In 1925, John Scopes, a high school biology teacher in Tennessee, was found guilty of violating Tennessee law against the teaching of evolution in public schools. Leading the case for the prosecution at the Dayton, Tennessee, trial was three-time Democratic nominee for President, William Jennings Bryan. Bryan had been a fiery crusader against evolutionary biology, which he derided during one of his speeches as "the most paralyzing influence with which civilization has had to contend during the last century."
Bryan’s attacks on evolution struck a chord in a number of southern and southwestern states where the appeal of Christian fundamentalism had flourished and resulted in the formation of large and powerful groups such as the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association and the Baptist Bible Union. The main tactic of these groups, and that of individuals like Bryan, was to lobby state legislatures to ban the teaching of evolution in schools. Bryan himself felt that the teaching of evolution as a "hypothesis" and not a scientific fact was acceptable and could be "considered as giving information as to views held, which is very different from teaching it as fact."
The struggles over creationism and other conservative social issues such as reproductive rights, gay marriage and the separation of church and state will sharpen over the next decade. The task of the left and progressive forces must be to shift the debate back to the true nature of capitalism and reframe the debate on cultural and religious values within this context.
The efforts of these groups led to the introduction of legislation in fifteen states to ban the teaching of evolution in the schools. In February of 1925, the Tennessee state legislature passed a bill that made it unlawful "to teach any theory that denies the story of divine creation as taught by the Bible and to teach instead that man was descended from a lower order of animals." The challenge to this statute by John Scopes led to the famous "Monkey Trial."
As author Douglas Linder writes in "The Scopes Trial: An Introduction," the strategy of the defense, led by the famous defense attorney and Chicago lawyer Clarence Darrow, was "not to win acquittal for John Scopes, but rather to obtain a declaration by a higher court – preferably the US Supreme Court – that laws forbidding the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional." In a rather bizarre and ironic twist, Darrow called upon the jury to find Scopes guilty of violating the state statute, and they promptly complied. The defense then appealed the verdict to the state Supreme Court, which did dismiss the verdict, but only on technical grounds. Not until 1968 did the Supreme Court rule against the constitutionality of the ban on teaching evolution.
Contrary to what is widely believed about that case, the anti-evolutionists did not lose the battle in 1925. It is true that, following the Scopes trial, only two of the 15 states successfully passed legislation against the teachings of evolution. However, a number of public schools districts in southern and southwestern states quietly rewrote their textbooks to eliminate any traces of evolutionary teachings.
Why is this somewhat lengthy foray into US legal and political history necessary? There are two reasons: one, the growing strength of the conservative Christian movement in recent years is increasingly placing the debate in the center of the national agenda on public education; two, the tactics used in the early 20th century by some proponents of creationism have been resurrected with increasing success.
The Creationist Attack on Public Education
The December 13, 2004, edition of the New York Times reports that successes in the 2004 national elections are quickly being translated into renewed pressure on state and local governments to adopt radical right-wing policies being pushed by conservative and evangelical Christian groups. As examples, it notes that in Kansas, "conservatives have won a majority on the State Board of Education, which is expected to introduce changes this spring to the high school science curriculum challenging the theory of evolution." This move comes after a failed attempt by the Board in 1999 to "erase mention of evolution from the state science curriculum." In Missouri, a state representative has introduced "bills for the next session of the Legislature, [one of which] would require publishers that sell biology textbooks to Missouri to include at least one chapter with alternative theories to evolution."
Attacks on the teaching of evolution have not been limited to these two states. A USA Today article from November 28, 2004 notes that "24 states this year have seen efforts to change the way evolution is taught. And because of a requirement in the federal No Child Left Behind law that states must review science standards over the next two years, the debate is likely to intensify." Nor is the debate limited to the arena of high school science curricula, including, as it does, a book on the Biblical origins of the Grand Canyon that is on sale at the Grand Canyon bookstore!
Evolution in a Nutshell
Before we delve into creationist attacks on evolution, a look at the basic ideas of evolutionary science are in order. Darwin’s theory of evolution represents a major triumph of modern science, and was first detailed in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species. The theory has undergone numerous modifications and additions as better and more experimental evidence from the natural world has emerged.
Evolution is based on the following ideas, widely agreed to in the mainstream scientific community: 1) the universe, including the Earth and the solar system, is billions of years old and has gradually evolved; 2) the first forms of life on Earth developed from non-living matter nearly three billion years ago; 3) later, more complex forms of life, emerged from these common "ancestral" forms through a process called "natural selection"; 4) the entire history of life in the universe can be explained through natural processes and do not require divine intervention.
Evidence for the correctness of evolutionary ideas comes from numerous scientific experiments. The study of rocks by geologists points to an Earth that is 4.5 billion years old. The study of fossils by paleontologists reveals that more primitive organisms like bacteria are found trapped in deeper, and hence older, layers of the Earth, while modern life forms, such as mammals and birds, are found in upper layers. Even today, we see evidence for evolution in the growth of DDT-resistant malaria mosquitoes or antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The list is endless.
