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).

[Dimensio]

So you really were auguring against the content of the repeated similar postings as the problem.

The content has been refuted following previous postings, but RaceBannon absolutely refuses to address any criticism of the nonsense that he spews, instead running away from facts and logic like a coward. There's also the fact that he regurgitated his nonsense as a means of running away from a discussion that he was losing.

[Mamzelle]

re: #40...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.)))

LOL--bump. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Cart, meet horse. Decartes before the horse?

[RaceBannon]

Sorry, they havent, you just refuse to accept it, that's all.

[PatrickHenry]

... in order to believe that the complexity of life makes it impossible to have evolved without an intelligent guider, they must accept the basic tenet of socialism/communism.

Right. We point this out frequently in these threads -- but not frequently enough. The Institute for Creation Research, probably the original of all creationist outfits and websites, has this posted: Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism. They understand it. And although creationists frequently (and mindlessly) blame Darwin for the likes of Hitler, it's obvious that planning on a master race is an exercise in "Intelligent Design." Indeed, limiting the gene pool in that way is the road to extinction. Not very Darwinian.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" please tell me you aren't...."

I'm not. I AM going to use the fact that they post these same things, and then run away at the first sign of criticism. I posted a point by point critique of one of those posts that was directed to me, and what did I get in return? *I don't have to defend myself, you're wrong!! Blah blah blah!*. If someone doesn't want a critique of their post, don't send me anything.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

You refuse to defend your post. You're the typical creationist coward who runs away at the first sign of criticism. No wonder creationist NEED affirmative action to get their crap into schools.

But you ARE very entertaining. :)

[wolfcreek]

Why do ugly ducklings not all become beautiful swans? Why do frogs not become princes? Why on Earth can't people, with rational minds, see both sides of this issue? WHY?

[darbymcgill]

Why on Earth can't people, with rational minds, see both sides of this issue? WHY?

Excellent question... may I have a stab at it please?

Let's review the initial 10 or so posts on this thread. If you'll note we get the obligatory EVO ping list banner and the associated links that appear on practically every single CREVO thread. (But I guess that's OK since it's posted by an EVO proponent).

In this spam we are pointed to rules by which we are "allowed" to argue and the boundaries which can't be crossed least we, "by definition" proclaim ourselves ignorant.

Next we see some humorous albeit veiled references to the famous "Evolution troll's Toolkit". Rational minds would think frequent readers of these posts might recognize that there might be "trolls" from both sides of the argument. Rational minds might also assume that someone who posts on practically every single CREVO thread might also recognize "troll" characteristics from both positions. I notice in the toolkit, most of the "troll" characteristics are specific to those generally supporting an ID/C position. While there are some one might consider generic to all posters, I see none that a rational mind might consider specific to an EVO "troll", despite the toolkit's title. A few obvious to me, which might be candidates

"Darwin never said that"
"which god, there are so many"
"try getting a PhD then you'll understand"
"no real scientist believes that"
"we debunked that already"
"learn something about biology"
and my favorite... "I guess we should quit science and pray for answers"

So to use this illustration in response to your inquiry. Why would self proclaimed intellectuals, supposedly of rational minds, intentionally disregard or not report the known existence of EVO "trolls"?

Maybe they didn't notice.... Maybe they defined the boundaries and "words" so that by definition, they didn't or shouldn't look for them... Maybe they actually recognized some and chose not to say anything, hoping nobody would notice....

The symmetry is wondrous quite and revealing in my mind.... but then my mental state has been described many times on these threads by some of the best, I just don't recall rational being one of them....

[Coyoteman]

So you really were auguring against the content of the repeated similar postings as the problem. Not the fact that the same post was made several times across multiple threads, if I read your response correctly.

And you don't have a problem with the EVO posters who post the identical gratuitous links on every single CREVO thread?

Providing information to posters and lurkers, even in large quantity is not a problem -- unless that information is inaccurate. Cutting and pasting from creation "science" websites is not the most trustworthy thing I can imagine.

If you will notice, anything one of the scientist-types posts is subject to immediate correction as well; there is just a vastly smaller error rate in their posts.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

The difference too is that when an evolution supporter here posts a lengthy post, they are willing to stick around and defend that post in it's particulars. In the case of Racebannon, he posted a lengthy post to me, I responded to it in detail, and he refused to defend his claims. It's not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last I am sure. If someone posts a long detailed post, and you answer it in the same detail, it's cowardice to run away.

[darbymcgill]

I know it's just my paranoid, irrational mind but I just found post #307 so hilariously ironic...

I can't stop laughing... but moving on...

If you will notice, anything one of the scientist-types posts is subject to immediate correction as well; there is just a vastly smaller error rate in their posts.

Am I not on the list to get the stat sheets? ;)

[Dimensio]

"which god, there are so many"

I don't use that line to troll, I use that line to illustrate the problem of creationists insisting that a particular deity be assumed in abscence of a "better" explanation; assuming a deity isn't a simple matter in itself, and frequently those advocating such a position push forth a single specific deity with no reasoning given as to why that deity -- as opposed to all others -- should be assumed.

I do it to expose bad logic and sloppy thinking, not to troll.

[darbymcgill]

It's not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last I am sure. If someone posts a long detailed post, and you answer it in the same detail, it's cowardice to run away.

Emphasis by me... I couldn't agree more... I've noticed that trick being used often on these threads...

And I'm sure you would agree with me that VI is intellectual cowardice and tantamount to running away....

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" And I'm sure you would agree with me that VI is intellectual cowardice and tantamount to running away...."

No, I wouldn't agree. Ignoring someone who keeps posting to you or about you is not the same at all with running away from posts you just made to someone. There are only a few people whose posts I ignore, because they are not worth the effort. When I talk about cowardice I am talking about someone who posts to you a long list of complaints against evolution, then, when these complaints are answered, they say they don't have to answer you and run away. I have not done this, and people who use *virtual ignore* don't do this. It's more than cowardice, it's plain rude and not very Christian. When we VI someone, we COMPLETELY ignore them, including not posting to them in the first place.

"I couldn't agree more... I've noticed that trick being used often on these threads..."

And yet, you have not said anything against the creationists doing it. Very interesting.

[darbymcgill]

I do it to expose bad logic and sloppy thinking, not to troll.

Ok, since you explain it that way, you get a pass....

But only if the next time some ID/C posters uses the "SLOT" or "gaps in the fossil record" to argue their positions, you'll read their posts as "exposing bad logic and sloppy thinking" instead of A9 or A5....

Deal?

[Dimensio]

But only if the next time some ID/C posters uses the "SLOT" or "gaps in the fossil record" to argue their positions, you'll read their posts as "exposing bad logic and sloppy thinking" instead of A9 or A5....

I have, thus far, referenced the "troll toolkit" grid ONCE, and that was AFTER making a more direct reply to the creationist regarding the factual errors and implied ignorance in their post.

[darbymcgill]

And yet, you have not said anything against the creationists doing it. Very interesting.

Would it have been not "very interesting" if I had piled on at about post 317 or so with something like "yeah all spam sucks" or something similar before I posted 318?..

If you will please recall my comments were not about spam in general, but your description of it as spam and the fun you were having trying to discredit his argument by noting he posted the same thing over and over.

I really found it funny that you were having this discussion with someone who posts the exact same thing on every single CREVO thread. And I must assume you must agree with everything in it as I don't recall seeing your refutations each time it gets posted.

[darbymcgill]

I have, thus far, referenced the "troll toolkit" grid ONCE, and that was AFTER making a more direct reply to the creationist regarding the factual errors and implied ignorance in their post.

OK, great... then we have a deal... I'm happy... keep up the good work...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Would it have been not "very interesting" if I had piled on at about post 317 or so with something like "yeah all spam sucks" or something similar before I posted 318?.."

No, but it would have been *not very interesting* if you had criticized the poster who ran away from any critique of his post, which is what this is all about. Instead, you have criticized us for having the audacity to call him a coward.

"If you will please recall my comments were not about spam in general, but your description of it as spam and the fun you were having trying to discredit his argument by noting he posted the same thing over and over."

Then you didn't understand the nature of my critique. I was showing that he had made the same statements not just here but at different forums, and had not had the guts to defend himself there either.

"I really found it funny that you were having this discussion with someone who posts the exact same thing on every single CREVO thread."

Who do you mean? And what should I disgree with in their posts?

[darbymcgill]

No, I wouldn't agree. Ignoring someone who keeps posting to you or about you is not the same at all with running away from posts you just made to someone.

This is just semantics and you know it.... We both recognize cowardice when we see it....

Running away from a post right away or putting someone who has handed you your hat on VI are both cowardly acts...

VI for abuse, I'll give a pass...

What I'd really like to know is where this came from...

When we VI someone, we COMPLETELY ignore them, including not posting to them in the first place.

Is there some conspiring to censor going on here? ;) (\tinfoil mode