the Atlantic by prospects of gold and other
riches, religious devotees – more religiously zealous dissenters and non-conformists,
“diverse in outward ecclesiastical form”[1] but generally denoted as
Puritans – came to play a dominant role in the government of the colonies,
especially in the north, during the gradual colonizing of North America in the seventeenth
and early eighteenth centuries. To them, God was not an abstract, an aloof
principle or ideal, but a very real and deeply felt presence in their daily
lives. They wanted to create a communal order inspired by Biblical tenets; the Congregationalists
required a so-called conversion narrative “to qualify for full communicant
standing”;[2] and the preaching of
itinerant ministers during the First Great Awakening filled the listeners with
a very real dread for the terrors awaiting them were they not to repent their
sins and turn to God. This is an important backdrop for an understanding the
radical nature of the changes in the intellectual climate in the colonies from
around the beginning of the eighteenth century and onward.
Many of those who were to become the Founding Fathers of the new American
republic were children of the European Age of Enlightenment – tentatively dated
from “the Peace of Westphalia (1648) to the French Revolution (1789).”[3] This was “a time of rapid
scientific advance,”[4] with a focus on the
materiality of existence, rational thought, and empirical inquiry, when natural
law for many “banished mystery from the world”[5] and supplanted earlier religious
beliefs as explanations for natural phenomena: “The universe was simply a vast
mechanism.”[6] Even
so, it is important to keep in mind that scientists in this age still
considered the universe as “the product of God the Great Mathematician.”[7] However, enlightenment
thinking, a mechanistic view on creation, and the religious implications drawn
from this understanding – i.e. the reinvented notion of God as the Intelligent
Creator behind the design of the natural laws – were largely confined to elite
circles.[8] And it was in elite circles,
both in Europe and in the colonies, that these insights became an important foundational
strand for the development of the “minimal faith”[9] we know as Deism.
Stripped to its barest minimum, Deists believed only in a few basic
tenets of Christianity: the existence of a God; that he should be worshipped; that
one should live virtuous and repent wrongdoing; and the existence of an
afterlife with rewards and punishments for actions in this life.[10] Importantly, Deists often
saw religion as a matter of personal conviction, and many regarded the
participation in explicit ritualistic expressions of religiosity as solely a
matter of social propriety. As one of the most prominent among the Founding
Fathers, Benjamin Franklin – among many other vocations an inventor and a
scientist – wrote in his Autobiography,
“Tho' I seldom attended any public worship, I had still an opinion of its
propriety, and of its utility when rightly conducted.”[11] Thus, when part-taking in
religious practices, Deists were often unconcerned with the denomination of the
church they attended. They regarded conventional contemporary religion as a social
good, but only because it gave moral guidance to otherwise unruly masses.[12]
One might question whether Deists in general were religious only for
pragmatic reasons – rationalizing that socially it behooved well to be so – or
whether they were actual believers. However, to speculate about the hearts and
mind of the long gone is just that: Speculative. Franklin has been accused of being
“essentially utilitarian in relation to religion,”[13] but this is in all
probability deduced from his pragmatic stances in general, e.g. for the
necessity of social propriety and for adjusting his behavior to accomplish
certain ends,[14]
where attending church and donating to the establishment of new churches would
be a part of that. More importantly however, Deism is a good example of an end
result of the interaction between religion and science: Confronted with
convincing new, scientifically based ideas of how one could explain the natural
world – ideas more convincing than the ones offered by the church – many reacted
by stripping down their religion to some basic elements – and to that which
would be at the time minimally accepted by the society in which they belonged –
leaving intellectual space to embrace the new ideas of the Enlightenment.
However, approaching the dawn of the American Revolution, especially in
the time of political upheaval following the French and Indian War, there would
emerge an important intellectual confluence point between Deists and Puritans,
one that would prove vital for a unified revolution against the Crown, and
which would define the young republic after the Revolution: In addition to the
basic tenets of Christianity mentioned above, the American Deists also added a
further one, singular to their version of Deism: They saw God as a “governing
and overruling Providence who guides and determines the destinies of nations.”[15] The Puritans, on their hand,
were attracted to the colonies precisely because they wanted to erect model communities,
organized by Divine principles, their “City upon a Hill.” When, paradoxically
perhaps, on the one hand the explication of the new nation was “cast in Hebraic
metaphors – chosen people, covenanted nation,”[16] and on the other, the
arbitrariness of state rule over religion was exchanged for the freedom for
everyone to practice religion as they saw fit, this outcome would be one that suited
both the more scientifically and the more religiously minded among the American
revolutionaries. When Deist George Washington in his inaugural address declared
that “it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my
fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe,”[17] this would resonate well
across denominations present in the infant republic.
