Sociology of Religion - Research Paper Example

Evolution Versus Religion Sociology of Religion Religion and American Society Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Historical background 1.2 The sociological perspective 1.3 Purpose of paper 2. Current Events Summary 3. Literature Review 4. Study Design 4.1 Aims 4.2 Methodology 4.3 Expectations 5. Theories and conclusions Evolution Vs. Religion Project One: Research Design 1. Introduction 1.1 Historical background Following the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin early this year, his theory of evolution is still a live subject of debate and continues to pit many evolutionists against creationists. This study will begin with a brief outline of this conflict between the two sides in modern day America. Eight-four years ago The Scopes Trial highlighted how stubborn many people were to the teaching of the theory of evolution. They believed that it was directly contradictory to their faith that God created the world and everything in it. Indeed, the theory was a threat to their way of life and the way they thought about themselves. They used lawsuits to try to prevent evolution from being taught. Not much has changed in the last 84 years. The debate still rages in school boards across America. In the United States there are institutes and public figures who publicly promote the idea of creationism. The most famous case that dealt with this issue set the scene for the debate that would follow. The Scopes Trial held in Tennessee in 1925 challenged the Butler Act, which made it illegal "to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." A schoolteacher was charged and put on trial for the crime of teaching Darwin. Although the teacher, Scopes, was eventually found guilty—and made to pay a fine—the Supreme Court of the United States eventually overturned the ban on teaching evolution in 1968, saying that such a ban would violate the constitution since it would be to the benefit of religion. Nevertheless, this trial turned into a circus and was a huge spectacle as it pitted passionate believers of religion and evolution against one another. The debate continues to this day, most recently in the last ten years with the rise of what is called Intelligent Design. The debate between evolution and creationism came back into the public sphere with a vengeance following a big fight on a school board in rural Pennsylvania. Here a number of advocacy groups had gone out of their way to repackage creationism which was seen to be explicitly religious in a format which they claimed was more secular: Intelligent Design (ID), a theory which held that the world is simply too complicated to have occurred randomly without a directing hand. Often proponents of ID would quote scientists to this effect. They were in a manner trying to use science to prove the existence of God. On various school boards across the United States proponents of ID would not ask to ban teaching evolution; instead they would argue that there was more than one viewpoint on the matter and that schools should also teach ID or “teach the controversy.” This is a brief historical summary of the issue. But what does this debate say about contemporary American feelings about religion, evolution, and education? There is a reason this issue is so contentious: it is the crossroads for a great deal of things people have culturally and emotionally invested in. 1.2 The sociological perspective This issue touches upon the relationship between the themes of religion and education especially, and the role of the scientific method in society. There are two main groupings of individuals under the terms ‘Creationists’ and ‘Darwinists’ whose views on how we were created and what should be taught in schools on this topic are in conflict. Both ideas have deep roots and strong proponents though the latter is relatively much recent. As many websites, Internet blogs, chatrooms etc. would also show, evolution versus religion is a hotly debated topic, and not only concerning the Christian right but also those of other religions who believe that God created us and reject Darwin’s theory of evolution. Then there is the third category of “ID advocates [who] are the political proponents of ID theory and see their theory as a weapon in the American ‘culture war’.” (Warnick 2007) Secularists see them as nothing more than attempting to bring the Christian religion into the secular classroom. But, the link secularists make between ID and creationism is no more tenuous than the link religionists make between evolutionists and atheism. However, creationism is itself a form of religion because it is a rejection of the role of God in creation or denies the existence of God altogether. It therefore involves adherence to a particular belief albeit a rigid belief based on unproven and riddled scientific evidence. The major issue that lies at the heart of the matter is thus a conflict of religious and secular cultures i.e. a ‘culture war’ phenomenon. This reflects the deeper intellectual debate between Christian religion and science to wit how humans were created, whether by God (religious argument), by a higher force (intelligent design argument) or by chance (orthodox science argument). Richard Dawkins highlights that there is a fundamental incompatibility between creationism and evolution in America. A description of the ‘culture war’ is given by Kevin S. Hasson in his book ‘The Right to Be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America’ (2005: front flap): It’s a running feud over religious diversity that’s liable to erupt at any time, in the midst of everything from judicial confirmations to school board meetings. One side demands that only their true religion be allowed in public; the other insists that no religions ever belong there. As the two sides slug it out, the stakes are rising. An ever-growing assortment of faiths insist on an ever-wider variety of truths. 