Abstract
No region in the world has won greater notoriety for its hostility to Darwinism than the American South. Despite the absence of any systematic study of evolution in the region, historians have insisted that southerners were uniquely resistant to evolutionary ideas. Rarely looking beyond the dismissals of Alexander Winchell from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, in the 1870s and James Woodrow from Columbia Theological Seminary Decatur, Georgia, in the 1880s—or the Scopes trial in the 1920s—they have concluded, in the words of Monroe Lee Billington, that “Darwinism as an intellectual movement … bypassed Southerners.” W. J. Cash, in his immensely influential book The Mind of the South, contended that “the overwhelming body of Southern schools either so frowned on [Darwinism] for itself or lived in such terror of popular opinion that possible heretics could not get into their faculties at all or were intimidated into keeping silent by the odds against them.” Darwin’s few southern converts either “took the way of discretion” by moving to northern universities or so qualified their discussions of evolution as to render the theory “almost sterile.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Monroe Lee Billington, The American South: A Brief History (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971), pp. 301–302; W. J. Cash, The Mind of the South (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1941), pp. 140–141. For other negative views by historians of the South, see William B. Hesseltine, A History of the South, 1607–1936 (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1936), p. 340; Clement Eaton, Freedom of Thought in the Old South (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1940), pp. 312–314; Thomas D. Clark, The Emerging South, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), pp. 248–252; John Samuel Ezell, The South since 1865, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1975), pp. 348–352; and Carl N. Degler, Place over Time: The Continuity of Southern Distinctiveness (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1977), p. 23. C. Vann Woodward’s classic Origins of the New South, 1872–1913 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951), remains surprisingly silent about evolution in the New South.
- 2.
George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 168–173; David N. Livingstone, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1987), p. 124. For a recent discussion of the importance of regionalism in the debates over evolution, see Jeffrey P. Moran, American Genesis: The Evolution Controversies from Scopes to Creation Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 47–71.
- 3.
Jon H. Roberts, Darwinism and the Divine in America: Protestant Intellectuals and Organic Evolution, 1859–1900 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988), p. 222; A. T. R[obertson], “Darwinism in the South,” Wake Forest Student 4 (1885): 205–206. James Moore brought this article to our attention.
- 4.
S. E. Morison, The Oxford History of the United States, 1783–1917, 2 vols. (London: Oxford University Press, 1927), 2:24; Ronald L. Numbers and Janet S. Numbers, “Science in the Old South: A Reappraisal,” in Science and Medicine in the Old South, ed. Ronald L. Numbers and Todd L. Savitt (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988), pp. 9–35.
- 5.
On Southern responses to the nebular hypothesis, see Ronald L. Numbers, Creation by Natural Law: Laplace’s Nebular Hypothesis in American Thought (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1977), pp. 37–38, 63–64, 86.
- 6.
A. D. Bache, “Remarks upon the Meeting of the American Association at Charleston, S.C., March 1850,” in American Association for the Advancement, Proceedings, Fourth Meeting … 1850 (Washington, DC, 185l); Robert L. Dabney, “Geology and the Bible,” Southern Presbyterian Review 14 (1861): 246–274; Robert L. Dabney, “A Caution Against Anti-Christian Science,” in Discussions by Robert L. Dabney, D.D., LL.D., ed. C. R. Vaughan, 4 vols. (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1892), 3:116–136. On the AAAS meeting, see also Sally Gregory Kohlstedt, The Formation of the American Scientific Community: The American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1848–60 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976), p. 116.
- 7.
Michael M. Tuomey, Report on the Geology of South Carolina (Columbia, SC: A. S. Johnston, 1848), pp. 58–59; Robert W. Gibbes, The Present Earth the Remains of a Former War: A Lecture Delivered before the South Carolina Institute, September 6, 1849 (Columbia, SC: A. S. Johnston, 1849), p. 31; R. T. B[rumby], “The PreAdamite Earth: Relations of Geology to Theology,” Southern Quarterly Review19 (1852): 420–455; [R. T. Brumby], “Relations of Science to the Bible,” Southern Presbyterian Review 25 (1874): 1–31; [R. T. Brumby], “Gradualness Characteristic of All God’s Operations,” ibid., pp. 524–555, quotation on p. 540.
- 8.
[James A. Lyon], “The New Theological Professorship—Natural Science in Connexion with Revealed Religion,” Southern Presbyterian Review12 (1859): 181–195; E. Brooks Holifield, “Science and Theology in the Old South,” in Science and Medicine in the Old South, ed. Numbers and Savitt, pp. 127–143, quotation on p. 142. See also Holifield, The Gentlemen Theologians: American Theology in Southern Culture, 195–1860 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1978). On southern responses to Vestiges, see Monte Harrell Hampton, Storm of Words: Science, Religion, and Evolution in the Civil War Era (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2014), pp. 129–152.