From a minimal elite phenomenon prior to the American Revolution, Deism
would become much more outspoken, even revolutionary, after. Here it is
important to keep in mind the religious climate in this age, as mentioned
above: For large swaths of the population, God was a real presence in their
daily lives, rather than an abstract principle. When, in the “first flush of
enthusiasm evoked by the French Revolution,” Deism was “transformed into a
popular movement,” attacking churches as “the enemy of progress,”[18] it should not be surprising
that this was met with strong condemnation from church leaders. They utilized
the terror and mob rule marring the aftermath of the French Revolution to
discredit the Deists, but also for internal purposes: To rouse their congregations
and “summon them to action.” Rather than ever being under any serious threat
from the Deist movement, this presence of an outside enemy probably only served
to solidify the strength of many congregations.[19] We should keep in mind that
church attendance would rise rapidly in this period, especially at and after
the turn of the century, in the age of the Second Great Awakening. In this
clash between religion and, if not science per
se, at least a movement advocating rationality above the supernatural, religion
seems to have come out with the upper hand, not needing to change in any
important ways, but rather using an outside threat to successfully rally its internal
forces. This strategy, however, would prove less fruitful in the nineteenth
century.
From the first landings in New England in the
early seventeenth century, religion in America has, as we know, been highly and
at times expertly and efficiently organized, and in diverse ways. One could
mention the Methodists’ “circuit system” for spreading the Gospel; the much
better organized revivals during the Second Great Awakening; the gradual erection
of an educational system, first for prospective ministers and then for the
religious education of children; and the present-day mega-churches, catering
not only for the spiritual but also the social needs of their congregations.
Gradually, science took much the same course, both in terms of
organization, and on the impact it had on society and the lives of its people.
From meager beginnings – perhaps tentatively placed historically by the efforts
of the abovementioned Franklin to establish a subscription library in his home
town Philadelphia in the early eighteenth century – the nineteenth saw the
creation of societies dedicated to the new sciences, the establishment of universities
with curricula beside that which prepared for being a minister, and, especially
toward the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth
(and through to the present day) inventions and innovations that have made life
easier and perhaps better for all of us.
It was in these societies and academies that new scientific discoveries
were debated and to some extent disseminated to the public. Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, published in 1859
but reaching the American continent after the Civil War, made a tremendous
impact in these circles, and in the general public debate: Within a decade
after the Civil War, practically “every important American scientist had been
converted to Darwin’s theory”[20] – and the societal
implications drawn from this theory, known as Social Darwinism and championed
by Herbert Spencer, equally made its way into the current intellectual climate.
However – and although based on an extensive and impressive collection of
primary data – Darwin’s theory was only the fruition of an intellectual
development that had long matured in scientific circles, and not only in the
field of biology. His data might have been his own, but the conclusion he drew
on their basis was heavily influenced by current thinking – the natural balance
assumed to stem from Adam Smith’s notion of an “invisible hand,” the Malthusian
principle of an excess of births, the later scientifically refuted Lamarckism –
and the development in many scientific fields in the decades before his seminal
publication.[21] Even
his basic tenet, that the various species had developed through natural
selection over a period of millennia, had already been launched by a rival
scientist.[22] The
existence of fossils was already known, and speculations as to whether the
earth was much older than the Bible told were already taking place. The
important point here is that Darwin’s theory might not have been the drastic revolution
one is wont to assume; that ideas similar to his already had been debated in
the American public; and that, importantly, religion had already started a
process of adjustments to what could only be seen as a threat to their
epistemological hegemony.
We have already touched upon one strategy for reacting to new scientific
ideas: Employed by the Deists, one could call it an assimilation strategy,
where scientific ideas were subsumed under a pre-existing category, that being
the idea of a God: The universe might adhere to mechanistic laws, but God is
the one who put these laws in motion, perhaps even identical to its basic
principles. This was the basic idea behind what in the early nineteenth
century, and prior to Darwin, would be called Natural Theology. The term
originating from an 1802 publication by William Paley, the adherents to Natural
Theology assumed that the astonishing variations in nature was a result of a
divine plan, and that, as the earlier Deists had argued, you could know God by
study nature: The seemingly perfect interplay between plants and animals was
seen as a central proof that there was indeed a God.[23] This strategy for incorporating
science in religion met with two problems: First, that by no means all were
convinced; and second, that the amazing scientific strides during the
nineteenth century challenged religion to such a degree that it were not always
able to adjust accordingly, and oftentimes reacted instead by retreating into
itself.
