Yet every public opinion survey suggests that the bedrock support for antievolutionism in the United States remains the biblical literalism of fundamentalist Protestant churches, which are typically more concerned with the age of the earth (as presented in the Bible) than such intellectual abstractions as scientific naturalism. In The Genesis Flood, for example, Morris stresses the theological significance of utter fidelity to the entire biblical narrative. When the Book of Genesis claims that God created the universe in six days, Morris maintains, it must mean six twenty-four-hour days; when Genesis says that God created humans and animals on the sixth day, then dinosaurs must have lived alongside early humankind; and when Genesis gives the genealogy of Noah’s descendants, believers can use the information to date the flood at between five thousand and seven thousand years ago.
Despite judicial rulings against the incorporation of scientific creationism into the public school biology curriculum, opinion surveys suggest that at least four out of every ten Americans accept biblical creationism of the sort espoused by Morris and the Institute for Creation Research. If not propagated in the public schools, then creationism must be spread by other means—and conservative Christian religious organizations have the necessary resources to further propagate creationism. Fifty years after its initial publication, The Genesis Flood continues to sell well in Christian bookstores, but it’s now only one in a shelffull of such books. Christian radio and television stations bombard the nation with creationist broadcasts, such as Ken Ham’s “Answers in Genesis,” which is heard daily on hundreds of radio stations in the United States and around the world.
In terms of educational trends, the number of students who are schooled at home or in Christian academies has steadily risen since 1980, with many such students learning their biology from creationist textbooks. At the post-secondary level, Bible institutes and Christian colleges continue to grow in number and size, with at least some of them offering degrees in biology and science education in a creation-friendly environment.
All this creationist activity is nearly invisible outside the churches and religious communities where it occurs, but that has not stopped some evolutionists from striking back. To be sure, most biologists probably ignore religion. But some of them—ardent in their evolutionism and evangelistic about its social implications—have adopted a Darrowesque dislike of biblical Christianity. The British biologist and popular science writer Richard Dawkins leads this group.
In The Blind Watchmaker, published to great acclaim in the midst of legal wrangling over Louisiana’s balanced-treatment law, Dawkins takes aim at what he calls “redneck” creationists and “their disturbingly successful fight to subvert American education and textbook publishing.” Focusing on the philosophical heart of creationism, rather than simple biblical literalism, Dawkins challenges the very notion of purposeful design in nature, which he calls “the most influential of the arguments for the existence of God.” In a legendary articulation of this argument in 1802, British theologian William Paley compared living things to mechanical watches. Just as the intricate workings of a watch betrayed its maker’s purposes, Paley reasoned, so too the even more intricate complexity of individual organs and organisms proves the existence of a purposeful creator. Not so, Dawkins counters. “Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin described, and which we now know is the explanation for existence and apparently the purposeful form of all life, has no purpose.... It is the blind watchmaker.” By banishing the argument for design, Dawkins proclaims, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”3
Renowned Harvard naturalist E. O. Wilson makes similar assertions. “The inexorable growth of [biology] continues to widen, not to close the tectonic gap between science and faith-based religion,” Wilson wrote in 2005. “The toxic mix of religion and tribalism has become so dangerous as to justify taking seriously the alternative view, that humanism based on science is the effective antidote, the light and the way at last placed before us.”4
Organized science has sought to defuse this controversy by affirming the comparability of modern evolutionary naturalism and a personal belief in God. The National Academy of Sciences, a self-selecting body of the nation’s premier scientists, had asserted as much in a glossy brochure distributed to teachers during the 1980s in reaction to the creation-science movement. Responding to the rise of intelligent design, the National Academy in 1998 widely distributed a new booklet reasserting that, while science is committed to methodological naturalism, it does not conflict with religion. They simply represent separate ways of knowing. “Science,” the booklet states, “is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”5
The eight-thousand-member National Association of Biology Teachers took a similar tack. In a position statement initially adopted during the 1980s in opposition to the creation-science movement and always controversial among theists, the association defined evolution as “an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredicted and natural process of temporal descent with gradual modification.” In 1997, responding to the intelligent design movement, the association’s leadership committee voted to delete the words unsupervised and impersonal from their statement. The group’s executive director explained, “To say that evolution is unsupervised is to make a theological statement,” and that exceeds the bounds of science. In other words, God could intelligently design species through an evolutionary process.6
The NABT’s move surprised many. A New York Times article described it as “a startling about face.” To Dawkins, such an approach represents “a cowardly flabbiness of the intellect.”7 Johnson dismisses it as rank hypocrisy. If they agree on nothing else, Dawkins and Johnson agree that Darwinism and Christianity are fundamentally at odds—and, with their writings and talks, they help to stir popular passions over biology education much as Darrow and Bryan once did.
With a solid majority of people in some areas believing in creation science and an added number accepting intelligent design, teaching the theory of evolution inevitably becomes highly controversial. In Kansas during 1999, for example, creationists on the state school board temporarily succeeded in deleting the big bang theory and what they called “macro-evolution” from the list of topics mandated for coverage in public school science classrooms. Six years later, they took the further step of adding an ID-friendly definition of science to their educational standards. In 2004, the school board of suburban Cobb County, Georgia, responding to the concerns of local parents and taxpayers, decreed that biology textbooks should carry a disclaimer stating that evolution is just a theory. A year later, the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board mandated not only an oral disclaimer akin to Cobb County’s written one but also recommended intelligent design as an alternative explanation of biological origins. In cases that made front-page news across the country and overseas, federal district courts struck down the Cobb County and Dover restrictions. Their rulings are the latest chapter in the long-running courtroom drama that opened with the Scopes trial.
The Cobb County disclaimer, printed onto a sticker placed on the front covers of biology textbooks, stated, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” 8 Similar disclaimers have appeared in Alabama textbooks for years without sparking lawsuits and are under consideration elsewhere, but perhaps because of the diverse nature of the county’s population and its visible location as a bedroom community for Atlanta, the disclaimer immediately encountered stiff opposition in Cobb County. The Georgia ACLU promptly filed suit on behalf of a group of local students and their parents.
In his judicial opinion, Judge Clarence Cooper tackled antievolutionists’ “only a theory” argument. Of course evolution is only a theory, but it’s not a hunch or a guess, he noted. “The Sticker targets on
ly evolution to be approached with an open mind, carefully studied, and critically considered without explaining why it is the only theory being so isolated as such,” he wrote. In light of the historic and continuing opposition to the theory of evolution by certain religious groups, Judge Cooper concluded that, “the informed, reasonable observer would perceive the school board to be aligning itself with proponents of religious theories of origins.” Thus the sticker constituted an impermissible endorsement of religion under prevailing constitutional standards.9 This holding relied in part on evidence of organized religious lobbying for the stickers, which was disputed on appeal, leading the appellate court to send the case back to Judge Cooper for reconsideration. He should better document the extent of religious activism in promoting the sticker, the appeals court ruled. By doing so, the appellate court reconfirmed the critical importance of religion in this long-running legal dispute.
Although Judge Cooper did not expand on the point in his original decision, he identified the religious group that benefited by the sticker as “Christian fundamentalists and creationists,” not theists generally.10 Many people see the controversy this way, which helps to explain its depth. Millions of American Christians and members of other religious traditions accept the theory of evolution. For some theologically liberal Christians, evolution is central to their religious worldview. Even many theologically conservative Protestants and Catholics accept organic evolution as God’s means of creation. They see no conflict between it and a high view of scripture. Theistic theories of evolution have a long and distinguished pedigree within evangelical Christian theology. Some thought that by cautioning students against all theories of evolution, the Cobb County school board had lined up on one side of a dispute among religious believers and so unconstitutionally entangled church and state. Judge Cooper agreed, and held this as a second legal basis for disallowing use of the stickers.
The Dover case also involved school guidelines built on the ID argument that students should be told that evolution is a controversial and unproven theory. “The theory is not a fact,” the Dover disclaimer stated. “Gaps in the theory exist for which there is not evidence.” This alone conveyed an unconstitutional endorsement of a religious viewpoint, the court ruled. Unlike the Cobb County sticker, however, the statement read to Dover students added, “Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.” This text, the court found, contained creationist religious material, including the affirmation that basic kinds of living things (such as birds and fish) were separately created. As such, its use in public schools violated the constitutional bar against religious instruction.11
The decision went further, though. During a six-week trial, Judge John Jones heard extensive testimony on intelligent design to determine whether it could be presented as an alternative explanation of origins in a public school science class. Here his decision broke new ground. “After a searching review of the record and applicable case law,” Judge Jones ruled, “we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.” He gave three reasons. First, unlike science, ID invokes supernatural explanations. Second, it rests on the flawed argument that evidence against the current theory of evolution supports the design alternative. Third, scientists have largely refuted the negative attacks on evolution leveled by ID proponents. Intelligent design, the judge stressed, has not been accepted by the scientific community, has not had papers published in peer-reviewed publications, and has not been subjected to testing and research—all points that Michael Behe conceded under cross examination. Indeed, after offering an alternative definition for science that ID could meet—“a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences”—Behe admitted that astrology would also qualify as science. This alone probably sealed the decision, but evidence that school board members acted with a clear religious purpose and then tried to cover up their tracks also turned this judge, a no-nonsense conservative appointed by President George W Bush, against the school policy. “The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial,” Judge Jones concluded.12
In Dover, as in Cobb County, the school board’s decision to adopt the antievolution disclaimer polarized the community. It divided families, neighbors, and churches. In an election held before the court ruled, voters replaced eight members of the school board with candidates opposed to the policy, guaranteeing that the board would not appeal the court’s ruling. When Americans on either side of this controversy watch what happened in Cobb County or Dover, they wonder how the controversy might play out in their own hometowns and among their friends. Of course the media took notice—making these cases top stories.
That, in brief, is where the creation-evolution teaching controversy stands more than eighty years after Dayton gained headlines by prosecuting John Scopes. It resurfaces periodically in countless Daytons throughout the United States over everyday episodes of science teachers either defying or deifying Darwin. Such acts generate lawsuits and legislation precisely because religion continues to matter greatly in America. Public opinion surveys invariably find that more than nine in ten Americans believe in God, just as they have found since pollsters began asking about such matters in the 1950s. Surveys also indicate that more than three-fourths of all Americans believe in miracles and that three out of five say religion is very important in their lives. It troubles many Americans that science does not affirm their faith and outrages some when their children’s biology coursework seems to deny their biblical beliefs.
As a diverse people, Americans have learned to seek the middle ground whenever possible. As a species, however, human beings instinctively respond to stirring oratory. Darrow and Bryan had mastered that craft and used it in Dayton to enlist their legions. They tapped into a cultural divide that deeply troubles American society. And as people learn either from Proverbs in the Bible or a Broadway classic, “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.” That wind has sporadically touched off maelstroms over the past eighty years—storms that sorely test America’s national tradition of tolerance. If history offers a barometer for future events, it forecasts more heavy weather ahead.
NOTES
Throughout the notes, page numbers of newspaper articles refer to the first page of the article, and the following sources are identified in short form:
ACLU Archives: American Civil Liberties Union Archives, Princeton University Libraries, Princeton, N.J.
Bryan Papers: William Jennings Bryan Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
Darrow Papers: Clarence Darrow Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
Fortas Papers: Abe Fortas Papers, Princeton University Libraries, Princeton, N.J.
Hicks Papers: Judge Sue K. Hicks Papers, University of Tennessee Libraries, Knoxville, Tenn.
Mims Papers: Edwin Mims Papers, Vanderbilt University Libraries, Nashville, Tenn.
Peay Papers: Official Papers of Governor Austin Peay, Tennessee State Archives, Nashville, Tenn.
Transcript: The World’s Most Famous Court Case: Tennessee Evolution Case. Dayton: Bryan College, 1990.
INTRODUCTION
1 All quotations from the trial are taken from Transcript, 284-304.
2 William Jennings Bryan, In His Image (New York: Revell, 1922), 13.
3 Transcript, 323.
4 William Jennings Bryan, Is the Bible True? (Nashville: private printing, 1923), 10.
5 Henry Fairfield Osborn, “Evolution and Religion,” New York Times, 5 March 1922, sec. 7, p. 2.
6 Transcript, 236-38, 244-45, 277-78.
7 “The Scopes Trial,” Chicago Tribune, 17 July 1925, p. 8.
CHAPTER ONE. DIGGING UP CONTROV
ERSY
1 Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward, “On the Discovery of Palaeolithic Human Skull and Mandible,” Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 69 (1913), 117.
2 For a scientific description of these fossil remains from the time, see Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man (London: Williams & Norgate, 1915), 497-511; and for a somewhat later description by an expert witness for the defense in the Scopes trial, see Kirtley F. Mather, Old Mother Earth (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929), 52-55.
3 Dawson and Woodward, “Discovery,” 133-35, 139.
4 Boyd Dawkins, in discussion following ibid., 148-49.
5 “Paleolithic Skull Is a Missing Link; Bones Probably Those of a Direct Ancestor of Modern Man,” New York Times, 19 December 1912, p. 6.
6 “Man Had Reason Before He Spoke,” New York Times, 20 December 1912, p. 6.
7 For example, “Exhibit Skull Believed Oldest Ever Discovered,” Chicago Tribune, 20 December 1912, p. 9.
Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion Page 34