- 9.
J. William Flinn, “James Woodrow, A.M., D.D., M.D., LLD.,” in the South Carolina newspaper Columbia State, January 18, 1907, pp. 10–11. This biographical account, as well as many pamphlets related to the Woodrow affair, can be found in the John William Flinn Collection, Department of History, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Montreat, North Carolina. The reference to 4000 constituents appears in “The Trial of Professor Woodrow,” Southern Presbyterian, September 9, 1886, p. 2.
- 10.
James Woodrow, Editorial Note, Southern Presbyterian, May 28, 1885, p. 2.
- 11.
James Woodrow, Evolution: An Address Delivered May 7th, 1884, Before the Alumni Association of the Columbia Theological Seminary (Columbia SC: Presbyterian Publishing House, 1884), pp. 17–18, 23, 29. A more colorful version of Woodrow’s depiction of evolution from fish to man appeared as a direct quotation from Woodrow in a speech by William Adams, reprinted in “The General Assembly,” Southern Presbyterian, May 31, 1888, p. 2. For criticism of Woodrow’s views on the creation of Eve, see George D. Armstrong, The Two Books of Nature and Revelation Collated (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1886), p. 94. On Woodrow as a biblical inerrantist, see T. Watson Street, “The Evolution Controversy in the Southern Presbyterian Church with Attention to the Theological and Ecclesiastical Issues Raised,” Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society 37 (1959): 234. On Woodrow’s endorsement of Guyot, see “Professor Woodrow’s Speech Before the Synod of South Carolina,” Southern Presbyterian Review 36 (1885): 55. For Guyot’s views, see Numbers, Creation by Natural Law, pp. 91–100.
- 12.
“The Seminary Board Question Before the Synod,” Southern Presbyterian, July 30, 1885, p. 2; John L. Girardeau, The Substance of Two Speeches on the Teaching of Evolution in Columbia Theological Seminary, Delivered in the Synod of South Carolina, at Greenville, S.C., Oct. 1884 (Columbia, SC: William Sloan, 1885), p. 35; Ernest Trice Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, 3 vols. (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1973), 2:464. For excellent recent accounts of the Perkins Professorship and the Woodrow controversy, see David N. Livingstone, Dealing with Darwin: Place, Politics, and Rhetoric in Religious Engagements with Evolution (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014), pp. 117–156; and Hampton, Storm of Words, pp. 129–237. On Girardeau, see George A. Blackburn, The Life Work of john L. Girardeau, D.D., LL.D. (Columbia, SC: The State Company, 1916). On October 24, 1884, the Greenville Daily News credited Girardeau with firing “the first shot in the evolution controversy.”
- 13.
J. William Flinn, “Evolution and Theology: The Consensus of Science against Dr. Woodrow’s Opponents,” Southern Presbyterian Review 36 (1885): 510; “The Seminary Board Question before the Synod,” p. 2; “Columbia Theological Seminary,” Southern Presbyterian, December 18, 1884, p. 2; “Professor Woodrow’s Removal,” ibid.
- 14.
“A Sure Enough Subject for the Charleston ‘Inquisition,’” Southern Presbyterian, November 8, 1888, p. 2; George D. Armstrong, A Defence of the “Deliverance” on Evolution, Adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, May 26th, 1886 (Norfolk, VA: John D. Ghiselin, 1886), pp. 3–5.
- 15.
“The Outcome,” Southern Presbyterian, July 5, 1888, p. 2; “The General Assembly,” ibid., May 31, 1888, pp. 1–3. On Woodrow’s identification with Galileo, see “Professor Woodrow’s Speech Before the Synod of South Carolina,” pp. 56–58. On his alleged secularity, see “The Perkins Professor’s Case,” Southern Presbyterian, September 10, 1885, p. 2; and The Examination of the Rev. James Woodrow, D.D., by the Charleston Presbytery (Charleston, SC: Lucas & Richardson, 1890), p. 1. The quotation about being “routed” appears in Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, 2:489. The reference to Draper appears in J. William Flinn, “Evolution and Theology: The Logic of Prof. Woodrow’s Opponents Examined,” Southern Presbyterian Review 36 (1885): 268–304, quotation on p. 270.
- 16.
Flinn, “Evolution and Theology: The Consensus,” p. 508; J. Leighton Wilson, “The Evolution Difficulty,” Southern Presbyterian, September 17, 1885, p. 2.
- 17.
John B. Adger, “The Synod at Cheraw,” Southern Presbyterian, November 4, 1886, p. 2; “Evolution in the Church,” ibid., October 16, 1884, p. 2.
- 18.
Armstrong, The Two Books, pp. 86, 96; “The General Assembly,” Southern Presbyterian, May 27, 1886, p. 2. On Armstrong’s standing, see Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, 2: 477.
- 19.
“Drs. Patton and Hodge on Evolution and the Scriptures,” Southern Presbyterian, May 6, 1886, p. 2. See also “Sir William Dawson on the Relations of Evolution to the Bible,” ibid., May 13, 1886, p. 2.
- 20.
Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, pp. 168–173; Flinn, “Evolution and Theology: The Consensus,” p. 579; Emma M. Barnett to James Woodrow, September 5, 1884, quoted in Smith, “The Philosophy of Science,” p. 316.
- 21.
“The Ecclesiastical Blunder,” Southern Presbyterian, December 11, 1884, p. 2; “More Work for the ‘Inquisition,’” ibid., November 29, 1888, p. 2; “Evolution in the South,” New York Times, April 5, 1885, reprinted in the New Orleans Daily Picayune, April 14, 1885, from a copy in James Woodrow’s scrapbook, Department of History, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Montreat, North Carolina; Flinn, “Evolution and Theology: The Consensus,” pp. 578–579 (emphasis in the original).
- 22.
David N. Livingstone, Adam’s Ancestors: Race, Religion and the Politics of Human Origins (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008), pp. 141–153, 186–91 (Winchell). See also Leonard Alberstadt, “Alexander Winchell’s Preadamites—A Case for Dismissal from Vanderbilt University,” Earth Sciences History13 (1994): 97–112; and Paul Conkin, Gone with the Ivy: A Biography of Vanderbilt University (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1985), pp. 50–51, 60–63. Between 1868 and 1876, the North Georgia geologist and mining engineer Matthew Fleming Stephenson developed a pre-Adamite theory but rejected the Darwinian theory; Lester D. Stephens, “The Earth and Humans Before Adam: The Pre-Adamite Theory of Georgia Geologist Matthew Fleming Stephenson,” Georgia Historical Quarterly 100 (2016): 40–61.
- 23.
Conkin, Gone with the Ivy, pp. 63, 97; “Religion and Science at Vanderbilt,” Popular Science Monthly 13 (1878): 492–495; “Vanderbilt University Again,” ibid. 14 (1878): 237–239.
- 24.
William B. Gatewood, Jr., Preachers, Pedagogues and Politicians: The Evolution Controversy in North Carolina, 1920–1927 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1966), p. 154; Cash, Mind of the South, p. 339.
- 25.
Moran, American Genesis, pp. 72–90. On the late nineteenth century, see Eric D. Anderson, “Black Responses to Darwinism, 1860–1890,” in Disseminating Darwinism: The Role of Place, Race, Religion, and Gender, ed. Ronald L. Numbers and John Stenhouse (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 247–266.
- 26.
Lester D. Stephens, “Darwin’s Disciple in Georgia: Henry Clay White, 1875–1927,” Georgia Historical Quarterly 78 (1994): 66–91; Stephens, “Southern Spokesman for Modern Biology: John Pendleton Campbell,” Georgia Journal of Science 58 (2000): 183–93.
- 27.
Stephens, “Darwin’s Disciple in Georgia.”
- 28.
Flinn, “Evolution and Theology: The Consensus,” p. 545; “Professor Caldwell at Tulane University,” Southern Presbyterian, July 23, 1885, p. 2; “What Is It?” ibid., January 19, 1888, p. 2. Flinn pastored a Presbyterian church in New Orleans from 1878 to 1888.
- 29.
John B. Elliott, “President’s Address Before the New Orleans Academy of Sciences,” Papers Read Before the New Orleans Academy of Sciences, 1886–87, pp. 5–18; Elliott, “The Deeper Revelations of Science: Annual Address Before the Academy of Sciences, Feb. 7, 1888,” ibid., 1887–88, pp. 398–419.
- 30.
George Little, Memoirs of George Little (Tuscaloosa, AL: Weatherford Printing Co., [1924]), p. 101. See also Flinn, “Evolution and Theology: The Consensus,” p. 544.
- 31.
On evolution at the University of Virginia and the University of North Carolina, see “Professor Woodrow’s Speech Before the Synod of South Carolina,” pp. 34–35. For the University of Alabama, see James B. Sellers, History of the University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1953), pp. 540–541. Woodrow taught evolution in his geology classes at the University of South Carolina.
- 32.