1.3 Purpose of paper This study will explore the relationship between religion and public education. It will closely examine the sociological perspective of the culture war centered on the evolution versus creation debate and investigate why this is such a highly contentious issue. 2. Current Events Summary The chosen current event is the spate of ‘Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Acts’ in several US states. The article under review viz. ‘Iowa educators respond to evolution bill’ (Hanson 2009) discusses how Iowa educators have responded to the anti-evolution bill introduced Feb. 3 by Republican Rod Roberts and R. Carroll. Sociologists of religion would be interested because the duality of views is an expression of a culture war. The article deals with issues of religion and education, specifically the intersection of religion in education within the context of the evolution versus religion debate and the events demonstrate significant social changes in the legal and education systems. The report mentions that many academic institutions “are calling for the state Legislature to kill HF 183, The Evolution Academic Freedom Act.” (ibid) On the other hand, “mostly conservative religious groups such as the Iowa Christian Alliance support HF 183. Interestingly, both sides are said to be after ‘academic freedom’. The issue then is determining what is ‘legitimate science’. It is noted, “Pennsylvania courts set a precedent when they concluded that intelligent design creationism is not science in the 2005 case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.” (ibid) Furthermore, that many such bills have been passed of which one was signed into law in the state of Louisiana. To contrast the thoughts and feelings of both sides, here are two comments from individuals both in favour and against the bill: Evolutionist - Michael Clough, an associate professor of science education claims “there are no rival theories that stand up to the evidence for evolution” and calls HF 183 “unfortunate and misguided”. Creationist – Norman Pawlewski of the Christian Alliance said that teachers and students should “be able to decide among all the science-related information [as] God created science after all.” A similar act in Missouri for example, amends its chapter 17, RSMo, “by adding thereto one new section relating to teacher academic freedom to teach scientific evidence regarding evolution.” (House Bill No. 656) In other words, there is scope: to create an environment within… schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues… Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution. The bill makes it clear however that it seeks to promote neither natural or intelligent cause nor philosophical naturalism or biblical theology. The Academic Freedom Act is actually a series of such bulls introduced into the House of Representatives. Over half a dozen states including Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and South Carolina have had similar bills recently. The aforementioned article points out that these bills “are sponsored and supported by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based anti-evolution organization.” (Hanson 2009) The official position of the institute is to allow anyone interested in furthering academic freedom to utilize their resources. In their own words: “We simply want educators to be free to teach the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific theories involved in evolution.” (ibid) 3. Literature Review It is very worthwhile to examine several examples of academic writing on this subject to further explore its sociological impact. I have collected four prominent examples of articles that address the subject and will write about them below. 3.1. Robert Audi. “Religion and the politics of science can evolutionary biology be religiously neutral?” Philosophy and Social Criticism. Vol 35 Nos 1–2. pp. 23–50 This article argues that is possible to teach evolution in classrooms from a religiously neutral perspective which can be important when you have a group of religiously diverse students. Audi writes that, “Skepticism about the ‘value-neutrality’ of science is not new, but the striking advances and wider teaching of evolutionary biology have brought out both more writings and more protests by those who consider it biased against certain religious views.” He suggests that science is not biased against any particular religion and that those fundamentalists who claim it is, for example, anti-Christian are wrong. Audi asks, “Is the scientific habit of mind theological neutral?” His answer is an interesting response to critics of teaching evolution in American schools. Indeed, he sees quite a bit of common ground between theologians and scientists. The argument between them is in part a false dichotomy. One can view scientific inquiry as a use of reason conceived as a natural endowment from God. What about the theory of evolution? The theory is clearly inconsistent with the account of creation given in Genesis interpreted literally. But literal interpretation of scripture is not a requirement of a reasonable theology and is increasingly rejected by educated biblical interpreters. This is not to suggest that there can be no tension between scientific results and some scripturally based beliefs on the part of a religiously committed person. The point is that it is theologically implausible to think of Scripture as competing with scientific inquiry with respect to answering the same questions.1 Audi basically concludes that teachers should be sensitive to those with theological concerns. There are likely to be many critics out there with regards to this view who would be unhappy with a scientist being sensitive to supernatural explanations of the world. Nevertheless, Audi’s survey of the debate is comprehensive. 3.2. Matthew J. Tontonoz. “The Scopes Trial Revisited: Social Darwinism versus Social Gospel.” Science as Culture. June 2008. 17:2. pp 121 – 143. In this interesting article, Tontonoz revaluates the history of the debate between evolution and creationism, focusing on the first big encounter. He suggests the current debate is quite different that the historic debate, and that the current debate is in some way a caricature of the latter. We remember the Scopes Trial mostly through the lens of latter day cultural products such as the play/movie Inherit the Wind which show Bryan, the defender of the law against teaching evolution, as an early fundamentalist not unlike Jerry Falwell: “In the mythic version of the Scopes trial, the noble forces of Enlightenment trounce backwardness and provincialism.” The truth, Tontonoz writes, is more complex and interesting. He examines reactions to the Scopes Trial from the period and other historical documents some of which have been forgotten. He examines Bryan’s motives for opposing the teaching of evolution and the portrait revealed is of an individual with a deep sense of the fragility of the socially constructed world and a fear that evolution will bring down the pillars of the temple: But it is clear that, for Bryant at least, loss of faith was a slippery slope, and the dangers posed were much greater than the agnosticism of aging naturalists. There were also disastrous social consequences. Bryan’s main concern was that evolution bred dangerous political tendencies. It encouraged selfish individualism, for example, and undermined students’ sense of social responsibility, discouraging them from pursuing ‘the altruistic work that the world so sorely needs.’ Evolution, he claimed, ‘diverts attention from pressing problems of great importance’, causing students to ‘lose sight of the Rock of Ages while they study the ages of rocks’. It also discouraged hope in social reform . . . 2 Bryant felt that the public promotion of natural selection would encourage aggression, conflict, and even eugenics. The criticisms strike at the heart of social Darwinism and Nazism both of which attempted to import evolutionary theory into political ideologies with an incredibly destructive result. By examining the debate from this forgotten perspective we can see that the normal caricature of the discussion conceals more than it reveals. Tontonoz effectively shows how complex and rich the debate on this issue is. It is not quite an argument between cool-headed scientists and fire-breathing preachers. 3.3. Michael W. Apple. “Evolution Versus Creationism in Education.” Educational Policy. March 2008. Volume 22 Number 2. In this essay, Michael Apple traces the origins of the populist movements that seek to remove Darwin from the classroom. He does this by examining a great deal of their writings on the subject as well as case law on the debate. He sees them as a product of economic circumstances and the huge cultural shifts that have occurred in recent years. Many believe their way of life and religion are threatened and feel the need to fight back. Apple writes, “This movement—what I call authoritarian populism—has struck a responsive chord with millions of people who feel economically and culturally threatened.” Apple examines the political and linguistic strategies employed by religious conservatives in the United States in order to further their agenda. In a cultural discourse where people are easily swayed by emotion and rhetorical devices, religious groups have been masterful in trying to import Intelligent Design into the education system by dressing it up in scientific clothes. But more than that, they are inspired a righteousness that feeds on itself and encourages more and more distortions. The religious Right has demonstrated such linguistic talents before. For example, their claim that by bringing religious beliefs into the public arena of education, they are not doing anything more or less than what, say, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other leaders of the civil rights movement did is more than a little interesting. And it has been effective in enabling members of this movement to see themselves as the new oppressed. To them, everyone’s voice is heard except for religious conservatives.3 Apple concludes that there is no real conclusion to this debate; it will keep on happening. It is important to recognize what is legitimate and true about people’s concerns and what they have gotten themselves worked up about. It is also important to look for good argument underneath what may be merely a thicket of empty rhetoric. 