2 10 39 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/abcea9ec34276207a6ee19b4fd8da783.jpg 01669ba5614e9e57b9d506cd97a09db5 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Popularizing the Wireless Transmitter Description An account of the resource The history of science is a history not often spotlighted by mainstream history, but it is a fascinating history that well deserves the recognition of historians. In the 21st century world we live in today we enjoy many comforts including but not limited by the microwave to quickly heat our food without huge fires, vaccines and germ theory to protect us against disease that might have wiped out entire continents a couple hundred years ago, and we live in an age where someone sitting on the Indian subcontinent can communicate with someone in their living room in Tucson Arizona almost instanously. The world of Twitter and other social media has linked the world in ways that would seem the world of science fiction a couple decades ago before the invention of the microchip. We live in a world that is so interconnected but yet so many people don’t know the story of how we got to this point in the year 2020. History has been argued by some scholars to be the study of stories. Essentially historians take primary accounts and sift through the data and find the puzzle that best matches the pieces. This is the same with the history of science, it is a story that doesn’t require the knowledge of the science being discovered by these great men and women of science it simply requires an understanding of how pieces fit together to compliment the whole. The globalized world of twitter and instant help from across the ocean had a starting place, and that starting place at least in the digital age began at Southwestern with an invention by a man named Robert Stewart Heyer in the year 1895<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> when he arguably for the first time in history sent a wireless message from his Southwestern laboratory to the jailhouse in Georgetown, a distance of over a mile. Robert Stewart Heyer, the man I knew is Heyer’s official autobiography written by his daughter Rey Heyer Brown and only 1000 copies were ever made. During his time, he was a professor of science’s, served as president of Southwestern and later served as president of Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Gugliemo Marconi is the Italian inventor and electrical engineer who went down in the history books as the first man in history to send a wireless transmission over a distance out of earshot. Marconi famously sent his transmission in the year 1901, Robert Heyer sent his signal in 1805<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>, six whole years before Marconi. Why did the world give the spotlight to Marconi when Heyer was actually the first to send a wireless transmission? Heyer’s feat has been collaborated by the other professors at Southwestern during his time there as well as countless students and the jailer who received his signal<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>. It turns out geography itself may be why the spotlight was given to Marconi. Georgetown was taken from the Tonkawa Indians was taken and settled in 1848 by George Washington Glasscock and had a steadily growing population. Even though Georgetown the town where Southwestern was situated was growing, Texas in the late 1800’s was still wilderness and besides a few towns here and there it was sparse wilderness. Telegraph lines were present but not everywhere that meant that there was little communication between settlements. Marconi who was working In Europe, a man born in Italy but setting up his company The Wireless Telegraph and Signal Company in the United Kingdom was in the most interconnected, funded and scientific areas of the world at the time. In Robert Stewart Heyer, the Man I Knew his daughter talks about other reasons, according to her he didn’t even want credit for his invention. He was unable to get a proper patent for his invention and prioritized his family over his invention. He was a tinkerer at heart and that sufficed his needs. Heyer and Marconi’s wireless transmitters although revolutionary, were not the first attempts at wireless transmission in history. The advantage of long-distance communication from everything from military maneuvers to city to city communication was a feat that had recognized significance. The very first attempts at distance communication took place by the Greeks, Persians and Chinese, simultaneously reaching the conclusion the distance communication could be advantageous independently around the same time period. They would use smoke signals on top of hills to communicate. Later in history around the beginning of the scientific revolution the advantage of distance communication was still feat that was valued and an invention called the Semaphore would demonstrate this. The semaphore used giant lever operated hands to send messages in a format that is similar to morse code to semaphore stations up to 12 miles away. A string of these stations could be set up on hilltops with a telescope at each station. But like imagining modern science in a context today without computers distance communication was limited to the eyes, and for distance communication to work a force unseen and powerful would be needed to work. The invention of the telegraph by Robert Morse was this invention. <a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a>Thanks solely to the discovery of electromagnetism by Hans Oesrsted and the invention of the battery by Alessandro Volta, this unseen communication was brought to the world. “Hardly a day intervened when General Grant did not know the exact state of facts with me, more than fifteen-hundred miles off – William Tecumesh Sherman (civil war general)”, the civil war saw the unprecedented boom of telegraph technology on both Confederate and Union sides of the war<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>. There was a catch to this tech however and that was in order to communicate, telegraph lines would need to be set up. These lines would span hundreds, thousands of miles at times and would take the workforce of the nation in uncharted wilderness to erect, there had to be an easier way to do things and there was. Heyer followed by Marconi would start the ball rolling on an invention that used the same electrical pulses as the telegraph machine but sent the message without thousands of miles of cables, through the spark gap transmitter. Robert Heyer and Marconi both created a wireless transmitter that worked in almost the same way. what has been classified today as a Spark Gap Transmitter, this transmitter sent an electrical shock to an oscillatory circuit, consisting of an inductance/ capacitance in sequence, essentially an electrical shock was converted to a single radio wave of non-variable frequency and wave length. Controlling the electrical pulse on the sending end, Heyer and Marconi could send a message using morse code. This technology was immediately recognized for its full potential, in full by the US Navy.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> Around 1910 the US Navy conducted a huge experiment with two of its ships which were outfitted with Marconi’s radio technology, using an evolved Spark Gap-transmitter (the same type of transmitter invented by Heyer) 1000 miles away these ships were able to broadcast a clear and distinct message to a massive radio antenna sitting on the US coastline. What were the obstacles that prevented Heyer’s invention from becoming used worldwide as soon as they were invented before 1910? This was the Austin-Cohen theory, which stated radio waves decay at the inverse square root of a wavelength. This theory came into the mainstream scientific and engineering circles around the same time Heyer’s radio contraptions were being brought into the same circles. This theory actually soon had become a law, and for all early radio inventions, they all abided heavily by this theory. This theory basically inferred that a radio wave could not travel the length of the Atlantic Ocean because of this decay, and the only way to make this happen would be to create a receiver that is tall enough but the distances at stake are far too large and thus the receiver would need to be unfeasibly tall. Ultra-low frequency waves would change everything however, and the US navy demonstrated this in two tests the test in 1910 mentioned earlier and a later test in 1913. These ultra-low frequency waves (any wave between 300 hertz and 3 kilohertz) can be broadcast at a range between 100 and 1000KM. Extremely low frequency waves (ELF) waves are waves that broadcast at an even lower frequency (3 to 30 Hz) and these wavelengths can be broadcast at a range of 10,000 to 100,000 Kilometers. <a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a>These two wave discoveries opened up the door for long distance radio communication. In the 1890’s was the decade actually that the navy began to take notice, that science and engineering advancements could intertwine not just in industry but also with warfare quoting “this is the birth of a new navy”. Heyer did not invent radio and communication, but his invention is a crucial piece to an emerging science and technological puzzle that was being solved at the end of the 19the and beginning of the 20th century. Without his invention that for intents of this paper can be symbolized through Marconi (because Heyer invented the wireless transmitter first) the invention of the radio that we are most familiar with today could not have been reached if the crucial stepping stone that was Heyer’s invention was not invented first. In chapter 40 of a little history of science, it is the final chapter of the book and it concludes everything by talking about science in the digital age. This age we live in now has its own chapter, arguably it is as important in the history of science to Marie Curie’s advancements on radiation if not more so. The level of importance doesn’t matter for the case of this argument, from the early days of the Hollerieth machine and the punch card in the early 20th century to Alan Turning’s early computer work eventually that led to the invention of the microchip. Computers talk to one another, and more so now than ever in the 5G world we live in now It is almost unfathomable to imagine a world where communication with the nearest town or city is weeks of walking away, or a fire on a hilltop, even in the arms of a semaphore across the valley. History of Science by Sean F. Johnson in his chapter 2 Big Ideas and Compelling approaches helps to put Marconi and Howe’s inventions in place in the global history of science. The global history of science started with astronomy with hunter gatherer populations. Astreo- archeology shows us their connection, left behind by these people such as the ‘marriage of earth and sky’ when the serpent from Serpent Mound (a site in Ohio possibly created by the Fort Ancient culture who were hunter gatherers, but its creation remains a mystery of giant serpent with an oval in its mouth) is positioned precisely true north and every summer solstice the sun shines through a precise gap in a nearby hilltop right down the center of the serpent. Plato and his republic used their knowledge of their times to create explanations for the world that fit logically. The scientific revolution was another key point in the history of science, with scientists revising many of Plato’s and the other Greek philosophers’ ideas and creating the framework for science as we see it today. In their own subset Marconi and Heyer’s invention was one of these turning points in the history of science, they helped to create communication that’s instantaneous and global, and for that we thank them today. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ian Jones Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Robert Stewart Heyer, the man I knew <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Robert Stewart Heyer, the man I knew <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Robert Stewart Heyer, the man I knew <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Neuenfeldt, Eric. "Telegraph." In Wild Horse: Stories, 120-40. Amherst; Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2016. Accessed April 27, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1hd198v.12. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Neuenfeldt, Eric. "Telegraph." In Wild Horse: Stories, 120-40. Amherst; Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2016. Accessed April 27, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1hd198v.12. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Yeang, Chen-Pang. "Scientific Fact or Engineering Specification? The U.S. Navy's Experiments on Wireless Telegraphy circa 1910." Technology and Culture 45, no. 1 (2004): 1-29. Accessed April 27, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/40060578. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a>Yeang, Chen-Pang. "Scientific Fact or Engineering Specification? The U.S. Navy's Experiments on Wireless Telegraphy circa 1910." Technology and Culture 45, no. 1 (2004): 1-29. Accessed April 27, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/40060578. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wireless Transmitter Photograph Subject The topic of the resource Photograph Description An account of the resource A picture of Robert Stewart Heyer and other professors at SU gathered around his transmitter Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Southwestern Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Diagram of Hyer’s Wireless Transmitter Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available SU Special Collections Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1895 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Property of Southwestern University Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Photograph https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/baa23a000c9d4da8f1c074337c2a0f4e.jpg f7951999066ec564da51335f54cd9c12 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History and Discourse Around Evolution at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource The theory of evolution proposes that life changed and diversified over time through a process known as natural selection, in which organisms who are better suited to survive outreproduce and outlast other organisms.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> The main ideology that opposes evolutionary theory goes under the monikers “creationism”, “creation science”, or “intelligent design”.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> They claim that life was created in it’s final form, usually by a god.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Religion has always been somewhat at odds with evolution, which is a natural occurrence resulting from the lack of any mention of evolution in the Bible and other holy texts. The rejection of evolution by much of the religious public seems to be on the decline in recent years, however, with the introduction of new theories that allow aspects of creationism to be conserved while still accepting evolutionary thought. But as the principles behind evolution are brought to other fields, some of that tension seems to be resurfacing as people look for evolutionary perspectives that allow them to keep their faith intact. These effects were put on display at Southwestern University in 2009, with the discourse at times returning to an ideological battle. The split between scientists and the lay people can be seen in the conflict between followers of evolution and creationism, with a major battleground for them being the rules around what is taught in public schools. Evolution has slowly replaced creationism in US public schools, but never in every state at once, and with uniformity within states.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> In many instances teachers are not allowed to speak out against creationism while teaching evolution, and are allowed to frame them as “alternatives” to each other without taking a clear side.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> Many of the decisions are handled on the state level.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> In addition, teacher religious beliefs have been found to be predictive of their willingness to teach evolution.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> For example, in 2007, Texas Education Agency’s Director of Science Curriculum, Christine Comer was forced to resign from her position after asking an anti-creationism speaker to speak at the school.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> The Texas Education Agency explained that she had made it look like the TEA had taken a side on the evolution debate when they intended to remain neutral.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> This example (which occured around two years before the Brown Symposium discussed in this paper) hilights that the “war” had yet to be won by the other side, and that battles were still being fought. In CP Snow’s lecture the Two Cultures, he says that academia has been fractured along the lines of “scientists' ' and “literary intellectuals” <a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>. This makes sense in light of the increasing knowledge gap between scientists and others caused by specialization of science<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> . In a way, Snow describes a deficit model, in which the scientists are separated not only from the general public, but also from other intellectuals from outside their field. But as we will see, the deficit model is not always accurate to reality. As said by Bensaude-Vincent, “notions such as “lay public” and “science mediators’ are historical constructions rather than stable categories”<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a>. The “deficit model”, depicts the public as having a deficit of scientific knowledge and somewhat helpless, requiring the help of enlightened scientists to guide them to knowledge.