Daniel Walker Hollis, University of South Carolina, vol. 2: College to University (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1956), pp. 165–180, 245–246; William D. Anderson, Jr., “Andrew C. Moore’s ‘Evolution Once More’: The Evolution-Creationism Controversy from an Early 1920s Perspective,” Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 22 (2002): 1–35.
- 33.
“Professor Woodrow’s Speech Before the Synod of South Carolina,” p. 34; “What Is It?” p. 2; “Inaccurate Reports,” Southern Presbyterian, November 20, 1884, p. 2; Flinn,“Evolution and Theology: The Consensus,” pp. 545–546.
- 34.
“Professor Caldwell at Tulane University,” p. 2; “The Southwestern Presbyterian University and Evolution,” Southern Presbyterian, December 4, 1884, p. 2; Flinn, “Evolution and Theology: The Consensus,” pp. 544–545.
- 35.
This paragraph is taken in large part from Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, expanded ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press, 2006), pp. 54–55. See also Randal L. Hall, William Louis Poteat: A Leader of the Progressive-Era South (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2000).
- 36.
Regarding Wofford, see “Professor Woodrow’s Speech Before the Synod of South Carolina,” p. 34. Regarding Guilford, see Joseph Moore, “The Greatest Factor in Human Evolution,” Guilford Collegian 6 (1894): 240–244; T. Gilbert Pearson, “Evolution in Its Relation to Man,” ibid. 8 (1896): 107–111; Pearson, Adventures in Bird Protection: An Autobiography (New York: D. Appleton-Century, 1937), pp. 58–59; and Oliver H. Orr, Jr., Saving American Birds: T. Gilbert Pearson and the Founding of the Audubon Movement (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1992), pp. 19, 42, 46, 49, 81.
- 37.
J. Lawrence Smith, “Address,” Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Portland, ME, 1873), pp. 14–16. On medical opinion, see, e.g., J. C., Review of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, by Charles Darwin, Richmond and Louisville Medical Journal 9 (1870): 84–100; and F. M. Robertson, “President’s Address,” Transactions of the South Carolina Medical Association, 1880–81, Appendix, pp. 115. We are indebted to the late Patricia Spain Ward for these last two references.
- 38.
John McCrady, “The Law of Development by Specialization: A Sketch of Its Probable Universality,” Journal of the Elliott Society of Natural History 1 (1860): 101–114; Lester D. Stephens, Science, Race, and Religion in the American South: John Bachman and the Charleston Circle of Naturalists, 1815–1895 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), pp. 233–45, 254–56.
- 39.
John Bachman, “An Investigation of the Cases of Hybridity in Animals, Considered in Reference to the Unity of the Human Species,” Charleston Medical Journal 5 (1850): 168–197, especially p. 186; Lester D. Stephens, Ancient Animals and Other Wondrous Things: The Story of Francis Simmons Holmes, Paleontologist and Curator of the Charleston Museum (Charleston, SC: Charleston Museum, 1988); Lewis R. Gibbes, marginalia on letter from John L. Girardeau to Gibbes, March 5, 1891, in the Lewis R. Gibbes Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. See also Lester D. Stephens, “Overshadowed: John Backham’s Contribution to the Viviparous quadrupeds of North America,” South Carolina Historical Magazine 115 (2014): 282–303; Stephens, “Lewis R. Gibbes and the Professionalization of Science in Antebellum South Carolina,” unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Historical Association, Atlanta, November 13, 1980; and Stephens, “A Sketch of Natural History Collecting in Charleston, South Carolina: The Golden Age, 1820–1865,” unpublished paper presented at the second North American meeting of the Society for the History of Natural History, Pittsburgh, October 24, 1986.
- 40.
Tamara Miner Haygood, “Henry Ravenel (1814–1887): Views on Evolution in Social Context,” Journal of the History of Biology 21 (1988): 457–472; Gabriel E. Manigault, manuscript autobiography written ca. 1887–1897, in the Manigault Family Papers, Manuscripts Department, Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; J. H. Mellichamp to George Englemann, August 26, 1872, in the South Carolina Collection, Charleston Museum Library. See also Lester D. Stephens, “Nature as a Sacred Book: Views of Nineteenth-Century Charleston Physicians and Naturalists on Science and Religion,” Waring Library Annual Lecture, Charleston, South Carolina, April 4, 2002.
- 41.
Silas McDowell, undated (ca. 1865 or later) manuscript entitled “Evolution” in the Silas McDowell Papers, Manuscripts Department, Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Edmund Berkeley and Dorothy Smith Berkeley, A Yankee Botanist in the Carolinas: The Reverend Moses Ashley Curtis, D.D. (1808–1872) (Berlin: J. Cramer, 1986).