The reason was this: Perhaps more than any other scientific breakthrough
in this era, Darwin’s theory of evolution “seemed to strike at the very root of
a biblically grounded faith.”[24] This, then, became a
watershed in religious history, a defining moment posing existential questions
that needed to be addressed. These “unsettling questions” with “disturbing
implications”[25] met
with a diverse range of reactions: Some, like Charles Hodge of the Princeton
Theological Seminary, denounced evolution as unacceptable.[26] Others, like the President
of Princeton University James McCosh, concluded that the biblical creation myth
was not “inconsistent with developmental theories.”[27] Reverting to a common theme
from the reactive approaches by religion to science, he saw “‘natural
selection’ as the product of ‘supernatural design.’”[28]
A further development at this time was the definition and establishment
of new objects for scientific inquiry, with their concomitant scientific
disciplines: sociology, psychology and anthropology. This lead to the
subjection of religion and religious experiences to sociological and
psychological investigation, just like one would any other naturally occurring
phenomenon. Sociological studies concluded that religious practices had their
basis in social rather than divine forces.[29] Psychological studies
described and mapped spiritual experiences of individuals. This development also
lead to a twofold new approach to the letter of the Bible: First, that many
came to view it as more of an inspirational book rather than a final and
infallible truth, and that stories that did not fit with either reality or
society should be seen as allegories or interpreted figuratively – in line with
the view held by Princeton President McCosh cited above. And second, that the
Bible itself became an object of study:[30] Historians, anthropologists,
and literary theorists approached the Bible as they would any instance of written
data, using the same methodology as they would when studying other objects. This
struck at the very core of the identity of many belonging to one of the
Judeo-Christian faiths: “The central issue was the authority of the Bible. Few
great religions have been so dependent as Christianity upon a sacred book.”[31] One could interpret Genesis
as an allegory, and perhaps reconcile that with evolution; but contradictions
within the text itself, revealed by closer scrutiny by biblical scholars, were not
so easy to handle.[32]
It is important to note a further influence science had on religion in
this era. The end of the nineteenth century saw the creation of a myriad of
sects, societies and the like, incorporating scientific methods in their religious
or spiritual practices, in various ways. The so-called Scientific Modernism
approached new scientific discoveries in perhaps the most proactive manner.
Instead of regressing inwards, they embraced the new sciences, especially the
psychology of religious experiences, in order to fashion an approach to
preaching and conversion that would be maximally effective. Rather than seeing
science and religious doctrine as opposites, they reinvented religion in light
of strides made in the fields of investigations of personal religious
experiences, and used that as their basis for their practice of religion.
This also translated into a belief in the healing powers of religion.
Not only Scientific Modernism, but a whole array of different groups made
physical health their priority when approaching prospective converts.[33] One could easily, but
perhaps slightly cynically, call this an instance of appropriating scientific methods
and lingo for the specific purpose of redefining spiritual practices in order
to “sell it” as a way to a better life – not only to serve a God or to be
rewarded in the afterlife, but to improve your life in the present. This development
coincided with the first days of modernism at the turn of the twentieth century,
with a reduced focus on the collective and a stronger focus on the individual –
and must be said to have continued through to this day, perhaps reinvented
again in the heyday of New Age movement from the late 1960s and onward. This
pragmatic merger of science (or in this case perhaps “science,” being more of
an appropriation of terms rather than scientific in the stricter and more
methodological definition of the term) proved to be successful, and translated
into a plethora of self-help and improvement books, new societies for the
devotees, and probably some money for the ones driving this change.
Finally, this period saw the rise of at times harsh anti-religious
sentiments, reminiscent of what we saw on behalf of the popular version of the Deist
movement after the American Revolution. This was the time of atheism,
antitheism and the Unbelief movement, the latter embracing science and
criticizing religion for being conservative, regressive, “a prisonhouse of
superstition,”[34] and
a hindrance for progress, humanism, and technological advances. These are
positions recognized to this day, e.g. in the uncompromising anti-religious
stances of international champions of reason and rationality like Richard
Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, and the like.
What was the outcome of this time of religious
upheaval? It is instructive here to take a closer look at the various
categories of religious reactions to the prominence gained by science at this
time. The reactions were largely divisive within, rather than between, various
religions. Corrigan and Hudson describe this in detail, and I think it is here
appropriate to quote them at some length:
Some […] resisted the new intellectual currents and rejected any modification of inherited theological formulations. [Others] came to believe that the traditional forms of faith were no longer relevant and must be discarded and replaced […] A third group occupied an intermediate place between the two extremes, seeking to effect adjustments that would do justice both to the essential elements of the inherited faith and to the newer scientific patterns of thought.[35]
This tripartite division would be important for
years to come, and would define the battling lines in many important
discussions of the role of religion in society, in political life, and probably
most importantly, in education.
