Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How the Anti-Evolution Debate Has Evolved
History News Network ^ | 20 December 2005 | Charles A. Israel

Posted on 12/30/2005 2:29:22 PM PST by PatrickHenry

In this last month of the year, when many Americans' thoughts are turning to holidays -- and what to call them -- we may miss another large story about the intersections of religion and public life. Last week a federal appeals court in Atlanta listened to oral arguments about a sticker pasted, and now removed, from suburban Cobb County, Georgia’s high school science textbooks warning that evolution is a "theory, not a fact." The three-judge panel will take their time deciding the complex issues in the case. But on Tuesday, a federal district court in Pennsylvania ruled the Dover Area ( Penn.) School Board’s oral disclaimers about scientific evolution to be an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The school district's statement to students and parents directed them to an "alternative" theory, that of Intelligent Design (ID); the court ruled found "that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism." (Kitzmiller opinion, p. 31.) Apparently in a case about evolution, genealogical metaphors are unavoidable.

Seemingly every news story about the modern trials feels it necessary to refer to the 1925 Tennessee Monkey Trial, the clash of the larger-than-life legal and political personalities of William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow in the prosecution of high school teacher John Scopes for teaching evolution in violation of state law. As an historian who has written about evolution, education, and the era of the Scopes trial, I will admit the continuities between 1925 and today can seem striking. But, these continuities are deceiving. Though the modern court challenges still pit scientists supporting evolution against some parents, churches, and others opposing its unchallenged place in public school curriculum; the changes in the last eighty years seem even stronger evidence for a form of legal or cultural evolution.

First, the continuities. In the late 19th century religious commentators like the southern Methodist editor and professor Thomas O. Summers, Sr. loved to repeat a little ditty: "When doctors disagree,/ disciples then are free" to believe what they wanted about science and the natural world. Modern anti-evolutionists, most prominently under the sponsorship of Seattle's Discovery Institute, urge school boards to "teach the controversy" about evolution, purposefully inflating disagreements among scientists about the particulars of evolutionary biology into specious claims that evolutionary biology is a house of cards ready to fall at any time. The court in the Dover case concluded that although there were some scientific disagreements about evolutionary theory, ID is "an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion" not science. In a second continuity, supporters of ID reach back, even before Darwin, to the 19th century theology of William Paley, who pointed to intricate structures like the human eye as proof of God's design of humans and the world. Though many ID supporters are circumspect about the exact identity of the intelligent designer, it seems unlikely that the legions of conservative Christian supporters of ID are assuming that Martians, time-travelers, or extra-terrestrial meatballs could be behind the creation and complexity of their world.

While these issues suggest that the Scopes Trial is still relevant and would seem to offer support for the statement most often quoted to me by first year history students on why they should study history -- because it repeats itself -- this new act in the drama shows some remarkable changes. Arguing that a majority of parents in any given state, acting through legislatures, could outlaw evolution because it contradicted their religious beliefs, William Jennings Bryan campaigned successfully in Tennessee and several other states to ban the teaching of evolution and to strike it from state-adopted textbooks.

Legal challenges to the Tennessee law never made it to the federal courts, but the constitutional hurdles for anti-evolutionists grew higher in 1968, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas. that an Arkansas law very similar to the Tennessee statute was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The law's purpose, the court found, was expressly religious. So anti-evolution was forced to evolve, seeking a new form more likely to pass constitutional muster. Enter Creation Science, a movement that added scientific language to the book of Genesis, and demanded that schools provide "equal time" to both Creation Science and biological evolution. Creation Science is an important transitional fossil of the anti-evolution movement, demonstrating two adaptations: first, the adoption of scientific language sought to shield the religious purpose of the statute and second, the appeal to an American sense of fairness in teaching both sides of an apparent controversy. The Supreme Court in 1987 found this new evolution constitutionally unfit, overturning a Louisiana law (Edwards v. Aguillard).

