How the Anti-Evolution Debate Has Evolved

History News Network ^ | 20 December 2005 | Charles A. Israel

[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).

[RunningWolf]

Woman, you are just plain nuts.

Busted Banjo never demolishes anything, save for in the minds at the little nutball ward cult of darwinist atheist evolutionism.

What have ever done that is honest or courageous? I say nothing. How can you have a concept of these things then? You cant.

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

You're assuming that living things have an inherent purpose.

Some living things do. In your case this may be debatable.

Wolf

[bondserv]

No need to make such an assumption. This matter differs from creationism/ID because in this matter we actually have hard evidence of a composer.

The author (who exists outside of our time domain as proven by His knowing history before it happens) of the Old Testament became a man in Jesus Christ. He preformed many miracles before multitudes, including His own resurrection from the dead; which changed mankind to it's core.

Modern brilliant minds feel they can remain ignorant of the Holy Scriptures. This has not always been the case, as one need only look to the innovators of modern science to realize the truth.

Modern scientists have become to specialized to be called arbiters of truth. Evolutionary theory has demonstrably turned off their minds.

Jesus Christ, being God, is the source of all wisdom. Applying knowledge separate from Him is erroneous by definition.

Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name [is] Holy; I dwell in the high and holy [place], with him also [that is] of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Dan 2:20 Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:

[durasell]

Stay away from those promising multiple virgins in heaven. There is an inherent flaw in this so-called "reward."

A) Do you really want to go through making the first time special 72 times? I think not.

B)Statistically speaking, any number of those 72 will turn out to be stalkers. Hey, being stalked through eternity can't be a picnic. Figure 87 billion (that's billion with a "b") hang ups on your answering machine late at night.

However, give serious thought to a religion promising Vegas cocktail waitresses.

[RunningWolf]

Modern scientists have become to specialized to be called arbiters of truth. Evolutionary theory has demonstrably turned off their minds.

I say that in their minds, they are the arbiters of truth.

They have been seduced by evo theory, and to some degree cosmology also.

Wolf

[RaceBannon]

Whatever.

You guys need new material

Your worn, tired repetition of evolution being a science is wearing thin.

It is a belief system nmasquerading as science.

ID is more science than evo, while Creationism at least is honest about what it is: SCIENCE that proves the Bible correct!

[Coyoteman]

ID is more science than evo, while Creationism at least is honest about what it is: SCIENCE that proves the Bible correct!

Creationism is at least honest--its a religious belief.

Modern ID is a lie start to finish, as it was hatched immediately after the Edwards Supreme Court decision of 1987 (other forms of ID go back millennia, but they are not pushing Creationism into the schools). See the The Wedge Strategy for details.

And now for your viewing pleasure--Evidence for evolution:

---

Fossil: KNM-WT 15000

Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)

Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)

Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)

Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)

Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)

Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=38

[RunningWolf]

// evolution is a belief system masquerading as science.//

I have said essentially the same thing

[durasell]

What is the ultimate goal of the ID folks?

[Coyoteman]

What is the ultimate goal of the ID folks?

If we are to take them (the modern ID movement) at their word, it is all spelled out in The Wedge Strategy.

[dread78645]

The Lunatic is in the hall placemark

[durasell]

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.




Absolutely unrealistic to the point of disengenuous. My take on the thing -- and I've been following the FR debate on it carefully -- is that they'll get a couple of school boards in a couple of states (say 12) to adopt ID. This will hurt America's standing in the scientific community, but not much. Mostly it'll just hurt the kids who go to school in those States as well as the States themselves. Along the way somebody, somewhere will be making money off the conflict.

Science always triumphs. It may triumph in China in twenty years, but ID is not going to slow down scientific progress.

[RunningWolf]

The Lunatic is in the hall placemark

Okay thanks, don't ping yourself, everyone already knows, okay??

You can have a side conversation that you are going to ignore someone or whatnot. Thats the evo way!! LOL

[dread78645]

Okay thanks, don't ping yourself, everyone already knows, okay??

So you've been here all of four months, and you don't know how to placemark a thread yet?

[Dimensio]

So you've been here all of four months, and you don't know how to placemark a thread yet?

He's just looking for an excuse to attack people who don't agree with him. He never has any rational arguments, so when he can't think of a good lie he just goes off on bizarre and whacko tangents.

As for me, I'm getting drunk. Er,drunker.

[dread78645]

As for me, I'm getting drunk. Er,drunker.

Another tall boy or two left here.

Carry on.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

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.

What is taught?
1) Humans evolved from apes.
2) Life came from a primordial chemical soup.

Both are false. A mere disclaimer that the above are controversial theories and there are alternative views causes the athiest secular humanist satan loving Christian-hating American God-hating scumbags to come out of the woodwork to kill it because it endangers the minds of children which they'd like to control. Just like the queer agenda.

[RunningWolf]

Have a Healthy Holy Happy Prosperous Year placemarker, wolf out.

Wolf

[Dimensio]

Both are false.

Please demonstrate as much.

A mere disclaimer that the above are controversial theories and there are alternative views causes the athiest secular humanist satan loving Christian-hating American God-hating scumbags

And yet another creationist dishonestly claims that all who accept evolution and recognize ID as non-science are atheists.

[Thatcherite]

You can have a side conversation that you are going to ignore someone or whatnot.

Ah yes, side conversations. Pot... Kettle... Black. You would know. You only appear to be here to cheerlead for the biggest and most shameless liars and fools you can find, as long as they support creationism. It appears to be impossible for a creationist to post so moronically that they won't attract your support.

BTW, I answered your questions about Piltdown Doctoral theses in the other thread, but you never did come through with a list of the ones you found.... Par for the creationist course. Actually perhaps you did come through with them all, because maybe the list looks like this:

""