<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> While it is easy to view the issue of evolution as seen by the public along the lines of the deficit model, with the evolutionists representing the scientists, and the ignorant and the religious representing the lay public, that is a reductionist view that ignores many of the nuances of reality. In 2009, two speakers spoke about evolution and religion at Southwestern University. One speaker was David Sloan Wilson, with his talk “ Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion”.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> His talk revolved around the use of evolution as a model for the development of Religion.<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> He pointed out how the “survival tactics” of religious groups often mimicked the behavior of different species of animals in the wild, by cooperating with group members, and at times being hostile towards other, competing groups.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> He described this as emerging from a type of “evolution”, not of species, but of ideas behind religion.<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> His insistence that religions were entirely human ideas gathered some dissent from the audience, with two (out of four) questions having to do with his claims against the “engaged god hypothesis”, or whether there is an active god.<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> This can be seen as a case of the popularization of science being done in a way that alienates the people it was attempting to reach. This plays into the version of the deficit model that depicts the evolutionist attempting to reach the religious masses, who reject him (at least in part) due to finding parts of his message offensive. But it can also be seen as an incident of a dialogue being had between the two worlds, something unexpected in the deficit model, in which communication is only necessary in the direction of scientist to layperson. The other speaker on evolution was Simon Conway Morris, who spoke on a religious view of evolution, describing an “alternate look between Darwin and Creationism”.<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> In “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation”, he spoke at length about convergent evolution, which is the evolution of two unrelated species arriving at a point in which the species are very similar in form.<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> He repeatedly used the word “inevitable” to describe this evolution, and he said that he was considering the possibility that the results of all evolution was predetermined.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> This speaker shows some traits of religiosity while definitely being a part of the “scientific elite”, given his academic achievements (he was a professor of evolutionary palaeobiology at Cambridge).<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> This breaks down the version of the deficit model that paints religiosity, and even (to an extent) creationism as the common people who the scientists must educate. The audience used the question and answers to gain further information about the lecture, which is a more active involvement than the deficit model usually depicts. The deficit model and Snow’s two culture models do not seem to apply neatly to the two lectures discussed. Wilson’s lecture featured a dialogue with the audience, dirtying the deficit model, and he occupied both the scientific and literary fields of academia simultaneously, working poorly with Snow’s Two Cultures proposition. The lecture represents somewhat of a reversal from much of history: the interpretation of religion in the light of evolution, rather than interpreting evolutionary thought in the light of religion. Morris’ presentation gives a modern take on religious interpretation of evolutionary theory: an attempt to potentially merge evolutionary thought with religious thought, rather than an attempt to subdue evolutionary thought with religion. Morris’ talk was much more religious than his contemporaries would have made it, despite being a scientist, which deflates the notion that religion can be used as a stand in for lay people in the deficit model. The presence of both speakers presenting in a very public forum in front of a mixed secular and religious audience is an example of the evolutionary and religious groups continuing to coexist in the modern day. The students of Southwestern University published several responses to the Symposium shortly after the event. Their opinions were somewhat mixed, with some viewing the event with reverence and others with complete disregard. One student, William Thomas referred to it as an “eye-opening opportunity” that can “broaden their field of knowledge” in his article “The question: Class or Brown Symposium'' in which he advocates for students to be allowed to attend future Symposiums instead of class.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> In addition, some students seemed to resent the way the symposium approached the topic of Religion and Science, wanting it to focus more on science that backs up the validity of religion. In his article “God vs. science duke it out at SU, neither win,” Andrew Dornon stated that “The point of academia is to promote truth and the dismantling of false paradigms, such as racism and sexism. So why not religion?”, and called the lack of scientific proof of religion the ignored “pink elephant in the room”.<a href="#_ftn24">[24]</a> This stance was also represented in the question and answer section of the symposium (in which every speaker is gathered), in a question that asked why religious scientists don’t apply scientific principles to religion.<a href="#_ftn25">[25]</a> Interestingly, Morris and Wilson both had a response to the question, with Morris pointing out that science doesn’t have the answer to all questions, giving religion some usefulness in that regard, while Wilson pointed out that science was not a “value system” on its own, while religion can provide a value system.<a href="#_ftn26">[26]</a> The conflict between religion and evolution continues, and has been imortalized in Southwestern history. Andrew Dornon put it accurately when he said “neither God nor science won at Southwestern.”<a href="#_ftn27">[27]</a> In the question and answer section of Wilson’s talk, this conflict came to light somewhat and was abruptly cut short by time without finding a clear resolution. There is seemingly an anxiety around taking evolutionary theories and thinking too far: issuing a direct challenge to religion, specifically Christian religion. While most agree that the Genesis account of the creation of life as we know it isn’t literally what happened, people seem to become upset and challenged when it is suggested that biblical events didn’t happen. Some people, namely atheists such as Dornon seem very keen to push the issue as far as they can, perhaps in hopes of winning some ideological battles. So it remains that evolutionary theories can be used together with religious thought (as in Morris’ presentation), it can also still be seen as an affront to them (as in the crowd’s reaction to Wilson’s presentation). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nancy Scott Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> “Theory of Evolution.” National Geographic Society, June 5, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/theory-evolution/. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Singham, Mano. God vs. Darwin: the War between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom (Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Education, 2011), vii <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> “Creationism.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., March 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/topic/creationism. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” NPR. NPR, December 21, 2005. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630737. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Zabarenko, Deborah. “Tennessee Teacher Law Could Boost Creationism, Climate Denial.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, April 13, 2012. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” NPR. NPR, December 21, 2005. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Mangahas, Ana Marie E. “Perceptions of High School Biology Teachers in Christian Schools on Relationships Between Religious Beliefs and Teaching Evolution.” Journal of Research on Christian Education 26, no. 1 (January 2017): 24 <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 30, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 30, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Snow, C. P. (Charles Percy), 1905-1980. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. New York :Cambridge University Press, 1959., 87-88 <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.’” ISIS 100, no. 2 (June 2009): 361. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/599547 <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.”, 365 <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Nieto-Galan, Agusti. Science in the Public Sphere. (Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge, 2016), 3 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Wilson, David Sloan. “Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion.” Lecture, The Brown Symposium XXXI, Georgetown, February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Morris, Simon Conway. “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation.” Lecture,The Brown Symposium XXXI, Georgetown, February 5, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Thomas, William. “The Question: Class or Brown Symposium.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref24">[24]</a> Dornon, Andrew. “God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref25">[25]</a> Newberg, Andrew, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese. “Panel Discussion.” Brown Symposium XXXI. February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref26">[26]</a> Newberg, Andrew, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese. “Panel Discussion.” Brown Symposium XXXI. February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref27">[27]</a> Dornon, Andrew. “God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Question: Class or Brown Symposium Subject The topic of the resource The Brown Symposium XXXI Description An account of the resource Discussion around class times running at the same time as the Brown Symposium, covering multiple viewpoints. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource William Thomas Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Megaphone, school newspaper of Southwestern University. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Megaphone. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Feburary 12, 2009 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Physical Newspaper Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Opinion Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context The Brown Symposium XXXI Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History and Discourse Around Evolution at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource The theory of evolution proposes that life changed and diversified over time through a process known as natural selection, in which organisms who are better suited to survive outreproduce and outlast other organisms.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> The main ideology that opposes evolutionary theory goes under the monikers “creationism”, “creation science”, or “intelligent design”.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> They claim that life was created in it’s final form, usually by a god.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Religion has always been somewhat at odds with evolution, which is a natural occurrence resulting from the lack of any mention of evolution in the Bible and other holy texts. The rejection of evolution by much of the religious public seems to be on the decline in recent years, however, with the introduction of new theories that allow aspects of creationism to be conserved while still accepting evolutionary thought. But as the principles behind evolution are brought to other fields, some of that tension seems to be resurfacing as people look for evolutionary perspectives that allow them to keep their faith intact. These effects were put on display at Southwestern University in 2009, with the discourse at times returning to an ideological battle. The split between scientists and the lay people can be seen in the conflict between followers of evolution and creationism, with a major battleground for them being the rules around what is taught in public schools. Evolution has slowly replaced creationism in US public schools, but never in every state at once, and with uniformity within states.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> In many instances teachers are not allowed to speak out against creationism while teaching evolution, and are allowed to frame them as “alternatives” to each other without taking a clear side.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> Many of the decisions are handled on the state level.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> In addition, teacher religious beliefs have been found to be predictive of their willingness to teach evolution.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> For example, in 2007, Texas Education Agency’s Director of Science Curriculum, Christine Comer was forced to resign from her position after asking an anti-creationism speaker to speak at the school.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> The Texas Education Agency explained that she had made it look like the TEA had taken a side on the evolution debate when they intended to remain neutral.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> This example (which occured around two years before the Brown Symposium discussed in this paper) hilights that the “war” had yet to be won by the other side, and that battles were still being fought. In CP Snow’s lecture the Two Cultures, he says that academia has been fractured along the lines of “scientists' ' and “literary intellectuals” <a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>. This makes sense in light of the increasing knowledge gap between scientists and others caused by specialization of science<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> . In a way, Snow describes a deficit model, in which the scientists are separated not only from the general public, but also from other intellectuals from outside their field. But as we will see, the deficit model is not always accurate to reality. As said by Bensaude-Vincent, “notions such as “lay public” and “science mediators’ are historical constructions rather than stable categories”<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a>. The “deficit model”, depicts the public as having a deficit of scientific knowledge and somewhat helpless, requiring the help of enlightened scientists to guide them to knowledge.<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> While it is easy to view the issue of evolution as seen by the public along the lines of the deficit model, with the evolutionists representing the scientists, and the ignorant and the religious representing the lay public, that is a reductionist view that ignores many of the nuances of reality. In 2009, two speakers spoke about evolution and religion at Southwestern University. One speaker was David Sloan Wilson, with his talk “ Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion”.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> His talk revolved around the use of evolution as a model for the development of Religion.<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> He pointed out how the “survival tactics” of religious groups often mimicked the behavior of different species of animals in the wild, by cooperating with group members, and at times being hostile towards other, competing groups.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> He described this as emerging from a type of “evolution”, not of species, but of ideas behind religion.<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> His insistence that religions were entirely human ideas gathered some dissent from the audience, with two (out of four) questions having to do with his claims against the “engaged god hypothesis”, or whether there is an active god.<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> This can be seen as a case of the popularization of science being done in a way that alienates the people it was attempting to reach. This plays into the version of the deficit model that depicts the evolutionist attempting to reach the religious masses, who reject him (at least in part) due to finding parts of his message offensive. But it can also be seen as an incident of a dialogue being had between the two worlds, something unexpected in the deficit model, in which communication is only necessary in the direction of scientist to layperson. The other speaker on evolution was Simon Conway Morris, who spoke on a religious view of evolution, describing an “alternate look between Darwin and Creationism”.<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> In “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation”, he spoke at length about convergent evolution, which is the evolution of two unrelated species arriving at a point in which the species are very similar in form.<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> He repeatedly used the word “inevitable” to describe this evolution, and he said that he was considering the possibility that the results of all evolution was predetermined.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> This speaker shows some traits of religiosity while definitely being a part of the “scientific elite”, given his academic achievements (he was a professor of evolutionary palaeobiology at Cambridge).<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> This breaks down the version of the deficit model that paints religiosity, and even (to an extent) creationism as the common people who the scientists must educate. The audience used the question and answers to gain further information about the lecture, which is a more active involvement than the deficit model usually depicts. The deficit model and Snow’s two culture models do not seem to apply neatly to the two lectures discussed. Wilson’s lecture featured a dialogue with the audience, dirtying the deficit model, and he occupied both the scientific and literary fields of academia simultaneously, working poorly with Snow’s Two Cultures proposition. The lecture represents somewhat of a reversal from much of history: the interpretation of religion in the light of evolution, rather than interpreting evolutionary thought in the light of religion. Morris’ presentation gives a modern take on religious interpretation of evolutionary theory: an attempt to potentially merge evolutionary thought with religious thought, rather than an attempt to subdue evolutionary thought with religion. Morris’ talk was much more religious than his contemporaries would have made it, despite being a scientist, which deflates the notion that religion can be used as a stand in for lay people in the deficit model. The presence of both speakers presenting in a very public forum in front of a mixed secular and religious audience is an example of the evolutionary and religious groups continuing to coexist in the modern day. The students of Southwestern University published several responses to the Symposium shortly after the event. Their opinions were somewhat mixed, with some viewing the event with reverence and others with complete disregard. One student, William Thomas referred to it as an “eye-opening opportunity” that can “broaden their field of knowledge” in his article “The question: Class or Brown Symposium'' in which he advocates for students to be allowed to attend future Symposiums instead of class.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> In addition, some students seemed to resent the way the symposium approached the topic of Religion and Science, wanting it to focus more on science that backs up the validity of religion. In his article “God vs. science duke it out at SU, neither win,” Andrew Dornon stated that “The point of academia is to promote truth and the dismantling of false paradigms, such as racism and sexism. So why not religion?”, and called the lack of scientific proof of religion the ignored “pink elephant in the room”.<a href="#_ftn24">[24]</a> This stance was also represented in the question and answer section of the symposium (in which every speaker is gathered), in a question that asked why religious scientists don’t apply scientific principles to religion.<a href="#_ftn25">[25]</a> Interestingly, Morris and Wilson both had a response to the question, with Morris pointing out that science doesn’t have the answer to all questions, giving religion some usefulness in that regard, while Wilson pointed out that science was not a “value system” on its own, while religion can provide a value system.<a href="#_ftn26">[26]</a> The conflict between religion and evolution continues, and has been imortalized in Southwestern history. Andrew Dornon put it accurately when he said “neither God nor science won at Southwestern.”<a href="#_ftn27">[27]</a> In the question and answer section of Wilson’s talk, this conflict came to light somewhat and was abruptly cut short by time without finding a clear resolution. There is seemingly an anxiety around taking evolutionary theories and thinking too far: issuing a direct challenge to religion, specifically Christian religion. While most agree that the Genesis account of the creation of life as we know it isn’t literally what happened, people seem to become upset and challenged when it is suggested that biblical events didn’t happen. Some people, namely atheists such as Dornon seem very keen to push the issue as far as they can, perhaps in hopes of winning some ideological battles. So it remains that evolutionary theories can be used together with religious thought (as in Morris’ presentation), it can also still be seen as an affront to them (as in the crowd’s reaction to Wilson’s presentation). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nancy Scott Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> “Theory of Evolution.” National Geographic Society, June 5, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/theory-evolution/. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Singham, Mano. God vs. Darwin: the War between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom (Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Education, 2011), vii <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> “Creationism.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., March 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/topic/creationism. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” NPR. NPR, December 21, 2005. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630737. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Zabarenko, Deborah. “Tennessee Teacher Law Could Boost Creationism, Climate Denial.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, April 13, 2012. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” NPR. NPR, December 21, 2005. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Mangahas, Ana Marie E. “Perceptions of High School Biology Teachers in Christian Schools on Relationships Between Religious Beliefs and Teaching Evolution.” Journal of Research on Christian Education 26, no. 1 (January 2017): 24 <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 30, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 30, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Snow, C. P. (Charles Percy), 1905-1980. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. New York :Cambridge University Press, 1959., 87-88 <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.’” ISIS 100, no. 2 (June 2009): 361. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/599547 <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.”, 365 <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Nieto-Galan, Agusti. Science in the Public Sphere. (Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge, 2016), 3 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Wilson, David Sloan. “Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion.” Lecture, The Brown Symposium XXXI, Georgetown, February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Morris, Simon Conway. “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation.” Lecture,The Brown Symposium XXXI, Georgetown, February 5, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Thomas, William. “The Question: Class or Brown Symposium.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref24">[24]</a> Dornon, Andrew. “God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref25">[25]</a> Newberg, Andrew, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese. “Panel Discussion.” Brown Symposium XXXI. February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref26">[26]</a> Newberg, Andrew, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese. “Panel Discussion.” Brown Symposium XXXI. February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref27">[27]</a> Dornon, Andrew. “God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation Subject The topic of the resource Darwinism Description An account of the resource Convergent evolution and the possibility of a predestined tree of life. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Simon Conway Morris Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Brown Symposium XXXI Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Southwestern University Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource February 5, 2009 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource DVD recording Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Educational lecture Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History and Discourse Around Evolution at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource The theory of evolution proposes that life changed and diversified over time through a process known as natural selection, in which organisms who are better suited to survive outreproduce and outlast other organisms.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> The main ideology that opposes evolutionary theory goes under the monikers “creationism”, “creation science”, or “intelligent design”.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> They claim that life was created in it’s final form, usually by a god.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Religion has always been somewhat at odds with evolution, which is a natural occurrence resulting from the lack of any mention of evolution in the Bible and other holy texts. The rejection of evolution by much of the religious public seems to be on the decline in recent years, however, with the introduction of new theories that allow aspects of creationism to be conserved while still accepting evolutionary thought. But as the principles behind evolution are brought to other fields, some of that tension seems to be resurfacing as people look for evolutionary perspectives that allow them to keep their faith intact. These effects were put on display at Southwestern University in 2009, with the discourse at times returning to an ideological battle. The split between scientists and the lay people can be seen in the conflict between followers of evolution and creationism, with a major battleground for them being the rules around what is taught in public schools. Evolution has slowly replaced creationism in US public schools, but never in every state at once, and with uniformity within states.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> In many instances teachers are not allowed to speak out against creationism while teaching evolution, and are allowed to frame them as “alternatives” to each other without taking a clear side.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> Many of the decisions are handled on the state level.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> In addition, teacher religious beliefs have been found to be predictive of their willingness to teach evolution.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> For example, in 2007, Texas Education Agency’s Director of Science Curriculum, Christine Comer was forced to resign from her position after asking an anti-creationism speaker to speak at the school.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> The Texas Education Agency explained that she had made it look like the TEA had taken a side on the evolution debate when they intended to remain neutral.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> This example (which occured around two years before the Brown Symposium discussed in this paper) hilights that the “war” had yet to be won by the other side, and that battles were still being fought. In CP Snow’s lecture the Two Cultures, he says that academia has been fractured along the lines of “scientists' ' and “literary intellectuals” <a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>. This makes sense in light of the increasing knowledge gap between scientists and others caused by specialization of science<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> . In a way, Snow describes a deficit model, in which the scientists are separated not only from the general public, but also from other intellectuals from outside their field. But as we will see, the deficit model is not always accurate to reality. As said by Bensaude-Vincent, “notions such as “lay public” and “science mediators’ are historical constructions rather than stable categories”<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a>. The “deficit model”, depicts the public as having a deficit of scientific knowledge and somewhat helpless, requiring the help of enlightened scientists to guide them to knowledge.<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> While it is easy to view the issue of evolution as seen by the public along the lines of the deficit model, with the evolutionists representing the scientists, and the ignorant and the religious representing the lay public, that is a reductionist view that ignores many of the nuances of reality. In 2009, two speakers spoke about evolution and religion at Southwestern University. One speaker was David Sloan Wilson, with his talk “ Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion”.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> His talk revolved around the use of evolution as a model for the development of Religion.<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> He pointed out how the “survival tactics” of religious groups often mimicked the behavior of different species of animals in the wild, by cooperating with group members, and at times being hostile towards other, competing groups.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> He described this as emerging from a type of “evolution”, not of species, but of ideas behind religion.<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> His insistence that religions were entirely human ideas gathered some dissent from the audience, with two (out of four) questions having to do with his claims against the “engaged god hypothesis”, or whether there is an active god.<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> This can be seen as a case of the popularization of science being done in a way that alienates the people it was attempting to reach. This plays into the version of the deficit model that depicts the evolutionist attempting to reach the religious masses, who reject him (at least in part) due to finding parts of his message offensive. But it can also be seen as an incident of a dialogue being had between the two worlds, something unexpected in the deficit model, in which communication is only necessary in the direction of scientist to layperson. The other speaker on evolution was Simon Conway Morris, who spoke on a religious view of evolution, describing an “alternate look between Darwin and Creationism”.<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> In “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation”, he spoke at length about convergent evolution, which is the evolution of two unrelated species arriving at a point in which the species are very similar in form.<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> He repeatedly used the word “inevitable” to describe this evolution, and he said that he was considering the possibility that the results of all evolution was predetermined.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> This speaker shows some traits of religiosity while definitely being a part of the “scientific elite”, given his academic achievements (he was a professor of evolutionary palaeobiology at Cambridge).<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> This breaks down the version of the deficit model that paints religiosity, and even (to an extent) creationism as the common people who the scientists must educate. The audience used the question and answers to gain further information about the lecture, which is a more active involvement than the deficit model usually depicts. The deficit model and Snow’s two culture models do not seem to apply neatly to the two lectures discussed. Wilson’s lecture featured a dialogue with the audience, dirtying the deficit model, and he occupied both the scientific and literary fields of academia simultaneously, working poorly with Snow’s Two Cultures proposition. The lecture represents somewhat of a reversal from much of history: the interpretation of religion in the light of evolution, rather than interpreting evolutionary thought in the light of religion. Morris’ presentation gives a modern take on religious interpretation of evolutionary theory: an attempt to potentially merge evolutionary thought with religious thought, rather than an attempt to subdue evolutionary thought with religion. Morris’ talk was much more religious than his contemporaries would have made it, despite being a scientist, which deflates the notion that religion can be used as a stand in for lay people in the deficit model. The presence of both speakers presenting in a very public forum in front of a mixed secular and religious audience is an example of the evolutionary and religious groups continuing to coexist in the modern day. The students of Southwestern University published several responses to the Symposium shortly after the event. Their opinions were somewhat mixed, with some viewing the event with reverence and others with complete disregard. One student, William Thomas referred to it as an “eye-opening opportunity” that can “broaden their field of knowledge” in his article “The question: Class or Brown Symposium'' in which he advocates for students to be allowed to attend future Symposiums instead of class.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> In addition, some students seemed to resent the way the symposium approached the topic of Religion and Science, wanting it to focus more on science that backs up the validity of religion. In his article “God vs. science duke it out at SU, neither win,” Andrew Dornon stated that “The point of academia is to promote truth and the dismantling of false paradigms, such as racism and sexism. So why not religion?”, and called the lack of scientific proof of religion the ignored “pink elephant in the room”.<a href="#_ftn24">[24]</a> This stance was also represented in the question and answer section of the symposium (in which every speaker is gathered), in a question that asked why religious scientists don’t apply scientific principles to religion.<a href="#_ftn25">[25]</a> Interestingly, Morris and Wilson both had a response to the question, with Morris pointing out that science doesn’t have the answer to all questions, giving religion some usefulness in that regard, while Wilson pointed out that science was not a “value system” on its own, while religion can provide a value system.<a href="#_ftn26">[26]</a> The conflict between religion and evolution continues, and has been imortalized in Southwestern history. Andrew Dornon put it accurately when he said “neither God nor science won at Southwestern.”<a href="#_ftn27">[27]</a> In the question and answer section of Wilson’s talk, this conflict came to light somewhat and was abruptly cut short by time without finding a clear resolution. There is seemingly an anxiety around taking evolutionary theories and thinking too far: issuing a direct challenge to religion, specifically Christian religion. While most agree that the Genesis account of the creation of life as we know it isn’t literally what happened, people seem to become upset and challenged when it is suggested that biblical events didn’t happen. Some people, namely atheists such as Dornon seem very keen to push the issue as far as they can, perhaps in hopes of winning some ideological battles. So it remains that evolutionary theories can be used together with religious thought (as in Morris’ presentation), it can also still be seen as an affront to them (as in the crowd’s reaction to Wilson’s presentation). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nancy Scott Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> “Theory of Evolution.” National Geographic Society, June 5, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/theory-evolution/. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Singham, Mano. God vs. Darwin: the War between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom (Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Education, 2011), vii <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> “Creationism.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., March 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/topic/creationism. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” NPR. NPR, December 21, 2005. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630737. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Zabarenko, Deborah. “Tennessee Teacher Law Could Boost Creationism, Climate Denial.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, April 13, 2012. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” NPR. NPR, December 21, 2005. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Mangahas, Ana Marie E. “Perceptions of High School Biology Teachers in Christian Schools on Relationships Between Religious Beliefs and Teaching Evolution.” Journal of Research on Christian Education 26, no. 1 (January 2017): 24 <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 30, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 30, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Snow, C. P. (Charles Percy), 1905-1980. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. New York :Cambridge University Press, 1959., 87-88 <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.’” ISIS 100, no. 2 (June 2009): 361. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/599547 <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.”, 365 <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Nieto-Galan, Agusti. Science in the Public Sphere. (Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge, 2016), 3 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Wilson, David Sloan. “Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion.” Lecture, The Brown Symposium XXXI, Georgetown, February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Morris, Simon Conway. “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation.” Lecture,The Brown Symposium XXXI, Georgetown, February 5, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Thomas, William. “The Question: Class or Brown Symposium.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref24">[24]</a> Dornon, Andrew. “God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref25">[25]</a> Newberg, Andrew, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese. “Panel Discussion.” Brown Symposium XXXI. February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref26">[26]</a> Newberg, Andrew, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese. “Panel Discussion.” Brown Symposium XXXI. February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref27">[27]</a> Dornon, Andrew. “God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Panel Discussion of Brown Symposium XXXI Subject The topic of the resource Science And Religion: Conflict Or Convergence? Description An account of the resource Guest speakers from the Brown Symposium XXXI answer questions posed by the Southwestern University community. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Andrew Newberg, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Brown Symposium XXXI Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Southwestern University Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource February 6, 2009 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource DVD recording Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Educational Discussion https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/8b6626919baee8fbe57c827895f5fd10.jpg 0f3ab527643fde5a00fe4d6cc0bb0044 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History and Discourse Around Evolution at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource The theory of evolution proposes that life changed and diversified over time through a process known as natural selection, in which organisms who are better suited to survive outreproduce and outlast other organisms.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> The main ideology that opposes evolutionary theory goes under the monikers “creationism”, “creation science”, or “intelligent design”.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> They claim that life was created in it’s final form, usually by a god.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Religion has always been somewhat at odds with evolution, which is a natural occurrence resulting from the lack of any mention of evolution in the Bible and other holy texts. The rejection of evolution by much of the religious public seems to be on the decline in recent years, however, with the introduction of new theories that allow aspects of creationism to be conserved while still accepting evolutionary thought. But as the principles behind evolution are brought to other fields, some of that tension seems to be resurfacing as people look for evolutionary perspectives that allow them to keep their faith intact. These effects were put on display at Southwestern University in 2009, with the discourse at times returning to an ideological battle. The split between scientists and the lay people can be seen in the conflict between followers of evolution and creationism, with a major battleground for them being the rules around what is taught in public schools. Evolution has slowly replaced creationism in US public schools, but never in every state at once, and with uniformity within states.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> In many instances teachers are not allowed to speak out against creationism while teaching evolution, and are allowed to frame them as “alternatives” to each other without taking a clear side.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> Many of the decisions are handled on the state level.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> In addition, teacher religious beliefs have been found to be predictive of their willingness to teach evolution.<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> For example, in 2007, Texas Education Agency’s Director of Science Curriculum, Christine Comer was forced to resign from her position after asking an anti-creationism speaker to speak at the school.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> The Texas Education Agency explained that she had made it look like the TEA had taken a side on the evolution debate when they intended to remain neutral.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> This example (which occured around two years before the Brown Symposium discussed in this paper) hilights that the “war” had yet to be won by the other side, and that battles were still being fought. In CP Snow’s lecture the Two Cultures, he says that academia has been fractured along the lines of “scientists' ' and “literary intellectuals” <a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>. This makes sense in light of the increasing knowledge gap between scientists and others caused by specialization of science<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> . In a way, Snow describes a deficit model, in which the scientists are separated not only from the general public, but also from other intellectuals from outside their field. But as we will see, the deficit model is not always accurate to reality. As said by Bensaude-Vincent, “notions such as “lay public” and “science mediators’ are historical constructions rather than stable categories”<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a>. The “deficit model”, depicts the public as having a deficit of scientific knowledge and somewhat helpless, requiring the help of enlightened scientists to guide them to knowledge.<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> While it is easy to view the issue of evolution as seen by the public along the lines of the deficit model, with the evolutionists representing the scientists, and the ignorant and the religious representing the lay public, that is a reductionist view that ignores many of the nuances of reality. In 2009, two speakers spoke about evolution and religion at Southwestern University. One speaker was David Sloan Wilson, with his talk “ Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion”.<a href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> His talk revolved around the use of evolution as a model for the development of Religion.<a href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> He pointed out how the “survival tactics” of religious groups often mimicked the behavior of different species of animals in the wild, by cooperating with group members, and at times being hostile towards other, competing groups.<a href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> He described this as emerging from a type of “evolution”, not of species, but of ideas behind religion.<a href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> His insistence that religions were entirely human ideas gathered some dissent from the audience, with two (out of four) questions having to do with his claims against the “engaged god hypothesis”, or whether there is an active god.<a href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> This can be seen as a case of the popularization of science being done in a way that alienates the people it was attempting to reach. This plays into the version of the deficit model that depicts the evolutionist attempting to reach the religious masses, who reject him (at least in part) due to finding parts of his message offensive. But it can also be seen as an incident of a dialogue being had between the two worlds, something unexpected in the deficit model, in which communication is only necessary in the direction of scientist to layperson. The other speaker on evolution was Simon Conway Morris, who spoke on a religious view of evolution, describing an “alternate look between Darwin and Creationism”.<a href="#_ftn19">[19]</a> In “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation”, he spoke at length about convergent evolution, which is the evolution of two unrelated species arriving at a point in which the species are very similar in form.<a href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> He repeatedly used the word “inevitable” to describe this evolution, and he said that he was considering the possibility that the results of all evolution was predetermined.<a href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> This speaker shows some traits of religiosity while definitely being a part of the “scientific elite”, given his academic achievements (he was a professor of evolutionary palaeobiology at Cambridge).<a href="#_ftn22">[22]</a> This breaks down the version of the deficit model that paints religiosity, and even (to an extent) creationism as the common people who the scientists must educate. The audience used the question and answers to gain further information about the lecture, which is a more active involvement than the deficit model usually depicts. The deficit model and Snow’s two culture models do not seem to apply neatly to the two lectures discussed. Wilson’s lecture featured a dialogue with the audience, dirtying the deficit model, and he occupied both the scientific and literary fields of academia simultaneously, working poorly with Snow’s Two Cultures proposition. The lecture represents somewhat of a reversal from much of history: the interpretation of religion in the light of evolution, rather than interpreting evolutionary thought in the light of religion. Morris’ presentation gives a modern take on religious interpretation of evolutionary theory: an attempt to potentially merge evolutionary thought with religious thought, rather than an attempt to subdue evolutionary thought with religion. Morris’ talk was much more religious than his contemporaries would have made it, despite being a scientist, which deflates the notion that religion can be used as a stand in for lay people in the deficit model. The presence of both speakers presenting in a very public forum in front of a mixed secular and religious audience is an example of the evolutionary and religious groups continuing to coexist in the modern day. The students of Southwestern University published several responses to the Symposium shortly after the event. Their opinions were somewhat mixed, with some viewing the event with reverence and others with complete disregard. One student, William Thomas referred to it as an “eye-opening opportunity” that can “broaden their field of knowledge” in his article “The question: Class or Brown Symposium'' in which he advocates for students to be allowed to attend future Symposiums instead of class.<a href="#_ftn23">[23]</a> In addition, some students seemed to resent the way the symposium approached the topic of Religion and Science, wanting it to focus more on science that backs up the validity of religion. In his article “God vs. science duke it out at SU, neither win,” Andrew Dornon stated that “The point of academia is to promote truth and the dismantling of false paradigms, such as racism and sexism. So why not religion?”, and called the lack of scientific proof of religion the ignored “pink elephant in the room”.<a href="#_ftn24">[24]</a> This stance was also represented in the question and answer section of the symposium (in which every speaker is gathered), in a question that asked why religious scientists don’t apply scientific principles to religion.<a href="#_ftn25">[25]</a> Interestingly, Morris and Wilson both had a response to the question, with Morris pointing out that science doesn’t have the answer to all questions, giving religion some usefulness in that regard, while Wilson pointed out that science was not a “value system” on its own, while religion can provide a value system.<a href="#_ftn26">[26]</a> The conflict between religion and evolution continues, and has been imortalized in Southwestern history. Andrew Dornon put it accurately when he said “neither God nor science won at Southwestern.”<a href="#_ftn27">[27]</a> In the question and answer section of Wilson’s talk, this conflict came to light somewhat and was abruptly cut short by time without finding a clear resolution. There is seemingly an anxiety around taking evolutionary theories and thinking too far: issuing a direct challenge to religion, specifically Christian religion. While most agree that the Genesis account of the creation of life as we know it isn’t literally what happened, people seem to become upset and challenged when it is suggested that biblical events didn’t happen. Some people, namely atheists such as Dornon seem very keen to push the issue as far as they can, perhaps in hopes of winning some ideological battles. So it remains that evolutionary theories can be used together with religious thought (as in Morris’ presentation), it can also still be seen as an affront to them (as in the crowd’s reaction to Wilson’s presentation). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nancy Scott Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> “Theory of Evolution.” National Geographic Society, June 5, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/theory-evolution/. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Singham, Mano. God vs. Darwin: the War between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom (Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Education, 2011), vii <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> “Creationism.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., March 10, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/topic/creationism. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” NPR. NPR, December 21, 2005. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630737. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Zabarenko, Deborah. “Tennessee Teacher Law Could Boost Creationism, Climate Denial.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, April 13, 2012. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” NPR. NPR, December 21, 2005. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Mangahas, Ana Marie E. “Perceptions of High School Biology Teachers in Christian Schools on Relationships Between Religious Beliefs and Teaching Evolution.” Journal of Research on Christian Education 26, no. 1 (January 2017): 24 <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 30, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, November 30, 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-30-schools-creationism_N.htm. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Snow, C. P. (Charles Percy), 1905-1980. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. New York :Cambridge University Press, 1959., 87-88 <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.’” ISIS 100, no. 2 (June 2009): 361. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/599547 <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Bensaude-Vincent, “A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others.”, 365 <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Nieto-Galan, Agusti. Science in the Public Sphere. (Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge, 2016), 3 <a href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Wilson, David Sloan. “Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion.” Lecture, The Brown Symposium XXXI, Georgetown, February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Wilson, Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion <a href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Morris, Simon Conway. “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation.” Lecture,The Brown Symposium XXXI, Georgetown, February 5, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> Morris, Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation <a href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Thomas, William. “The Question: Class or Brown Symposium.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref24">[24]</a> Dornon, Andrew. “God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref25">[25]</a> Newberg, Andrew, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese. “Panel Discussion.” Brown Symposium XXXI. February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref26">[26]</a> Newberg, Andrew, Simon C Morris, Mary E Tucker, David S Wilson, Christian Lavigne, Christopher Bader, and Paul Froese. “Panel Discussion.” Brown Symposium XXXI. February 6, 2009. <a href="#_ftnref27">[27]</a> Dornon, Andrew. “God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win.” The Megaphone. February 12, 2009. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource God vs Science Duke It out at SU, Neither Win Subject The topic of the resource The Brown Symposium XXXI Description An account of the resource Discussion of the “battle” between religion and atheism at the Brown Symposium XXXI. The author is seemingly more critical of religion. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Andrew Dornon Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Megaphone, school newspaper of Southwestern University. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Megaphone. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Feburary 12, 2009 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Physical Newspaper Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Opinion https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/09b0bdfeb20959568c151fc87944f74a.pdf 83b0087d442948c5e45ab9d14411d501 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History of Kinesiology at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource The history of Kinesiology at Southwestern University is a history that has remained a mystery. Up until now. In this document, I plan to dive into the realm of the undiscovered and uncover the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern and the United States as a whole. I do this through first establishing the methodical approach that is used to study the history of a science, then I examine the history of Kinesiology, and finally I examine the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern University. The methodical approach that is typically used to study the history of a science is that of the application of the deficit model to the specified science. “In the 1980s, the ‘deficit model’ became popular in the English-speaking world through a movement called the ‘Public Understanding of Science’ (PUS) … It legitimised new professionals, science communicators, who were supposed to act as mediators to effectively and faithfully transmit ‘official’ knowledge to lay audiences … ”<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> Having a mediator between science and the public is an idea that is used at many colleges and careers around the world. In the case of Kinesiology in the “real” world, there are gyms and Personal Trainers and Physical Therapists who are mediators between the actual science and the public. In the case of universities, some clubs promote different types of sciences to make the specified science more appealing to the public and gain students who want to partake in the specified science. To study the deficit model at a university usage of non-traditional sources must be used, such as yearbooks. The application of the deficit model at Southwestern will be explained in the fourth paragraph. To examine the history of Kinesiology, one must know its connection to Physical Education. Physical Education is not referred to the Physical Education that students take during their elementary school, middle school, or high school education; instead, it refers to the academic departments of Physical Education in Higher Education.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> This type of Physical Education focuses on physical activity and human movement.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> The connection that Physical Education and Kinesiology have is that of “deeper roots” between the two disciplines. An aspect of these “deeper roots” consist of the curriculum that both disciplines follow. “Accordingly, the curriculum [of Physical Education] included aspects of anatomy and physiology, physics, and anthropometry… ”<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> With Anatomy and Physiology being a class that was required in the department of Physical Education, and it also being a class that is required to get a Kinesiology degree, it demonstrates the similarity between the two core curriculums. This commonality between the different disciplines is reiterated by Jaime Schultz in her chapter by mentioning, “Although many think that the subdisciplinary movement of kinesiology is something that originated in the mid-20th century, it is clear that it has deeper roots.”<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> Those deeper roots come directly from the underlying storyline connection between Kinesiology and Physical Education. “… debates raged within the emergent sub-disciplines and studies over laboratory space, curricula, and resources as well as the right name for the school’s growing scientific focus (from physical education to human kinetics and now kinesiology).”<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> This quote proves the direct correlation between Physical Education and Kinesiology in terms of the shift and replacement in the name of the three departments - from Physical Education, to Human Kinetics, and finally, Kinesiology. To add to the argument of Physical Education being the precursor of the departments of Kinesiology, there is the fact that, “In the early 1960s, prodded by the words of Conant and Henry, members of the American Academy of Physical Education sought to determine what should constitute the discipline’s “body of knowledge.” The subsequent Big Ten Body-of-Knowledge Symposium identified six areas of specialization … These subdomains, along with several others, are currently recognized within kinesiology.”<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> As Physical Education was being pushed as an academic discipline, there were six areas of specialization within Physical Education: administrative theory in athletics and physical education, biomechanics, exercise physiology, history and philosophy of physical education, motor learning/sport psychology, and sociology and sport education. These six areas are now subdomains that are recognized within Kinesiology. This demonstrates that Physical Education departments and Kinesiology departments both have a common foundation, therefore, proving the direct connection between Physical Education and Kinesiology. To firmly establish this direct connection between the history of Kinesiology of the United States and Southwestern University; that of starting as Physical Education and moving towards the title of “Kinesiology,” is the fact that “ If you take a look at Table 3-3, for example, you can see that what was once the American Academy of Physical Education gradually added “kinesiology” to its title and eventually dropped the phrase “physical education” altogether to become the National Academy of Kinesiology (NAK).”<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> The table mentioned in the previous quote shows the Evolution of the National Academy of Kinesiology. Essentially, the table shows that in 1904, the National Academy of Kinesiology (present) was called the “Academy of Physical Education.” In 1926 it was then called “American Academy of Physical Education. In 1993 the academy switched names once again, and it was called the “American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education.” Finally, in 2010 the academy switched to its current title, which is the “National Academy of Kinesiology.” This comes to demonstrate the direct correlation between Kinesiology and its precursor, Physical Education, through the replacement of the title “Physical Education” throughout the years, to “Kinesiology,” which is demonstrated around the United States and at Southwestern, respectively at different times. To begin, the main connection between the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern University and the historical development of Kinesiology in the United States is the storyline that both histories follow. Although both of these histories follow the same storyline, this storyline is fulfilled at different times. Kinesiology, as an overall field, started around the 1960s as a result of “Franklin Henry’s call from Berkeley in the 1960s for a more academic approach to the study of human movement …”<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> The commencement of Kinesiology at Southwestern University and that of Kinesiology in the United States is a difference of decades. According to the Southwester’ Yearbook, the first time the Department of Kinesiology is mentioned was in 1991.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> Before the Department of Kinesiology was mentioned though, the Department of Physical Education was mentioned for a significant number of years.<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> Dr. Carla Lowry in charge of the Physical Education Department before she was the chair of the Department of Kinesiology,<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> meaning that Physical Education is the predecessor of Kinesiology in the case of the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern University as well. This is also seen through the application of the deficit model at Southwestern. In order to get students more involved with Physical Education there was a club called the PEARL club - Physical Education. Athletic Recreation. And Leisure - that helped promote Physical Education and fitness to the student body - a core aspect of Physical Education. Once the Department of Physical Education turned into the Department of Kinesiology, the PEARL club no longer existed and was replaced by the Kinesiology Club to help promote the new science of Kinesiology at Southwestern.<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> Through the connection between these two different, yet similar clubs, they demonstrate the connectedness between Physical Education and Kinesiology. Through first explaining the methodical approach that is taken to study the history of science, it helps explain why non-traditional sources such as yearbooks are utilized to support the thesis. In order to understand the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern, the history of Kinesiology as a discipline itself must first be examined to make everything more understandable. Finally, the implementation of both previous concepts are incorporated into the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern to connect everything together. Even though there is now a solid foundation on what the history of Kinesiology consists of, there is still further research that needs to be done in order to completely connect the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern as a whole without there being loose details and two unanswered questions. The first question is, how did the curriculum of the Department of Physical Education change once it became the Department of Kinesiology in the 1990s? The last question is, why did Southwestern University wait until the 1990s to officially change the name of the Department of Physical Education to the Department of Kinesiology when that change was made about three decades earlier? Through further research and more time dedicated to this topic, the answers may eventually be found. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Julian Noyola Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Agusti Nieto-Galan, Science in the Public Sphere A history of lay knowledge and expertise (Oxfordshire: Routledge, Taylor &amp; Francis Group, 2016), 3. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Jaime Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” in Foundations of Kinesiology - 18th Edition, edited by Carole Oglesby (Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2018), 42. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” 42. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Jaime Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” in Foundations of Kinesiology - 18th Edition, edited by Carole Oglesby (Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2018), 43. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Jaime Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” in Foundations of Kinesiology - 18th Edition, edited by Carole Oglesby (Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2018), 44. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Patricia Vertinsky, "Shadow Disciplines, or a Place for Post-Disciplinary Liaisons in the North American Research University: What Are We to Do with Physical Cultural Studies?", in Playing for Change: The Continuing Struggle for Sport and Recreation, edited by Field Russell (Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press, 2015), 391 <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Jaime Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” in Foundations of Kinesiology - 18th Edition, edited by Carole Oglesby (Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2018), 46-47. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Jaime Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” in Foundations of Kinesiology - 18th Edition, edited by Carole Oglesby (Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2018), 50. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Vertinsky, “Shadow Disciplines, or a Place for Post-Disciplinary Liaisons in the North American Research University: What Are We to Do with Physical Cultural Studies?”, 391. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Southwestern University, Sou’Wester Yearbook. Georgetown, Texas: 1991, 34, Southwestern University, A. Frank Smith Jr. Library, Special Collections & Archives. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Southwestern University, Sou’Wester Yearbook (Georgetown, Texas: 1984), 48, Southwestern University, A. Frank Smith Jr. Library, Special Collections & Archives. <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Sou’Wester Yearbook, 1991, 34. <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Sou’Wester Yearbook, 2000, 101. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2000 Sou’wester Yearbook Subject The topic of the resource Southwestern University Yearbook Description An account of the resource The 2000 Sou’Wester Yearbook contains information regarding the faculty and other staff members, the different departments, several pages for clubs, and events that occurred throughout the 2000 school year. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Southwestern University, A. Frank Smith Jr. Library, Special Collections & Archives Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Southwestern University Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Copyright Southwestern University. Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web-display, or commercial use by permission only, excepting Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the US copyright law. Relation A related resource Southwesternuniversity; americana Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Image, jpeg Language A language of the resource English Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context https://archive.org/details/souwesteryearboo2000sout/m ode/2up https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/a02d0914be6bd791bda7155b0d94c64b.pdf 04b035086d2cbaa3dda0ca2221d73c0e Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History of Kinesiology at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource The history of Kinesiology at Southwestern University is a history that has remained a mystery. Up until now. In this document, I plan to dive into the realm of the undiscovered and uncover the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern and the United States as a whole. I do this through first establishing the methodical approach that is used to study the history of a science, then I examine the history of Kinesiology, and finally I examine the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern University. The methodical approach that is typically used to study the history of a science is that of the application of the deficit model to the specified science. “In the 1980s, the ‘deficit model’ became popular in the English-speaking world through a movement called the ‘Public Understanding of Science’ (PUS) … It legitimised new professionals, science communicators, who were supposed to act as mediators to effectively and faithfully transmit ‘official’ knowledge to lay audiences … ”<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> Having a mediator between science and the public is an idea that is used at many colleges and careers around the world. In the case of Kinesiology in the “real” world, there are gyms and Personal Trainers and Physical Therapists who are mediators between the actual science and the public. In the case of universities, some clubs promote different types of sciences to make the specified science more appealing to the public and gain students who want to partake in the specified science. To study the deficit model at a university usage of non-traditional sources must be used, such as yearbooks. The application of the deficit model at Southwestern will be explained in the fourth paragraph. To examine the history of Kinesiology, one must know its connection to Physical Education. Physical Education is not referred to the Physical Education that students take during their elementary school, middle school, or high school education; instead, it refers to the academic departments of Physical Education in Higher Education.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> This type of Physical Education focuses on physical activity and human movement.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> The connection that Physical Education and Kinesiology have is that of “deeper roots” between the two disciplines. An aspect of these “deeper roots” consist of the curriculum that both disciplines follow. “Accordingly, the curriculum [of Physical Education] included aspects of anatomy and physiology, physics, and anthropometry… ”<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> With Anatomy and Physiology being a class that was required in the department of Physical Education, and it also being a class that is required to get a Kinesiology degree, it demonstrates the similarity between the two core curriculums. This commonality between the different disciplines is reiterated by Jaime Schultz in her chapter by mentioning, “Although many think that the subdisciplinary movement of kinesiology is something that originated in the mid-20th century, it is clear that it has deeper roots.”<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> Those deeper roots come directly from the underlying storyline connection between Kinesiology and Physical Education. “… debates raged within the emergent sub-disciplines and studies over laboratory space, curricula, and resources as well as the right name for the school’s growing scientific focus (from physical education to human kinetics and now kinesiology).”<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> This quote proves the direct correlation between Physical Education and Kinesiology in terms of the shift and replacement in the name of the three departments - from Physical Education, to Human Kinetics, and finally, Kinesiology. To add to the argument of Physical Education being the precursor of the departments of Kinesiology, there is the fact that, “In the early 1960s, prodded by the words of Conant and Henry, members of the American Academy of Physical Education sought to determine what should constitute the discipline’s “body of knowledge.” The subsequent Big Ten Body-of-Knowledge Symposium identified six areas of specialization … These subdomains, along with several others, are currently recognized within kinesiology.”<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> As Physical Education was being pushed as an academic discipline, there were six areas of specialization within Physical Education: administrative theory in athletics and physical education, biomechanics, exercise physiology, history and philosophy of physical education, motor learning/sport psychology, and sociology and sport education. These six areas are now subdomains that are recognized within Kinesiology. This demonstrates that Physical Education departments and Kinesiology departments both have a common foundation, therefore, proving the direct connection between Physical Education and Kinesiology. To firmly establish this direct connection between the history of Kinesiology of the United States and Southwestern University; that of starting as Physical Education and moving towards the title of “Kinesiology,” is the fact that “ If you take a look at Table 3-3, for example, you can see that what was once the American Academy of Physical Education gradually added “kinesiology” to its title and eventually dropped the phrase “physical education” altogether to become the National Academy of Kinesiology (NAK).”<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> The table mentioned in the previous quote shows the Evolution of the National Academy of Kinesiology. Essentially, the table shows that in 1904, the National Academy of Kinesiology (present) was called the “Academy of Physical Education.” In 1926 it was then called “American Academy of Physical Education. In 1993 the academy switched names once again, and it was called the “American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education.” Finally, in 2010 the academy switched to its current title, which is the “National Academy of Kinesiology.” This comes to demonstrate the direct correlation between Kinesiology and its precursor, Physical Education, through the replacement of the title “Physical Education” throughout the years, to “Kinesiology,” which is demonstrated around the United States and at Southwestern, respectively at different times. To begin, the main connection between the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern University and the historical development of Kinesiology in the United States is the storyline that both histories follow. Although both of these histories follow the same storyline, this storyline is fulfilled at different times. Kinesiology, as an overall field, started around the 1960s as a result of “Franklin Henry’s call from Berkeley in the 1960s for a more academic approach to the study of human movement …”<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> The commencement of Kinesiology at Southwestern University and that of Kinesiology in the United States is a difference of decades. According to the Southwester’ Yearbook, the first time the Department of Kinesiology is mentioned was in 1991.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> Before the Department of Kinesiology was mentioned though, the Department of Physical Education was mentioned for a significant number of years.<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> Dr. Carla Lowry in charge of the Physical Education Department before she was the chair of the Department of Kinesiology,<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> meaning that Physical Education is the predecessor of Kinesiology in the case of the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern University as well. This is also seen through the application of the deficit model at Southwestern. In order to get students more involved with Physical Education there was a club called the PEARL club - Physical Education. Athletic Recreation. And Leisure - that helped promote Physical Education and fitness to the student body - a core aspect of Physical Education. Once the Department of Physical Education turned into the Department of Kinesiology, the PEARL club no longer existed and was replaced by the Kinesiology Club to help promote the new science of Kinesiology at Southwestern.<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> Through the connection between these two different, yet similar clubs, they demonstrate the connectedness between Physical Education and Kinesiology. Through first explaining the methodical approach that is taken to study the history of science, it helps explain why non-traditional sources such as yearbooks are utilized to support the thesis. In order to understand the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern, the history of Kinesiology as a discipline itself must first be examined to make everything more understandable. Finally, the implementation of both previous concepts are incorporated into the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern to connect everything together. Even though there is now a solid foundation on what the history of Kinesiology consists of, there is still further research that needs to be done in order to completely connect the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern as a whole without there being loose details and two unanswered questions. The first question is, how did the curriculum of the Department of Physical Education change once it became the Department of Kinesiology in the 1990s? The last question is, why did Southwestern University wait until the 1990s to officially change the name of the Department of Physical Education to the Department of Kinesiology when that change was made about three decades earlier? Through further research and more time dedicated to this topic, the answers may eventually be found. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Julian Noyola Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Agusti Nieto-Galan, Science in the Public Sphere A history of lay knowledge and expertise (Oxfordshire: Routledge, Taylor &amp; Francis Group, 2016), 3. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Jaime Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” in Foundations of Kinesiology - 18th Edition, edited by Carole Oglesby (Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2018), 42. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” 42. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Jaime Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” in Foundations of Kinesiology - 18th Edition, edited by Carole Oglesby (Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2018), 43. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Jaime Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” in Foundations of Kinesiology - 18th Edition, edited by Carole Oglesby (Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2018), 44. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Patricia Vertinsky, "Shadow Disciplines, or a Place for Post-Disciplinary Liaisons in the North American Research University: What Are We to Do with Physical Cultural Studies?", in Playing for Change: The Continuing Struggle for Sport and Recreation, edited by Field Russell (Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press, 2015), 391 <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Jaime Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” in Foundations of Kinesiology - 18th Edition, edited by Carole Oglesby (Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2018), 46-47. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Jaime Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” in Foundations of Kinesiology - 18th Edition, edited by Carole Oglesby (Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2018), 50. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Vertinsky, “Shadow Disciplines, or a Place for Post-Disciplinary Liaisons in the North American Research University: What Are We to Do with Physical Cultural Studies?”, 391. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Southwestern University, Sou’Wester Yearbook. Georgetown, Texas: 1991, 34, Southwestern University, A. Frank Smith Jr. Library, Special Collections & Archives. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Southwestern University, Sou’Wester Yearbook (Georgetown, Texas: 1984), 48, Southwestern University, A. Frank Smith Jr. Library, Special Collections & Archives. <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Sou’Wester Yearbook, 1991, 34. <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Sou’Wester Yearbook, 2000, 101. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 1991 Sou’wester Yearbook Subject The topic of the resource Southwestern University Yearbook Description An account of the resource The 1991 Sou’Wester Yearbook contains information regarding the faculty and other staff members, the different departments, several pages for clubs, and events that occurred throughout the 1991 school year. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Southwestern University, A. Frank Smith Jr. Library, Special Collections & Archives Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Southwestern University Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1991 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Copyright Southwestern University. Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web-display, or commercial use by permission only, excepting Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the US copyright law. Relation A related resource Southwesternuniversity; americana Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Image, jpeg Language A language of the resource English https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/2ccaeafa56a200a08784254100fcc516.pdf 779f1fbe7b00f70e91c2b73a4ad4ec4e Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History of Kinesiology at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource The history of Kinesiology at Southwestern University is a history that has remained a mystery. Up until now. In this document, I plan to dive into the realm of the undiscovered and uncover the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern and the United States as a whole. I do this through first establishing the methodical approach that is used to study the history of a science, then I examine the history of Kinesiology, and finally I examine the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern University. The methodical approach that is typically used to study the history of a science is that of the application of the deficit model to the specified science. “In the 1980s, the ‘deficit model’ became popular in the English-speaking world through a movement called the ‘Public Understanding of Science’ (PUS) … It legitimised new professionals, science communicators, who were supposed to act as mediators to effectively and faithfully transmit ‘official’ knowledge to lay audiences … ”<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> Having a mediator between science and the public is an idea that is used at many colleges and careers around the world. In the case of Kinesiology in the “real” world, there are gyms and Personal Trainers and Physical Therapists who are mediators between the actual science and the public. In the case of universities, some clubs promote different types of sciences to make the specified science more appealing to the public and gain students who want to partake in the specified science. To study the deficit model at a university usage of non-traditional sources must be used, such as yearbooks. The application of the deficit model at Southwestern will be explained in the fourth paragraph. To examine the history of Kinesiology, one must know its connection to Physical Education. Physical Education is not referred to the Physical Education that students take during their elementary school, middle school, or high school education; instead, it refers to the academic departments of Physical Education in Higher Education.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> This type of Physical Education focuses on physical activity and human movement.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> The connection that Physical Education and Kinesiology have is that of “deeper roots” between the two disciplines. An aspect of these “deeper roots” consist of the curriculum that both disciplines follow. “Accordingly, the curriculum [of Physical Education] included aspects of anatomy and physiology, physics, and anthropometry… ”<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> With Anatomy and Physiology being a class that was required in the department of Physical Education, and it also being a class that is required to get a Kinesiology degree, it demonstrates the similarity between the two core curriculums. This commonality between the different disciplines is reiterated by Jaime Schultz in her chapter by mentioning, “Although many think that the subdisciplinary movement of kinesiology is something that originated in the mid-20th century, it is clear that it has deeper roots.”<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> Those deeper roots come directly from the underlying storyline connection between Kinesiology and Physical Education. “… debates raged within the emergent sub-disciplines and studies over laboratory space, curricula, and resources as well as the right name for the school’s growing scientific focus (from physical education to human kinetics and now kinesiology).”<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> This quote proves the direct correlation between Physical Education and Kinesiology in terms of the shift and replacement in the name of the three departments - from Physical Education, to Human Kinetics, and finally, Kinesiology. To add to the argument of Physical Education being the precursor of the departments of Kinesiology, there is the fact that, “In the early 1960s, prodded by the words of Conant and Henry, members of the American Academy of Physical Education sought to determine what should constitute the discipline’s “body of knowledge.” The subsequent Big Ten Body-of-Knowledge Symposium identified six areas of specialization … These subdomains, along with several others, are currently recognized within kinesiology.”<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> As Physical Education was being pushed as an academic discipline, there were six areas of specialization within Physical Education: administrative theory in athletics and physical education, biomechanics, exercise physiology, history and philosophy of physical education, motor learning/sport psychology, and sociology and sport education. These six areas are now subdomains that are recognized within Kinesiology. This demonstrates that Physical Education departments and Kinesiology departments both have a common foundation, therefore, proving the direct connection between Physical Education and Kinesiology. To firmly establish this direct connection between the history of Kinesiology of the United States and Southwestern University; that of starting as Physical Education and moving towards the title of “Kinesiology,” is the fact that “ If you take a look at Table 3-3, for example, you can see that what was once the American Academy of Physical Education gradually added “kinesiology” to its title and eventually dropped the phrase “physical education” altogether to become the National Academy of Kinesiology (NAK).”<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> The table mentioned in the previous quote shows the Evolution of the National Academy of Kinesiology. Essentially, the table shows that in 1904, the National Academy of Kinesiology (present) was called the “Academy of Physical Education.” In 1926 it was then called “American Academy of Physical Education. In 1993 the academy switched names once again, and it was called the “American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education.” Finally, in 2010 the academy switched to its current title, which is the “National Academy of Kinesiology.” This comes to demonstrate the direct correlation between Kinesiology and its precursor, Physical Education, through the replacement of the title “Physical Education” throughout the years, to “Kinesiology,” which is demonstrated around the United States and at Southwestern, respectively at different times. To begin, the main connection between the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern University and the historical development of Kinesiology in the United States is the storyline that both histories follow. Although both of these histories follow the same storyline, this storyline is fulfilled at different times. Kinesiology, as an overall field, started around the 1960s as a result of “Franklin Henry’s call from Berkeley in the 1960s for a more academic approach to the study of human movement …”<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> The commencement of Kinesiology at Southwestern University and that of Kinesiology in the United States is a difference of decades. According to the Southwester’ Yearbook, the first time the Department of Kinesiology is mentioned was in 1991.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> Before the Department of Kinesiology was mentioned though, the Department of Physical Education was mentioned for a significant number of years.<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a> Dr. Carla Lowry in charge of the Physical Education Department before she was the chair of the Department of Kinesiology,<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> meaning that Physical Education is the predecessor of Kinesiology in the case of the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern University as well. This is also seen through the application of the deficit model at Southwestern. In order to get students more involved with Physical Education there was a club called the PEARL club - Physical Education. Athletic Recreation. And Leisure - that helped promote Physical Education and fitness to the student body - a core aspect of Physical Education. Once the Department of Physical Education turned into the Department of Kinesiology, the PEARL club no longer existed and was replaced by the Kinesiology Club to help promote the new science of Kinesiology at Southwestern.<a href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> Through the connection between these two different, yet similar clubs, they demonstrate the connectedness between Physical Education and Kinesiology. Through first explaining the methodical approach that is taken to study the history of science, it helps explain why non-traditional sources such as yearbooks are utilized to support the thesis. In order to understand the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern, the history of Kinesiology as a discipline itself must first be examined to make everything more understandable. Finally, the implementation of both previous concepts are incorporated into the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern to connect everything together. Even though there is now a solid foundation on what the history of Kinesiology consists of, there is still further research that needs to be done in order to completely connect the history of Kinesiology at Southwestern as a whole without there being loose details and two unanswered questions. The first question is, how did the curriculum of the Department of Physical Education change once it became the Department of Kinesiology in the 1990s? The last question is, why did Southwestern University wait until the 1990s to officially change the name of the Department of Physical Education to the Department of Kinesiology when that change was made about three decades earlier? Through further research and more time dedicated to this topic, the answers may eventually be found. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Julian Noyola Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Agusti Nieto-Galan, Science in the Public Sphere A history of lay knowledge and expertise (Oxfordshire: Routledge, Taylor &amp; Francis Group, 2016), 3. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Jaime Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” in Foundations of Kinesiology - 18th Edition, edited by Carole Oglesby (Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2018), 42. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” 42. <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Jaime Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” in Foundations of Kinesiology - 18th Edition, edited by Carole Oglesby (Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2018), 43. <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Jaime Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” in Foundations of Kinesiology - 18th Edition, edited by Carole Oglesby (Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2018), 44. <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Patricia Vertinsky, "Shadow Disciplines, or a Place for Post-Disciplinary Liaisons in the North American Research University: What Are We to Do with Physical Cultural Studies?", in Playing for Change: The Continuing Struggle for Sport and Recreation, edited by Field Russell (Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press, 2015), 391 <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Jaime Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” in Foundations of Kinesiology - 18th Edition, edited by Carole Oglesby (Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2018), 46-47. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Jaime Schultz, “A History of Kinesiology,” in Foundations of Kinesiology - 18th Edition, edited by Carole Oglesby (Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2018), 50. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Vertinsky, “Shadow Disciplines, or a Place for Post-Disciplinary Liaisons in the North American Research University: What Are We to Do with Physical Cultural Studies?”, 391. <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Southwestern University, Sou’Wester Yearbook. Georgetown, Texas: 1991, 34, Southwestern University, A. Frank Smith Jr. Library, Special Collections & Archives. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Southwestern University, Sou’Wester Yearbook (Georgetown, Texas: 1984), 48, Southwestern University, A. Frank Smith Jr. Library, Special Collections & Archives. <a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Sou’Wester Yearbook, 1991, 34. <a href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Sou’Wester Yearbook, 2000, 101. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 1984 Sou’wester Yearbook Subject The topic of the resource Southwestern University Yearbook Description An account of the resource The 1984 Sou’Wester Yearbook contains information regarding the faculty and other staff members, the different departments, several pages for clubs, and events that occurred throughout the 1984 school year. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Southwestern University, A. Frank Smith Jr. Library, Special Collections & Archives Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Southwestern University Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1984 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Copyright Southwestern University. Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web-display, or commercial use by permission only, excepting Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the US copyright law. Relation A related resource Southwesternuniversity; americana Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Image, jpeg Language A language of the resource English Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context https://archive.org/details/souwesteryearboo1984sout/m ode/2up https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/9de9afff30e6cc21237edb82ec723fb1.jpg 276d94fe7d82d6df922d35aae3ea3814 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/acd6a33934c6a6a04e35e1519327218e.jpg 552f71f46f8ea29f8ee19bc25b490fdf https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/79106036e62038c8c1faf5e5d120e13f.jpg 044fa3eb557287a4577691379e87b8c4 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/7ce75114ec273e62e3c82e2258d27447.jpg f263e7cfd352c16916e54bdc7a04de55 https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/d0657a93d15e879dfbc77c85aceaa5f6.jpg 39561928f908471d790aed0cfd795e3f Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History of Physics at SU Description An account of the resource The Southwestern experience is one that encourages students to explore. We have many courses throughout our time here that are specifically engineered to include multiple ideas from many disciplines, sometimes it even helps us do better in our classes. During my time at SU, my experience with science has been in a class about chocolate, where we explored the chemical properties of chocolate, and a neuroscience class that was extremely open ended. I ended up writing an essay on cognitive processes while someone watched a suspense film and how scene composition can affect us. It has been wildly different from most of the other experiences I have had in science classes and I believe this is pretty unique to Southwestern. Until this class I have had no experience with any physics topics or classes, but a visiting professor’s comments on the science department at Southwestern changed that, and those comments, according to what I have found, helped shape not only the physics department, but the whole of SU into what it is today. The Cold War and a worldwide paranoia helped shape Dr. Seeger’s suggestions into how the department could prepare their students for a uniquely uncertain future. This uncertainty prompted the physics department to become more crystallized, and this report probably encouraged the administration to change other curriculums to be more paideia focused, so the history of physics at SU is much more interesting than many would think. War, paranoia and its proliferation of physics changed SU in the late 60s into what I know it as today. During the Sputnik era, President During Fleming announced a program to expand the schools endowment to 15 million from 8 million and increase staff and student enrollment<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>. The University wanted to bring on more specialized staff members for more different classes and disciplines, as well as give students better opportunities for more doctorate degrees<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>. Also there is a very clear dichotomy between the science and mathematics department and the fine arts department. All of the suggestions for the sciences suggest a need for students gaining knowledge at an accelerated rate. It says that science students should take an accelerated math course in the beginning of their studies<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>. However it is specified in the address that more science classes will be available for non science majors and more arts courses available for science majors. This is common today at many colleges. The plan for expansion also talks a little about a flight school for southwestern, which will not only teach classes about the discipline, but actually have them fly planes<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a>. This too feels extremely reactionary and is probably the most indicative that the Cold War is what brought these changes about. In the fine arts, the same suggestions for increased classes and faculties are made, but they also state a move towards more interdepartmental learning<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>. Interdepartmental learning is one of the tenants of paideia curriculum today. Southwestern University was clearly not immune to the fears during the Cold War and it even created some fairly reactionary ideas that changed the University into what it is today. Science, no matter how crystallized it can get, will never operate in a vacuum. Dr. Raymond J. Seeger’s report to the President of the University was not much different from the universities later plans but it has a key difference, he suggests that the introductory science courses should be brought more into the realm of science majors so they would not have non science majors filling that class<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a>. This can also show us how faculty and students interacted in the physics department at that time. The students and faculty were meeting frequently, possibly discussing more about material and getting a more holistic view of the class and an all around better education. However this means that those teachers would have been spending less time engaging with and researching for their respective national organizations, like the American Physical Society. Dr. Seeger suggests that each full time staff member should be attending a convention at least once per year, which he believes will not not benefit them and their research, but the student as well<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a>. This would be common for a small school, where almost the entire student body could fit into a physics lecture in a UT auditorium. Dr. Seeger’s comments suggest a need for students and teachers to spend less time outside of the classroom so the teachers can go do independent research on whatever is needed<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a>. During the Cold War, most of that research would have been in some way connected to maintaining a stable nation and keeping it adequately prepared for any threat that might arise<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a>. The timing by which these changes were announced suggests that they are a bit reactionary in nature so therefore I believe they might not have happened at all or they would have happened at the next time of crisis, probably 9/11 which would have seen the proliferation of computer sciences more than physics. Teachers are supposed to prepare their students for and rely information to them about the world outside of the education institutions. By the end of an education track, the student should be well off enough with ideas and skills to be properly prepared for work in a desired field. The Cold War made it very difficult for teachers to prepare their students for the world because no one knew what was going to happen. However the teacher reacts to an event and works through it is going to have a big effect on a student who is trying to learn that discipline. Throughout elementary school, I was taught a very rudimentary form of history that included memorizing dates and knowing very clean little narratives about different events. Good historical analysis was not a part of my curriculum because it was not important to them at that time. In middle school and high school I began to get a more in depth look into history and by way of some very passionate teachers who encouraged me to do my own reading into history, I came to major in history in college. During the Cold War, in a physics education, in Dr. Seeger’s ideal university, the teacher would have spent time at a conference with whatever information and those teachers would have brought back that information to teach to their students<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>. The students now have this information and the slight jingoism that probably would have come along with it would have encouraged them to pursue that field. The government was also sponsoring a number of different grants for physics graduates to work in labs across the country and teachers would have pushed them to pursue that<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a>. Paranoia tends to make people freeze up, not a lot of time would have been spent on theory in the physics department during this time, and so a clear demarcation of information from the government, to science spheres that interpret it into their work, to students who then study to enter that work, and then the public who can hear about the latest military advancement or invention on the news. Physics has such a unique history because it accelerated so fast in the 20th century with both world wars and really seems to lack a strong connection between the elite and the public sphere. I believe that SU has adjusted well. The Cold War prompted a lot of drastic changes and is probably what led to a series of plans that turned the university into what it is today. Physics is vital to understanding our world and creating things that can be used. The need for physics and other applied sciences outside of Southwestern is at least partly responsible for Southwestern University in its current form. The timing by which these changes were announced suggests that they are a bit reactionary in nature so therefore i believe they might not have happened at all or the would have happened at the next time of crisis, probably 9/11 The stereotypical view of physics is one that looks like a massive auditorium filled with students bored to tears as a professor writes endless symbols and numbers down on a board. Even worse than a bored student is a scared student, who would not dare ask a question for fear of a number of things that any shy student can imagine. When there is a disconnect between scientific spheres and the public spheres, images like this arise and create no path for communication between the two. The history of physics at Southwestern creates a much nicer and more open picture of science. One in which most of the time students and teachers move separate spheres of knowledge instead of locked into concentric circles of knowledge. If war had not dominated the 20th century, what would physics be like, would southwestern have changed as well? I do not have the slightest idea but I’m sure the changes would be drastic. War, paranoia and its proliferation of physics changed SU in the late 60s into what I know it as today. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nicholas Shanning Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> The Megaphone, Vol. 59, No. 15, Ed. 1 Tuesday, February 1, newspaper, Georgetown, Texas, (1966) pg. 1. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> The Megaphone, (1966). 1. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> The Megaphone, 5 <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> The Megaphone, 5 <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> The Megaphone, 5 <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Raymond J. Seeger, Report to President Durwood Fleming Southwestern University on the Science and Mathematics Program.(1966) 1. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Raymond J. Seeger, Report. 1966: 2. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Raymond J. Seeger, Report. 1966: 2. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Kaiser, David. "Cold War Requisitions.” (2002): 136 <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Raymond J. Seeger, Report. 1966: 2. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Kaiser, David. "Cold War Requisitions.” (2002): 137 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Report to President Durwood Fleming of Southwestern University on the Science and Mathematics program Subject The topic of the resource The Science and Mathematics program at Southwestern University Description An account of the resource This is a report by Raymond J. Seeger, a visitor to Southwestern who reported on the characteristics of the Southwestern Science and Mathematics program. It details positives of the programs and he gives suggestions on how to improve the program Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Raymond J. Seeger Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived William B. Jones Collection 136U 3.1. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1966 Language A language of the resource English https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/764b4ac5ef8bf44da847002e74cbca88.jpg 38c977ea8ff4c074489375e1b182869c https://susciencehistory.southwestern.edu/files/original/539bd8cb6f256f31f2ce87e6bae00a92.jpg 4aa161257bd06607917fad20a4c0a3dd Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource History of Physics at SU Description An account of the resource The Southwestern experience is one that encourages students to explore. We have many courses throughout our time here that are specifically engineered to include multiple ideas from many disciplines, sometimes it even helps us do better in our classes. During my time at SU, my experience with science has been in a class about chocolate, where we explored the chemical properties of chocolate, and a neuroscience class that was extremely open ended. I ended up writing an essay on cognitive processes while someone watched a suspense film and how scene composition can affect us. It has been wildly different from most of the other experiences I have had in science classes and I believe this is pretty unique to Southwestern. Until this class I have had no experience with any physics topics or classes, but a visiting professor’s comments on the science department at Southwestern changed that, and those comments, according to what I have found, helped shape not only the physics department, but the whole of SU into what it is today. The Cold War and a worldwide paranoia helped shape Dr. Seeger’s suggestions into how the department could prepare their students for a uniquely uncertain future. This uncertainty prompted the physics department to become more crystallized, and this report probably encouraged the administration to change other curriculums to be more paideia focused, so the history of physics at SU is much more interesting than many would think. War, paranoia and its proliferation of physics changed SU in the late 60s into what I know it as today. During the Sputnik era, President During Fleming announced a program to expand the schools endowment to 15 million from 8 million and increase staff and student enrollment<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>. The University wanted to bring on more specialized staff members for more different classes and disciplines, as well as give students better opportunities for more doctorate degrees<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>. Also there is a very clear dichotomy between the science and mathematics department and the fine arts department. All of the suggestions for the sciences suggest a need for students gaining knowledge at an accelerated rate. It says that science students should take an accelerated math course in the beginning of their studies<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>. However it is specified in the address that more science classes will be available for non science majors and more arts courses available for science majors. This is common today at many colleges. The plan for expansion also talks a little about a flight school for southwestern, which will not only teach classes about the discipline, but actually have them fly planes<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a>. This too feels extremely reactionary and is probably the most indicative that the Cold War is what brought these changes about. In the fine arts, the same suggestions for increased classes and faculties are made, but they also state a move towards more interdepartmental learning<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>. Interdepartmental learning is one of the tenants of paideia curriculum today. Southwestern University was clearly not immune to the fears during the Cold War and it even created some fairly reactionary ideas that changed the University into what it is today. Science, no matter how crystallized it can get, will never operate in a vacuum. Dr. Raymond J. Seeger’s report to the President of the University was not much different from the universities later plans but it has a key difference, he suggests that the introductory science courses should be brought more into the realm of science majors so they would not have non science majors filling that class<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a>. This can also show us how faculty and students interacted in the physics department at that time. The students and faculty were meeting frequently, possibly discussing more about material and getting a more holistic view of the class and an all around better education. However this means that those teachers would have been spending less time engaging with and researching for their respective national organizations, like the American Physical Society. Dr. Seeger suggests that each full time staff member should be attending a convention at least once per year, which he believes will not not benefit them and their research, but the student as well<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a>. This would be common for a small school, where almost the entire student body could fit into a physics lecture in a UT auditorium. Dr. Seeger’s comments suggest a need for students and teachers to spend less time outside of the classroom so the teachers can go do independent research on whatever is needed<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a>. During the Cold War, most of that research would have been in some way connected to maintaining a stable nation and keeping it adequately prepared for any threat that might arise<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a>. The timing by which these changes were announced suggests that they are a bit reactionary in nature so therefore I believe they might not have happened at all or they would have happened at the next time of crisis, probably 9/11 which would have seen the proliferation of computer sciences more than physics. Teachers are supposed to prepare their students for and rely information to them about the world outside of the education institutions. By the end of an education track, the student should be well off enough with ideas and skills to be properly prepared for work in a desired field. The Cold War made it very difficult for teachers to prepare their students for the world because no one knew what was going to happen. However the teacher reacts to an event and works through it is going to have a big effect on a student who is trying to learn that discipline. Throughout elementary school, I was taught a very rudimentary form of history that included memorizing dates and knowing very clean little narratives about different events. Good historical analysis was not a part of my curriculum because it was not important to them at that time. In middle school and high school I began to get a more in depth look into history and by way of some very passionate teachers who encouraged me to do my own reading into history, I came to major in history in college. During the Cold War, in a physics education, in Dr. Seeger’s ideal university, the teacher would have spent time at a conference with whatever information and those teachers would have brought back that information to teach to their students<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a>. The students now have this information and the slight jingoism that probably would have come along with it would have encouraged them to pursue that field. The government was also sponsoring a number of different grants for physics graduates to work in labs across the country and teachers would have pushed them to pursue that<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a>. Paranoia tends to make people freeze up, not a lot of time would have been spent on theory in the physics department during this time, and so a clear demarcation of information from the government, to science spheres that interpret it into their work, to students who then study to enter that work, and then the public who can hear about the latest military advancement or invention on the news. Physics has such a unique history because it accelerated so fast in the 20th century with both world wars and really seems to lack a strong connection between the elite and the public sphere. I believe that SU has adjusted well. The Cold War prompted a lot of drastic changes and is probably what led to a series of plans that turned the university into what it is today. Physics is vital to understanding our world and creating things that can be used. The need for physics and other applied sciences outside of Southwestern is at least partly responsible for Southwestern University in its current form. The timing by which these changes were announced suggests that they are a bit reactionary in nature so therefore i believe they might not have happened at all or the would have happened at the next time of crisis, probably 9/11 The stereotypical view of physics is one that looks like a massive auditorium filled with students bored to tears as a professor writes endless symbols and numbers down on a board. Even worse than a bored student is a scared student, who would not dare ask a question for fear of a number of things that any shy student can imagine. When there is a disconnect between scientific spheres and the public spheres, images like this arise and create no path for communication between the two. The history of physics at Southwestern creates a much nicer and more open picture of science. One in which most of the time students and teachers move separate spheres of knowledge instead of locked into concentric circles of knowledge. If war had not dominated the 20th century, what would physics be like, would southwestern have changed as well? I do not have the slightest idea but I’m sure the changes would be drastic. War, paranoia and its proliferation of physics changed SU in the late 60s into what I know it as today. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nicholas Shanning Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> The Megaphone, Vol. 59, No. 15, Ed. 1 Tuesday, February 1, newspaper, Georgetown, Texas, (1966) pg. 1. <a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> The Megaphone, (1966). 1. <a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> The Megaphone, 5 <a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> The Megaphone, 5 <a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> The Megaphone, 5 <a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Raymond J. Seeger, Report to President Durwood Fleming Southwestern University on the Science and Mathematics Program.(1966) 1. <a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Raymond J. Seeger, Report. 1966: 2. <a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Raymond J. Seeger, Report. 1966: 2. <a href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Kaiser, David. "Cold War Requisitions.” (2002): 136 <a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Raymond J. Seeger, Report. 1966: 2. <a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> Kaiser, David. "Cold War Requisitions.” (2002): 137 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Where is Southwestern Headed?: Changes Will Realize Academic Goals Subject The topic of the resource An essay by Barry Browne in the Megaphone about the changes Southwestern will be making to the curriculums in the future Description An account of the resource The president of the University recently announced some changes that would be taking effect soon on the school and this students is explaining what they are to the readers of the newspaper. It lists both the financial and educational goals of the University Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Barry Browne Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Megaphone, Vol. 59, No. 15, Ed. 1 Tuesday, February 1, 1966, pp. 1,3. Georgetown, Texas, Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource February 1, 1966