The famous, or perhaps infamous, Scopes Trial
(1925), dubbed the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, serves as a very good example of the tension
between one important aspect of both religion and science, and, consequently,
how this should be taught in school: How the world, its species, and man, came
to be.[36] After Darwin, the domain of
science assumes that the theory of evolution presents the most convincing
answer to this important question; religion on the other hand – at least the
monotheistic Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism – assumes a
creator, a belief that translated into the doctrine of Creationism – another
good example of the result of a need to reinvent itself when faced with a
challenge from the other domain.
The Scopes trial, albeit to a large extent orchestrated by civil
activists, deliberated the decision of a high school teacher who decided to
teach Darwinian evolution in a school district that had banned this from its
schools. The trial received much national attention, and resulted in the
ridiculing of the local practice of the school board, giving the death knell to
emerging Fundamentalists’ hope of gaining majorities in any of the major
Protestant denominations, and pushing the “intermediate” group mentioned above
into the camp of the liberals.[37] However, Fundamentalists
gained a foothold in many local congregations, and even though one might say
that this was a victory for science, this issue is by no means settled today.
School boards throughout the US are still voting on whether or not to allow the
teaching of evolution, or, maybe more prevalent today, deciding on whether
creationism and evolution should be taught side by side and as equally valid
theories. Court cases pitting creationism and evolution against each other continue
until this day.[38]
In order to get a full understanding of the
historical foundations for the interactions between science and religion, I
believe it is important to bear in mind that historically science, and not
religion, was the system for understanding and organizing the world within and around
us that was seen as mystical and foreign. Most everyone, throughout most of
human history, have assumed as a fact of life the presence of gods, or a God; the
emerging sciences came as a new way of viewing everything, and have been hailed
as progress or condemned as dangerous and blasphemous intermittently and by
various quarters to this day. Thus, it is no wonder that reactions many times
were strong, and that science was seen as a threat to an existing order.
I began this essay by claiming that both religion and science have had
to adjust and reconsider itself when confronted with the other. I would contend
that the at times harsh anti-religious sentiments that have marked public
discourse at several historical stages are testaments to science reacting to
religion, becoming at times as fundamentalist, narrow-minded and belligerent as
religion could be at its worst. However, from the vantage point of the present
day, one must conclude that the last perhaps three or four centuries have seen
a remarkable progress on behalf of the scientific – and that, accordingly, the
domain of religion has been the one most in need of asking itself thoroughgoing
questions as to its fundaments for existence.
From being exclusive to the domain of a marginal, educated elite,
science today permeates the lives of every citizen of modern industrial
nations. Being a pre-requisite for just about any kind of profession, the
overall scientific basis for the educational system is a definite testament to
that. However, as we have seen by the debate in school boards about evolution
versus creationism, and as we witness the appeal to religion and not science in
current debates on adoption, stem-cell research, abortion, sex and
contraceptives, and gay rights and same-sex marriage, there is still a very
tangible tension in the United States between these domains. The
epistemological extensions – the area where they are to inform or decide
matters of importance, in education, politics, and society at large – of the respective
domains are still not clearly defined, and remain a contentious issue in
contemporary American debate.
Remarkably, it seems that the various religious reactions to science in
the late nineteenth century – the tripartite division mentioned above – came to
define and consolidate the dividing lines within religion up until the present
day. I admit that I probably lack the thorough understanding of contemporary
America to support this sweeping claim, but a cursory view of current political
debates seems to reveal that these dividing lines, established at the end of
the nineteenth century, still hold today: A group that has discarded religion
altogether, and live their lives unconcerned with considerations about any
supernatural entities; an important and politically influential group with the
gospel as their primary guiding principle for their actions and view-points;
and an intermediate pragmatic group integrating scientific discoveries with
some of the basic principles of religion – the latter reminiscent of the
balance found by the Deists at the middle and end of the eighteenth century.
As we have seen, reactions to science have been varied – from complete
denial to complete embrace. The proactive and pragmatic adjustments made by
Deists, the natural theologists, and the Scientific Modernists, serve as good
examples of an important intellectual strand in American history, that of
pragmatism. It is interesting to compare these responses with the various denominational
approaches to revivals and “quickenings” during the Second Great Awakening.
Rather than happening spontaneously, as might have been the case with the First,
revivals were planned, organized, orchestrated, and used as a means to an end.