3.4. Eugenie Scott and Glen Branch. “Evolution: What’s wrong with teaching the controversy?” Trends in Ecology and Evolution. October 2003. Vol.18 No.10. The final essay I looked at also examined the rhetoric around this debate, but focused on an interesting aspect of American argument and education—the use of dialectical teaching which some people believe presents the most accurate view of the world to students. Instead of simply teaching students evolutionary theory, some people would rather see “the controversy” between evolution and religion being taught. They argue that this will present the fullest picture to students and will show both sides of the argument, which will allow students to make up their own mind. It sounds very good. Presenting all sides of a controversial issue appeals to popular values of fairness, openness and equality of opportunity. It thus plays well with the public. But it is important to examine any such appeal carefully, because it is easy to abuse the public’s willingness to be swayed by such a call.4 The authors plainly point out the controversy. Imagine the subject is the Holocaust. Should the “controversy” be taught? Should students have the arguments of Holocaust deniers placed before them in a classroom, and both sides of the “argument” lined up for them think about? Strangely, this breeds the worst form of moral relativism—something most religious people strongly oppose. 3.5. Warnick, Bryan R. and Fooce, C. David. 2007. Does teaching creationism facilitate student autonomy? Theory and Research in Education. 2007, Vol. 5, P. 357. One of the arguments for teaching creationism in science is that it counters the controversial teaching of evolution, and this achieves the goal of facilitating student autonomy. “Autonomy requires that students be exposed to significant alternatives.” The article however suggests this argument is unsuccessful because “when religious narratives are placed in the context of science classrooms, the religious narratives become quasi-scientific descriptions in that they are assumed to share the modernist views of reference and meaning that permeate scientific interpretation.” That is to say, according to the researcher the religious viewpoint is not regarded, as “a significant alternative to secular modernity and so does not facilitate autonomy. 3.6. Freeman, Patricia K. and Houston, David J. 2009. The Biology Battle: Public Opinion and the Origins of Life. Politics and Religion, 2009, 2:54-75. This article is in response to origins of life debates raging in the US and considers whether these illustrate culture wars. Data from the 2006 General Social Survey is used to examine attitudes toward evolution. Using multinomial logistic regression models, findings “indicate that attitudes about whether humans today evolved from earlier species of life are more full explained by orthodox Christian doctrine, not religious tradition, as the culture wars thesis suggests.” On the other hand, “isomorphism between orthodox Christian doctrine and conservative political ideology has not occurred.” Acceptance of evolution is strongly linked by liberal political ideology. And, those who reject evolution as sound scientific theory are from a certain group of political conservatives. 3.7. Curtis D. Carbonell. 2008. Taking off the Gloves: Dawkins and the Root of All Evil? Journal of Religion and Popular Culture. Vol. XIX: Summer ’08. This article is a reaction to Dawkins documentary ‘The Root of All Evil?’ and his book ‘The God Delusion’. It “sees Dawkin’s overt rhetoric designed to achieve a cultural goal: to reinvigorate aspects of the Enlightenment Project he finds worthwhile – in particular, a secularism founded on reason highly suspicious of religious meta-narratives.” The article considers whether Dawkins “approach is the most viable in winning the religious/secular culture war.” That is, whether a heavy-handed approach to the sociology, history, or philosophy of religions can help rationalists win the culture war. In History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Andrew White comments “science and theology are not simply in conflict but are at war.” In contrast to viewing a ‘culture war’, which is a popular imagination, a continuum between harmony and conflict is also considered by some academics. The ‘nuanced’ relationship between science and religion is discussed as well as an insight into “how science is a social pursuit” The culture war also puts “the role of rational science in society” at stake. There is in fact a “history of contention between rationalist and mystical approaches of interrogating reality.” The new discipline of ‘Sociobiology’ is described in Sociobiology: The New Sythesis. Man is regarded as a social animal and the author addresses human society, culture, behaviour and other subjects and its social implications. He remarks, “for better or worse, the institution of Western science has eaten away at traditional understandings of our place in the universe.” An extreme view of Dawkins is to suggest “that teaching religion to a child can be considered abuse.” And, the two competing meta-narratives that are defining modernity are “a god-centered modernity in which supernatural events occur and where religion plays a fundamental role in how we define our places in the universe [and] the other posits a secular world informed by rational science without the influence of supernatural events.” 3.8. Eric Plutzer and Michael Berkman. 2008. Trends: Evolution, Creationism, and the Teaching of Human Origins in Schools. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3):540-553, Oxford Journals. Public opinion polls that are relevant to the theory of evolution are examined from 1981 through 2007. That is, concerning “US citizens’ beliefs about the origins of mankind and other species, individuals’ certainty and knowledge of the debate, and their understanding of the scientific evidence bearing on evolutionary theory.” On the question of what the appropriate treatment is of human origins in science curricula, the article concludes that “US public opinion is at odds with the curricula mandated by the nation’s state governments. 4. Study Design 4.1 Aims The study will seek to find answers to the following questions: 1. Is the current push to teach creationism new evidence of a culture war? 2. What threat do evolutionists perceive from the creationists’ struggle? 3. Is there really a dichotomous aspect to the evolution versus religion debate within the context of Christianity and mainstream science in the US, or is there any validity in the suggestion of a continuum between harmony and conflict? 4. What are the wider social conditions that are enabling this culture war to take place and what can be done to prevent or resolve it? 5. What are the wider social implications of this culture war? 4.2 Methodology Quantitative data will be obtained to know how widespread the push to teach creationism is. For example, national data can be collected on how many Academic Freedom Acts (or similar) are either being drafted, have been passed or implemented into law. This will involve examining each state affected by the issue and a state-wise analysis. The quantitative research will be supplemented by qualitative research by means of surveys, interviews and case studies to get better insight into the stance, perception, thinking and motives of those who are engaged in pushing to teach creationism and those who are at the other end of defending evolutionism. One of the questions I would ask when doing further investigation into this issue is: What does the religious right really want? Do they want to simply “teach the controversy” or do they have a long-term goal to overthrow the Establishment Clause of the Constitution and ban the teaching of evolutionary theory. To find an answer to this question I would create a carefully worded survey to send out to clergy people across the United States and also members of the various think tanks that support Intelligent Design. I would also carry out a number of in-depth interviews with members of school boards. 4.3 Expectations Just how do such people view the U.S. Constitution and its prohibition of mixing church and state? Do they believe in this principle or do they think it flies in the face of living an honest, religious life? These are interesting questions that I would be curious to know about from their perspective. I agree with the article above that said much of the debate is caricaturized—especially in the East Coast press. There is more to this argument than good versus bad—it really says a lot about the tensions at the heart of American culture. As such it is worthy of intensive and extensive study. I think the study would have to be anti-positivist rather than positivist as it is very difficult to quantitatively analyze and collect data about human institutions like science and religion. I think a sociological study that focused more on what these things mean to people than on a lot of mathematical data would be a better approach to the question. Things like values, norms, and symbols are better approached using anti-positivist models and can teach us more about ourselves. Clearly the debate between creationism and Darwinism is a loaded one with angry opponents on both sides. Everyone has a lot invested in the subject because it strikes at the core of the most philosophical issues: Why are we here? What are we here to do? How should we live? Much of the debate has been through the courts that have consistently ruled in favor of evolution. It is important not to get caught up in this debate, which I believe has been won by the evolutionists, but instead look about what it says about our society and the way we live now. The expectation is that the struggle to teach creationism is not only evidence of a culture war, but that this is at odds with the position of the government and is going to be an explosive issue that reignites the historical conflict between evolution and religion, between evolutionists and creationists and between scientists and the religious right in America. 