Since the 1987 Edwards v Aguillard decision, the anti-evolution movement has attempted several new adaptations, all of which show direct ties to previous forms. The appeal to public opinion has grown: recent national opinion polls reveal that nearly two-thirds of Americans (and even higher numbers of Alabamians) support teaching both scientific evolution and creationism in public schools. School board elections and textbook adoption battles show the strength of these arguments in a democratic society. The new variants have been far more successful at clothing themselves in the language -- but not the methods -- of science. Whether by rewriting state school standards to teach criticisms of scientific evolution (as in Ohio or Kansas) or in written disclaimers to be placed in school textbooks (as in Alabama or Cobb County, Georgia) or in the now discredited oral disclaimers of the Dover Area School Board, the religious goal has been the same: by casting doubt on scientific evolution, they hope to open room to wedge religion back into public school curricula. [Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project".] But as the court in yesterday's Dover case correctly concluded, Intelligent Design is "an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion" not science. Old arguments of a religious majority, though still potent in public debate, have again proven constitutionally unfit; Creationists and other anti-evolutionists will now have to evolve new arguments to survive constitutional tests.


About the author: Mr. Israel is Associate Professor of History at Auburn University and author of Before Scopes: Evangelicals, Education, and Evolution in Tennessee, 1870–1925 (University of Georgia Press, 2004).


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 381-389 next last
To: RaceBannon
See? Evolution is incompatible wit the Bible...

And once again, evolutionists admit it.

So does the Discovery Institute...

The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'

-- Phillip Johnson

...so it's down to the atheists versus the fundamentalists, I guess.

:(


161 posted on 12/31/2005 6:58:18 PM PST by forsnax5 (The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I know the list is long already, but how about,

"It was from peer accepted books, and therefore MUST be considered accurate by evolutionists"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549524/posts?page=151#151

for Your Brain On Creationism?


162 posted on 12/31/2005 6:59:46 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: forsnax5

Serious here...

Who is Phillip Johnson? Can't be the architect by the same name. That's one of the most disturbing things I've read in a long time...


163 posted on 12/31/2005 7:01:06 PM PST by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
"Wow, the anti-Christian bias coming from your post makes yo sound irrational."

?? I said you were not being very Christian because you refuse to do me the courtesy of answering my points, after I went through a lot of trouble answering all of yours. I stand by that. I am not the one acting anti-Christian.

"And I dont care what Etheridge wrote. The post stands."

lol YOU were the one who posted his quote as evidence against Darwin! Now you don't even care if it was accurate? Hey, Mary Mapes, is that you?
164 posted on 12/31/2005 7:03:18 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: durasell
Who is Phillip Johnson?

http://www.arn.org/authors/johnson.html

165 posted on 12/31/2005 7:06:54 PM PST by forsnax5 (The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: forsnax5

Fascinating, thanks.

He's one dangerous dude.


166 posted on 12/31/2005 7:09:25 PM PST by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
As you can see, it is far more than a bias RaceBannon.

These crude little knuckle-heads you are dealing with are examples of the best minds this little cult can produce /sarc>

Now, all can see this has nothing to do with Christianity, but that you are dealing with the sorts that don't comprehend anything other than a virtual rhetorical 2x4 across the head.

You've got 2/3ds of your brain tied behind you back and we know its damn uncomfortable for you. But hey, if they ping the whole list on you maybe you go with only half your brain tied up.

Wolf
167 posted on 12/31/2005 7:47:03 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

I don't suppose Race cares to answer #141.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549524/posts?page=141#141

He bragged he hasn't dodged any questions, but there it stands.


168 posted on 12/31/2005 7:58:59 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: js1138
He hasn't answered anybody's questions, don't think you're special. :)

Just another creationist who makes outrageous statements, gets called on them, and starts whining like a Democrat about how unfair it is, and we all support Hitler, and "I don't have to answer you because I quoted peer accepted books, so I can't be wrong!!" Blah Blah Blah. It really doesn't get much funnier than this. He doesn't know it, but he has made my New Year's Eve. :)
169 posted on 12/31/2005 8:06:40 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
And I dont care what Etheridge wrote.

If you ever wonder why I (and others) won't bother with your BS, here's your answer. You "don't care" about your lies. You post a blatant obfuscation (you probably don't even know that there is indeed a gentleman named N(iles) Etheridge who is a real contemporary evolutionist, so by posting a century + old quote by someone else, and not apologizing for it, YOU ARE LYING.

You must be a real joy to be around.
170 posted on 12/31/2005 8:12:11 PM PST by whattajoke (I'm back... kinda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
See? Evolution is incompatible wit the Bible... And once again, evolutionists admit it

If you can extract that interpretation from my posting, you clearly have an active fantasy life.

171 posted on 12/31/2005 9:13:12 PM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: durasell
Shop around. Choose wisely. Seek out the one that attracts the hottest chicks.

Since I'm married, my criteria will be:


172 posted on 12/31/2005 9:15:47 PM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
It's obvious that you were so intimidated by CarolinaGuitarman's total demolishing of your original argument that you had to flee from it like a coward and hide with a shamelessly dishonest and totally irrelevant reference to Hitler. Now you throw Bible verses at me, all because you're too afraid to admit that you used poor and easily debunked claims. How utterly spineless of you.

I don't care to deal with cowards, especially dishonest ones like you. Have a nice day.
173 posted on 12/31/2005 9:27:36 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Any links?

*****HAPPY NEW YEAR*****

God made it all possible through evolution!

174 posted on 12/31/2005 9:30:47 PM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: ThomasNast
I'd like to see a scientific study to discover the origins of Symphony #40 in G Minor.

Of course, to ensure the science is preserved in its entirety, we must assume from the onset that there was no composer involved.

Very nicely put. Of course, it is ovious by the evidence that it evolved from Sypmhony #39. There is only a 2% difference in the notes they both contain.

175 posted on 12/31/2005 9:34:10 PM PST by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
That's why I know you'll agree with me that the "MARTIANS-ACTUALLY-CREATED-US" theory must be taught as well, along with Evolution and Intelligent Design.

After all, there's no way to disprove it, so it's just as valid as well, right?

Did I miss something really big? Did all of the millions of tax payer money being wasted looking for evidence that life "evolved" on Mars actually pay off? There really are Martians? WOW!

Then I guess we really can't prove that Martians didn't evolve first, and then they created life on Earth.

176 posted on 12/31/2005 9:43:14 PM PST by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
At this point your analogy falls apart, as science has no such assumption when invesitgating the origins of either life or the cosmos.

Maybe science doesn't, but Evolutionist sure do. Of course, we don't want to confuse the two.

If science can't deal with the possibility of a creator, then possibly it is science which is lacking. Maybe science needs to pull it's collective head out of its ar$e, and smell the coffee.

177 posted on 12/31/2005 9:49:48 PM PST by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Please present your evidence which supports the conclusion that the Universe is a "created thing". We'll wait.

You don't have to wait long

All around you, you can see complicated items, which have function and purpose. They can be proven without a doubt to have been created by intelligent beings.

Please present your evidence which supports the conclusion that the most complicated and purposeful items known (living things) have been spontaneously constructed by time and chance.

178 posted on 12/31/2005 9:53:57 PM PST by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
Maybe science doesn't, but Evolutionist sure do.

No, they don't. You're mistaking "not finding any evidence for a creator whatsoever" with "assuming that there is no creator".
179 posted on 12/31/2005 9:58:40 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
All around you, you can see complicated items, which have function and purpose. They can be proven without a doubt to have been created by intelligent beings.

Well, you can't say "without a doubt", but you can say that there's strong evidence for the claim.

Please present your evidence which supports the conclusion that the most complicated and purposeful items known (living things) have been spontaneously constructed by time and chance.

You're assuming that living things have an inherent purpose.
180 posted on 12/31/2005 9:59:28 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 381-389 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson