My dissertation investigates the connections between elite public conversations about religion and science and the everyday lives of American religious believers. Using discourse analysis, archival research, and in-depth interviews with ordinary Americans, I look at how particular persons become seen as representative of religion or science in four key debates: human origins, stem cell research, origins of homosexuality, and environmental policy. I further examine how representation in these debates shapes religious group identity formation and outsider perception of religious groups. What does it mean for a religious group to be associated with a public representative in these debates, particularly if many members of that group do not resemble or agree with the putative representative? What are the consequences of being associated with a representative in terms of outsider perceptions?

What can this tell us about institutional authority and credibility in American public life? This research addresses two research priorities of the Louisville

Institute. First, it illuminates how elite public conversation can shape

the daily experience of American religious life. Second, it increases our

understanding of the indirect mechanisms that shape institutional configurations in American religion.