Christopher Lynch
HIS 4150
In The Beginning As theocracy encroaches further and further into politics and curricula, and especially so in the South, examining antievolutionary thought is both timely and sometimes necessary. Even though evolution—which, with its mounting evidence, seems more and more irrefutable—is nowadays practically a hallmark of modern science, many Americans still doubt it, and many even lobby and shape legislation that prevents it from being taught in classrooms. A startling and relatively recent example is Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, who signed into law in 2008 the Louisiana Science Education Act, which was opposed by 78 Nobel laureates. It made it possible to introduce into public schools “intelligent design” and …show more content…
Couching it in the history of social movements, Lienesch analyzes fundamentalism as he might most other social issues—civil rights, women’s rights—in U.S. history. He casts a refreshing light on the movement by focusing less on what other historians address and by emphasizing such social factors as the newfound identity fundamentalists adopted, the grassroots activism, their political connections and machinations, and the way in which the Scopes Trial almost furthered their cause by winning supporters via the media coverage and the subsequent introduction (and occasional ratification) of copious antievolution legislation. All in all, Lienesch offers a fresher perspective on fundamentalism—and the nature of social movements—with his methodology of social history. However, In The Beginning does have some shortcomings. Lienesch states at the onset that he wants to draw attention away from the Scopes Trial and, by viewing it as a social movement, by tracing its genesis, provide a more balanced account. He then undermines himself by spending too much time on the trial for readers who are probably already familiar with it. It detracts from the later chapters. The ensuing chapters focusing on 1932 to the present day, which encompasses intelligent design and other products of fundamentalist camps, receive less attention than the Scopes Trial. As a result, Lienesch spends more time recalling bygone events and less time explaining what the vestiges of fundamentalism—like intelligent design—mean for us
HIS 4150
In The Beginning As theocracy encroaches further and further into politics and curricula, and especially so in the South, examining antievolutionary thought is both timely and sometimes necessary. Even though evolution—which, with its mounting evidence, seems more and more irrefutable—is nowadays practically a hallmark of modern science, many Americans still doubt it, and many even lobby and shape legislation that prevents it from being taught in classrooms. A startling and relatively recent example is Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, who signed into law in 2008 the Louisiana Science Education Act, which was opposed by 78 Nobel laureates. It made it possible to introduce into public schools “intelligent design” and …show more content…
Couching it in the history of social movements, Lienesch analyzes fundamentalism as he might most other social issues—civil rights, women’s rights—in U.S. history. He casts a refreshing light on the movement by focusing less on what other historians address and by emphasizing such social factors as the newfound identity fundamentalists adopted, the grassroots activism, their political connections and machinations, and the way in which the Scopes Trial almost furthered their cause by winning supporters via the media coverage and the subsequent introduction (and occasional ratification) of copious antievolution legislation. All in all, Lienesch offers a fresher perspective on fundamentalism—and the nature of social movements—with his methodology of social history. However, In The Beginning does have some shortcomings. Lienesch states at the onset that he wants to draw attention away from the Scopes Trial and, by viewing it as a social movement, by tracing its genesis, provide a more balanced account. He then undermines himself by spending too much time on the trial for readers who are probably already familiar with it. It detracts from the later chapters. The ensuing chapters focusing on 1932 to the present day, which encompasses intelligent design and other products of fundamentalist camps, receive less attention than the Scopes Trial. As a result, Lienesch spends more time recalling bygone events and less time explaining what the vestiges of fundamentalism—like intelligent design—mean for us