5. Theories and conclusions The evolutionism versus creationism debate being expressed in the US now has pitted liberal-cum-humanists and Christians against each other. The former believe that social problems will eventually disappear over a period of time because the nature of man is essentially good. Consequently, it requires that scientists discard any religious restraints such as imposed by creationism. On the other hand, the Christian religious view considers man has having fallen into sin due to his selfish and lowly nature and therefore in need of the saviour. Thus God has a prominent role to play in how we live in our society and the way we define our culture. If the influence of religion and morality is removed, this leads to the degeneration and decay of our social order. These two opposing viewpoints are at the heart of the culture war. The social phenomenon that we are witnessing then is a challenge from the religious right of America to the prevailing liberal ideology that regards our existence due only to chance and removes God from the equation of scientific enquiry. It is a challenge to the dominance of naturalism and materialism. This is also symptomatic of moral decadence of western society. As far as education is concerned, the move is simply in accord with the present day reality of multiculturalism in modern western society and the acceptance of a diversity of views. The media has only popularised the dichotomous perspective, which over simplifies the phenomenon. There is a suggestion however that the spread of creationism into the classrooms of North America is indicative of a more general paradigm shift that is occurring in the role of science in society. “The sledgehammer culture war between the scientific establishment and the Biblical literalists has been diverting many from a more subtle and far-reaching discussion among scientists, philosophers and theologians.” (Todd 2009) The shift is toward a greater synthesis of these realms particularly centring on evolution. The past century saw a stranglehold of atheism amongst scientists whereas now there is greater acceptance amongst mainstream scientists in some form of intelligent design or divinity. Quantum theory is a significant reason for shaping this new thinking. From a sociological perspective, we see the dynamics of academic thinking shaping what happens in our society, manifesting in the issue at hand as to how we are redefining what we teach to our children in schools. The problem for evolutionists is that they are attempting to hold onto their own form of religio-philosophical belief system in the face of overwhelming pressure to return to reality and accept the role of the divine source of our origins. So we are witnessing a great social change in mainstream intellectual thinking and as a result of this, in our educational policies. The structural-functionalist paradigm views this as a complex system of parts that are promoting a new stability in our social systems. The conflict paradigm is focused on the inequality and conflict nature of the debate and how one view dominates the other. And, the symbolic interactionist paradigm views this as part of an everyday interaction of society without heeding to the emerging macro-level picture of our society. The approach of positivism to this study would be to look at the problem in terms of a cause and effect relationship and make use of the scientific method to analyse it. The aptly named evolutionary paradigm would regard this conflict in which creationists are getting headway over evolutionists as itself a social progressive evolution. Works Cited Apple, Michael W. 2008. Evolution Versus Creationism in Education. Educational Policy. March 2008. Volume 22 Number 2. p 121. Audi, Robert. N.d. Religion and the politics of science can evolutionary biology be religiously neutral? Philosophy and Social Criticism. Vol 35 Nos 1–2. p 31. Carbonell, Curtis D. 2008. Taking off the Gloves: Dawkins and the Root of All Evil? Journal of Religion and Popular Culture. Vol. XIX: Summer ’08. Freeman, Patricia K. and Houston, David J. 2009. The Biology Battle: Public Opinion and the Origins of Life. Politics and Religion, 2009, 2:54-75. Cambridge University Press. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=3EC44999723A06980E98286C55E49DB3.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=4869200. Hanson, Kathy. 2009. Iowa educators respond to evolution bill: Critics contend the bill is anti-evolution. The Tribune. Feb. 25, 2009. http://www.amestrib.com/articles/2009/02/25/ames_tribune/news/doc49a58285c440e717982265.txt. Hasson, Kevin S. 2005. The Right to Be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America. Encounter Books. House Bill No. 656. 95th General Assembly. http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills091/biltxt/intro/HB0656I.htm. Plutzer, Eric and Berkman, Michael. 2008. Trends: Evolution, Creationism, and the Teaching of Human Origins in Schools. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3):540-553, Oxford Journals. Scott, Eugenie and Branch. Glen. 2003. Evolution: What’s wrong with teaching the controversy? Trends in Ecology and Evolution. October 2003. Vol.18 No.10. Todd, Douglas. 2009. Paradigm shift occurring in science, philosophy and spirituality. The Search. Apr 18, 2009. http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2009/04/18/paradigm-shift-occurring-in-science-philosophy-and-spirituality.aspx. Tontonoz, Matthew J. 2008. The Scopes Trial Revisited: Social Darwinism versus Social Gospel. June 2008. Science as Culture. 17:2. p 127. Warnick, Bryan R. and Fooce, C. David. 2007. Does teaching creationism facilitate student autonomy? Theory and Research in Education. 2007, Vol. 5, P. 357. Read More