- 42.
“The Evolution Hypothesis,” Southern Review 3 (1868): 408–440, quotation on p. 419. For somewhat more critical assessments in the same journal, see “The Origin of Species,” ibid. 9 (1871): 700–728; “Darwinism,” ibid. 12 (1873): 406–423; and “Philosophy Versus Darwinism,” ibid. 13 (1873): 253–273.
- 43.
[W. S. Bean], “The Outlook of Modem Science,” Southern Presbyterian Review 25 (1874): 331–338, quotation on p. 335. The Robertson quotation appears in James Moore, The Darwin Legend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), p. 119.
- 44.
Numbers, The Creationists, pp. 54–55, 61–63. On the contested boundaries of “fundamentalism” in the 1920s, see Adam Laats, Fundamentalism and Education in the Scopes Era: God, Darwin, and the Roots of America’s Culture Wars (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), chap. 2. On the fight over evolution at the University of Kentucky, see Eric A. Moyen, Frank L. McVey and the University of Kentucky: A Progressive President and the Modernization of a Southern University (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2011), pp. 108–120. On the conflict over evolution at the University of Tennessee, see James R. Montgomery, Threshold of a New Day: The University of Tennessee, 1919–1946 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1971), pp. 21–25, 39–49.On the controversy at Southern Methodist University in the early 1920s, see Mary Martha Hosford Thomas, Southern Methodist University: Founding and Early Years (Dallas: SMU Press, 1974), pp. 98–100.
- 45.
Numbers, The Creationists, p. 59; “Fighting Evolution at the Fundamentals Convention,” Christian Fundamentals in School and Church 7 (July/September 1925): 5. On the Scopes trial, see Edward J. Larson’s superb Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion (New York: Basic Books, 1997); Ronald L. Numbers, “The Scopes Trial: History and Legend,” in Numbers, Darwinism Comes to America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), pp. 76–91; and Paul K. Conklin, When the Gods Trembled: Darwinism, Scopes, and American Intellectuals (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998), pp. 79–109. On the growth and organization of the antievolution movement, see Michael Lienesch, In the Beginning: Fundamentalism, the Scopes Trial, and the Making of the Antievolution Movement (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007). On educational reform in Tennessee before the trial, see Charles A. Israel, Before Scopes: Evangelicalism, Education, and Evolution in Tennessee, 1870–1925 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2004). On the evolution debate in Georgia, see Lester D. Stephens, “Evolution Controversy,” New Georgia Encyclopedia (19 August 2013; Web version 29 November 2015).
- 46.
Adam R. Shapiro, Trying Biology: The Scopes Trial, Textbooks, and the Antievolution Movement in American Schools (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013), pp. 14–15, 36–38.
- 47.
Maynard Shipley, The War on Modern Science: A Short History of the Fundamentalist Attacks on Evolution and Modernism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1927), pp. 75–186, quotation on p. 141. See also Norman F. Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918–1931 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954), pp. 76–100.
- 48.
James Coffee Harris, The World as Science Sees It; or, Matter and Life (Rome, Ga.: n.p., 1914), p. vi.
- 49.
F. D. Perkins, “Evolution Theory Taught in American Schools,” Western Recorder, August 11, 1921, p. 4; J. Frank Norris to William Jennings Bryan, December 28, 1923, Box 38, Bryan Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress; Numbers, The Creationists, pp. 61–62.
- 50.
Edward J. Larson, Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution, 3rd (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 98–124, 134–139, 150–184. On the spread of antievolution sentiment outside the United States, see Numbers, “Creationism Goes Global,” in The Creationists, pp. 399–431; and Stefaan Blancke, Hans Henrik Hjermitslev, Peter C. Kjærgaard, eds., Creationism in Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014).
- 51.
Numbers, The Creationists, pp. 2–3, 391–394 (from which several sentences are extracted); Larson, Trial and Error, pp. 200–205, 246; Stephens, “Evolution Controversy.”
- 52.
Numbers, The Creationists, pp. 400–401. See also Susan Trollinger and William Vance Trollinger Jr., Righting America at the Creation Museum (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming); and James S. Bielo, “Literally Creative: Intertextual Gaps and Artistic Agency,” in Scripturalizing the Human: The Written as the Political, ed. Vincent L. Wimbush (New York: Routledge, 2015), pp. 20–34 (Ark Encounter).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Numbers, R.L., Stephens, L.D. (2017). Darwinism in the American South. In: Lynn, C., Glaze, A., Evans, W., Reed, L. (eds) Evolution Education in the American South. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95139-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95139-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-95138-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-95139-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)