At the heart of the controversy, however, is the process called "natural selection," which aims to explain the immense diversity of plant and animal life on Earth. An example might help explain this theory. Within a herd of deer living in the wild, one can see differences in height, weight, and other features between individual deer. These differences arise from random genetic mutations that have occurred over generations. But the result of these random changes is that some of the deer in the herd may be able to better protect themselves from predators, possibly the ones that can run faster. Over generations, the genes from these deer are passed on to their offspring. This creates a herd of deer that have successfully adapted to their environment. Thus, one can explain both, the diversity within species, as well as the similarities between them through purely natural processes. The lack of divine intervention lies at the core of creationist problems with evolution.
Do you subscribe to Political Affairs?
click image to find out how
Creationist Arguments
Creationist arguments themselves have evolved over time, creating new theories and explanations in response to social progress. Early proponents, such as Bryan, argued that evolution contradicted a literal reading of the Old Testament and the Bible. In a speech at the Scopes trial, Bryan is recorded as saying," The purpose of teaching evolution is…to banish from the hearts of the people the Word of God as revealed." Such views were supported by fundamentalist Christian groups, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But, the growing success and popularity of science, particularly during and after World War II, weakened these moral arguments.
The latest round of attacks on evolution gained prominence in the late 1960s, flourishing throughout the last two decades of the twentieth century. In many aspects, the tactics used by its proponents are similar to those used at the turn of the previous century – attempts to replace high school textbooks that teach evolution with creationist alternatives, introducing legislation at the state level to provide equal time for creationist ideas in public school education, and the like. But, the post-1960s movement differs from its predecessors in two important ways. First, the growing presence of scientists within the creationist movement has allowed it to challenge the scientific evidence for evolution. Simultaneously, the movement has sought to use the language and methods of science to argue for the "scientific teaching of Biblical creationism."
Prominent among these groups are the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in California and the Creation Research Society (CRS) of Michigan. The ICR views itself as existing "to train students in scientific research and teaching skills, preparing effective warriors for the faith." The CRS promotes itself as "a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation."
Most anti-evolutionist groups agree on a few basic principles of "scientific creationism": 1) The Universe, including the Earth, is relatively young and was created instantly; 2) All life was created instantly and life forms have remained unchanged since creation; 3) Features of the Earth, fossil records, etc. can be explained by catastrophic processes, such as the Great Flood of Noah’s time. These principles are combined to argue for the validity of a literal reading of the Bible, and the presence of an all-powerful Christian God who is the Creator. Variations on these ideas have led to new groups and schisms within the creationist movement. Some have retreated to a version that abandons the young-Earth principle, while others have removed explicit references to God or a Creator. The growth of the "Intelligent Design" movement is an attempt to attack evolution using a seemingly secular approach that avoids identifying who the "designer" may be.
Schisms within creationist ranks must not obscure the fundamental impact of all these ideas, which regard Darwinism and evolution as threats to Christian ideology. As author Douglas Futuyma warns in his book Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, "Creationists represent only one facet of a movement that is dedicated to extinguishing secular humanism, under which they include all attitudes and educational program that do not explicitly include their theological doctrines. …Fundamentalism’s defense of "traditional" values and mores feeds on anti-intellectualism, conservatism and fear of social change."
The Social Basis of Creationism
In an essay written for the New York Review of Books in June 1983, biologist Richard Lewontin places the growth and popularity of creationist groups and arguments within the American social context, when he asks, "Why now? Why only in America? Why the passion, commitment, expenditure of time and money by fundamentalists?" The answers, in his view, lie in a "historical understanding" of the economic and political nature of "southern and southwestern American populism" that flourished in the early 20th century, as well as in "materialist explanations of the world."
Globalization is radically restructuring the US economy in the 21st century through global trade treaties and domestic policies that benefit multinational corporations at the expense of workers and the middle class. The rapid polarization between rich and poor is creating growing instabilities in the social structure. The changing cultural landscape due to immigration, the outsourcing of jobs, the disappearance of the manufacturing base, are resulting in the dislocation of individuals and families, primarily among the poor and the working class. But, as Lewontin puts it, if they "have no control over their economic and political lives, at least they [can] control their cultural and religious lives and what [goes] into the heads of their children."
The struggles over creationism and other conservative social issues such as reproductive rights, gay marriage and the separation of church and state will sharpen over the next decade. The task of the left and progressive forces must be to shift the debate back to the true nature of capitalism and reframe the debate on cultural and religious values within this context.
--Prasad Venugopal is science editor of Political Affairs. Reach him by e-mail at pa-letters@politicalaffairs.net. This article originally appeared in the February 2005 print edition.
