How the Anti-Evolution Debate Has Evolved

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.

If the debate has evolved, then why are there still retarded arguments that keep getting rehashed after repeated debunking? ( M203M4)

M203M4,

Evolution/creationism/intelligent design are rehased continually for one reason only: COMPULSORY GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS!

If there were NO government schools this topic would NOT be controversial.

There is NO way in which the government school can approach the topic of the origins of life without ESTABLISHING and upholding the religious worldview of some and undermine that of others. Hmmm???...Establish? Doesn't our Constitution have something to say about this.

Evolution is merely one of HUNDREDS of curriculum and policy decisions that have profound political, cultural, and religious consequences for the children.

Solution: Abolish government schools. Privatized universal K-12 education. What's needed is complete separation of SCHOOL and state.

The following is an excellent essay explaning why government schools crush freedom of conscience, and are unconstitutional on both the state and federal levels: ARE PUBLIC SCHOOLS CONSTITUTIONAL?

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter9.htm

Lynn M. Stuter
January 20, 2003
NewsWithViews.com

As the war over education reform -- Goals 2000, school-to-work, and "outcome-based education" -- rages on, the time is more than ripe to ask ourselves, "Are public schools constitutional?"
Looking at the United States Constitution, no provision is made for education, but the Constitution does instruct that ... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Tenth Amendment) In other words, education is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Why, then, do we have a cabinet level United States Department of Education (US DOE)? Does this not violate the U.S. Constitution? In a word, "yes." The US DOE was established under the Carter Administration as a political payoff to the teacher unions for their support of Jimmy Carter for president.

Inquiry of the US DOE recently, concerning the constitutional authority on which it was established, brought an interesting response. No doubt many will be surprised to learn that the US DOE was established to help and support states in the area of education; and, therefore, doesn't require a constitutional mandate.

No doubt those reading federal legislation and laws, replete with "must" and "shall" as condition of receipt of federal tax dollars, would dispute the contention that the US DOE is there merely to help and support states in the matter of education. No doubt a competent constitutional attorney could make the case that federal laws concerning education have, in fact, served to move control of education from the state level to the federal level in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

So, if the Tenth Amendment reserves education to the state level, are public or government schools constitutional at the state level?

Article IX, Section 2, of the Constitution of the State of Washington, states, "The legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools..." This appears to conform with the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ... that is, until we look further.

Article IX fulfills the requirements laid down by Section 4 of the Enabling Act (25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676), approved February 22, 1889, providing the would-be states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Washington the ability to "form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States ..."

Section 4 of the Enabling Act reads, in part, "... said [constitutional] conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States: ... Fourth. That provision shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of systems of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of said States, and free from sectarian control."

The requirement that Washington State have a "general and uniform system of public schools" was mandated from the federal level when the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly reserves to the states that which is not specifically delegated to the United States? Why was this not challenged by the several states whose statehood was addressed by this Enabling Act? That challenge would have, no doubt, led back to Horace Mann and laws concerning compulsory education.

But the scope of conflict doesn't stop there. Note, under the Enabling Act, that public schools, by federal mandate, must be "free from sectarian control." Likewise, Article IX, Section 4, of the Washington State Constitution, to fulfill the requirements of the Enabling Act, states, "All schools maintained or supported wholly or in part by the public funds shall be forever free from sectarian control or influence."

Looking in the dictionary, we learn that "sectarian" is a derivation of "sect" meaning a group with a particular interest, purpose, or scope. Any religion has a "particular interest, purpose, or scope", does it not, whether it be Christianity, New Age, Hinduism, Buddhism, humanism ... or any one of the hundreds of religious sects on earth?

According to the Enabling Act and the Washington State Constitution, not one cent of public money may go to a school that is sectarian. None. Which brings us to another problem.

Every aspect of education, from the subjects taught, to the purpose of it, to the way it is taught (pedagogy), is based on a world view ... how one perceives the world and the purpose of it ... one's religious beliefs, one's religion, one's sectarian views.

For example, humanists (Darwinists) believe in evolution while Christians believe in creationism. Is evolution being taught in the public schools? Yes, it is and has been for many years. Is the religion of humanism being taught in the public schools? Humanism is the religious basis of education in the public schools of today. Does that violate the Washington State Constitution? Yes, it does.

But the Washington State Constitution requires the state have a "general and uniform system of public schools." How can that be done if every school is sectarian by virtue of its educational purpose? The answer, of course, is that it cannot be done.

How do we resolve this conflict of schools versus religion? Can education exist that doesn't have a basis in religion, that can be said to be secular? In a word, "No." Which, then, has priority, education or religion? It becomes apparent that religion (one's world view), as the basis of the education of the child, must take priority. This has been true since the beginning of time. Those who would say that schools today are without sectarian influence or control attempt to deny the religion of humanism that is the basis of education today.

Too, we need to look to the history of the United States for guidance in this matter. The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." While many claim this establishes a "wall of separation" between church and state, such is not the case. Our Founding Fathers had first-hand experience with the religious intolerance of the Church of England. They were adamant that their newly formed government would never have the authority to establish a state religion, recognize a state religion, or have the power to persecute anyone or any religious group because of religious beliefs. The First Amendment is pivotal to the heritage and freedom of every American.

Following in the footsteps of the First Amendment, many, if not all, states have made provision for freedom of religion in their state constitutions, something on the order of "absolute freedom of conscience in matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual ..." (Article I, Section 11, Washington State Constitution) This fulfills the requirement of Section 4, First part of the Enabling Act: "That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said States shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship."

When the concept of the local school came into being, controlled by local parents, not beholden to state or federal laws or regulations, Christianity was the world view upon which the curriculum was based. As a purely local matter, this did not violate the constitution of either the state or United States.

But when states began to assert control over schools and school districts, collect and apportion tax monies to schools, the question posed by this conflict should have arisen. It didn't. In 1962, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school prayer was unconstitutional in public schools, and public schools embraced the religion of humanism as the basis of their curricula, the question posed by this conflict should have again arisen. It didn't.

Are public schools constitutional? Based on freedom of religion, I do not believe they are. In those states have constitutional mandates concerning freedom of religion and schools, the conflict between the two needs to be addressed.

© 2003 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved

Mother and wife, Stuter has spent the past ten years researching systems theory with a particular emphasis on education. She home schooled two daughters, now grown and on their own. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance and education reform. She networks nation-wide with other researchers and citizens concerned with the transformation of our nation. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.

Web site: http://www.icehouse.net/lmstuter E-Mail:

lmstuter@mail.icehouse.net

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.