They knew what they were doing, and why. This must definitely be called
pragmatic, and utilitarian. But is this not also in a very fundamental sense
scientific? What is science, if not to observe reality, draw conclusions based
on those observations, formulate theories as to how the world and its people
function, and then act upon these conclusions when faced with same or similar
situations in the future?
Thus it might be argued that the fields of science and religion are in
equal measures at least as much theoretical abstractions as they are fundamental
realities; and that people, regardless of which camp (or sub-camp, for this
exposition has hopefully shown a the existence of a myriad of these) they
belong to, will still approach the world in much the same manner: With pre-conceived
ideas, either from a religious or a scientific domain, which are then put to
the test in everyday situations. What divides us, regardless of which camp we
belong to, might easily be reduced to only one fundamental: The willingness, or
not, to adjust your preconceptions when confronted with new evidence.
Bibliography
Bellah, Robert N. “Civil Religion in America.” Daedalus 96, no. 1 (Winter 1967): 1–21.Campbell, James. “The pragmatist in Franklin.” In The Cambridge Companion to Benjamin Franklin, edited by Carla Mulford, 104–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Corrigan, John, and Winthrop S. Hudson. Religion in America: An Historical Account of the Development of American Religious Life. 8th ed. Boston: Prentice Hall, 2010.
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. Charles Darwin. Oslo: Gyldendal, 1997. bokhylla.no. http://www.nb.no/nbsok/nb/6c62d6bd2db36c48b974f26d55823846.nbdigital;jsessionid=BD9DAE09A522B7335D25A753C6EAAA09.nbdigital3?lang=no#3 (accessed December 4, 2012).
Franklin, Benjamin. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. 1791. Edited by Charles W. Eliot. New York: P F Collier, 1909. Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Fra2Aut.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all (accessed December 3, 2012).
Matsumura, Molleen, and Louise Mead. “Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism.” National Center for Science Education. http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism (accessed December 4, 2012).
Washington, George. “Inaugural Address April 30, 1789.” The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25800&st=&st1= (accessed December 4, 2012).
[1] John Corrigan
and Winthrop S. Hudson, Religion in America: An Historical Account of the
Development of American Religious Life (Boston: Prentice Hall, 2010), 36.
[2] Corrigan
and Hudson, Religion in America, 55.
[3] Corrigan
and Hudson, Religion in America, 94.
[4] Corrigan
and Hudson, Religion in America,
94–5.
[5] Corrigan
and Hudson, Religion in America, 95.
[6]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
95.
[7] Corrigan
and Hudson, Religion in America, 95.
[8]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
94.
[9]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
94.
[10]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
94.
[11]
Benjamin Franklin, The Autobiography of
Benjamin Franklin, 1791, ed. Charles W. Eliot (New York: P F Collier, 1909),
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library,
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Fra2Aut.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all
(accessed December 3, 2012), 82.
[12] Corrigan
and Hudson, Religion in America, 122.
[13]
Robert N. Bellah, “Civil Religion in America,” Daedalus 96 (1967): 6.
[14] James
Campbell, “The pragmatist in Franklin,” in The
Cambridge Companion to Benjamin Franklin, ed. Carla Mulford (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2008), 104.
[15]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
94.
[16]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America, 110.
[17]
George Washington, “Inaugural Address April 30, 1789,” in The American
Presidency Project,
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25800&st=&st1=
(accessed December 4, 2012).
[18] Corrigan
and Hudson, Religion in America, 122.
[19] Corrigan
and Hudson, Religion in America, 122.
[20]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
232.
[21]
Thomas Hylland Eriksen, Charles Darwin,
(Oslo: Gyldendal, 1997), bokhylla.no, http://www.nb.no/nbsok/nb/6c62d6bd2db36c48b974f26d55823846.nbdigital;jsessionid=BD9DAE09A522B7335D25A753C6EAAA09.nbdigital3?lang=no#3
(accessed December 4, 2012), 80.
[22] Hylland Eriksen, Charles Darwin, 45.
[23] Hylland Eriksen, Charles Darwin, 61, 158.
[24]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
234.
[25]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
233.
[26]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
234.
[27]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
234.
[28]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
234.
[29]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
233.
[30]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
235.
[31]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
235.
[32]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
235.
[33]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
245 ff.
[34]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
240.
[35]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
233.
[36]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
314.
[37]
Corrigan and Hudson, Religion in America,
314.
[38] Molleen
Matsumura and Louise Mead, “Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and
Creationism,” National Center for Science Education, http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism
(accessed December 4, 2012).
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar