Evolution vs. Creationism: A Brief History at politburo diktat 2.0

Evolution vs. Creationism: A Brief History

I just finished reading Eugenie Scott’s book, Evolution vs. Creationism, and I’m encouraged. The good guys are winning, comrades. The struggle has dragged on for decades and it’s easy to declare in frustration, “C’mon. It has been 150 years since Darwin and 80 years since Dayton, and we’re still fighting against the imposition of a religious viewpoint onto science.”

That’s one way to describe it, but the long-term situation is far more encouraging. At the risk of proving Godwin’s Law, I’ll compare the situation to WWII in December, 1944. It’s been a long struggle; the enemy is on the run; some reverses may lie ahead, but there’s good reason to believe that ultimately the struggle can only go one way. Doug Kern is wrong.

In overview:

In 1925, the battle concerned whether or not evolution could be taught at all.
By 1968, the SCOTUS settled that evolution could be taught in the public schools.
In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that Creationism, being a religious viewpoint, could not be taught.
Now, in 2005, in the Dover case, the issue is whether Creationism, dressed up in the language of “Intelligent Design science,” can be taught.

Since Origin of Species, evolution (common descent by modification through natural selection) has been accepted by the global scientific community. For the most part, only a subset of American Christians reject evolution. The struggle has occurred over the fairly narrow turf of public high school education. (It’s not an issue at the college level.) Overall, evolution is accepted worldwide, is only rejected by a one group within one country, and is only fought over within the realm of public high school education. That struggle is far from over and I do not counsel complacency, accommodation, nor lack of resolve. But the big picture is overwhelmingly favorable.

Let’s look at the “narrow” conflict within American education.

That too, is going well, albeit slowly. In the late 19th Century, relatively few Americans attended high school; you might say there was no turf to fight over. As everyone knows, the first big battle of the Evo/Creo war occurred in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925, the Scopes Monkey Trial. What was at stake in 1925? A state law that forbade the teaching of evolution.

“An Act prohibiting the teaching of the evolution theory in all the Universities, normals and all other public schools in Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the state, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof. … It shall be unlawful for any teacher, etc. … to teach any theory that denies the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”

In 1925, the battle concerned whether or not evolution could be taught at all. “Divine creation of man as taught in the Bible,” was the law (in Tennessee).

For the next 35 years, while not explicitly prohibited by many states, evolution did not figure prominently in many high school science textbooks. It was unpopular, especially in the South, textbook publishers served a national market, and science education was not a national priority. In 1957, Sputnik changed that. Determined to improve our scientific education, a national scientific commission (BSCS) reviewed existing science texts and found them inadequate in many ways. In the early 1960’s new, improved BSCS textbooks included evolution.

A few states still prohibited teaching evolution. In 1965, a teacher in Arkansas, challenged that state’s anti-evo law. In the case, Epperson vs. Arkansas, in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled against the anti-evolution law, because it violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.

By 1968, the SCOTUS settled that evolution could be taught in the schools.

During the 60’s and 70’s, “Creation Science” was born; Henry Morris and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) played a key role, promoting the idea of “equal time” in the classroom for their allegedly scientific viewpoint. The ICR espoused “Young Earth Creationism,” which posited an Earth less than 10,000 years old, fixed species (or kinds), and a global flood. While it impressed few scientists, Creation Science had more success in the PR, political, and social arena.

By the early 1980’s ‘equal time’ for Creationism legislation had been introduced in 27 states, and passed in 2: Arkansas and Louisiana. Arkansas 590, required balanced treatment for “evolution science” and “creation science,” defined thus:

a) “Creation-science” means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
(1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
(2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
(3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
(4) Separate ancestry for man and apes;
(5) Explanation of the earth’s geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and
(6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.

(b) “Evolution-science” means the scientific evidences for evolution and inferences from those scientific evidences. Evolution-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
(1) Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife;
(2) The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
(3) Emergency [sic] by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
(4) Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
(5) Explanation of the earth’s geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
(6) An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life.

The Arkansas law’s “Creation Science” was a thinly-veiled Genesis creation story. As such, it was challenged, and in the 1987 Edwards vs. Aguillard case, the SCOTUS ruled that teaching Creation Science was religion, and violated the Establishment Clause.

By 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that Creationism, being a religious viewpoint, could not be taught in the public schools.

In the late 80’s, Creation Science morphed into “Intelligent Design,” with its buzz-words of ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘complex specified information.’ It’s interesting to see how far things have come. Many ID’rs accept the reality of a 4 billion year-old Earth; others avoid the issue. Some, like Michael Behe, accept common descent! Almost all accept what they call ‘micro-evolution.’ And, they refuse to name the hypothesized “Intelligent Designer.” No one should be taken in by this window-dressing, but neither should anyone fail to recognize that the landscape has changed over the decades. The Creationists have been force to evolve the protective coloration of science to survive. Now they seek to legislate that high school students should be exposed to the “evidence against evolution.” The proposed Santorum Amendment provides an example:

It is the sense of the Senate that- (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.

Another example of the shifting battleground is the 2005 Kansas high science standards (.pdf document). The relevant parts are in the Introduction and then, towards the end, the grades 9-12 specific science standards themselves. I don’t like them; they are misleading. The ‘questions’ they pose have been answered. To the extent these standards claim there is a scientific controversy, as opposed to a social/political controversy, they lie. But read them over. The Creationists have given up all kinds of ground. (I’m not advocating compromise.) They are left in a position of merely posing worn-out, obviously slanted questions.

By the early 2000’s, the struggle is over whether or not “evidence against evolution” and a supposed Intelligent Designer can be taught in the schools. In the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case, the issue is whether Creationism, dressed up in the language of “Intelligent Design science,” can be taught. The battleground has shifted drastically since 1925.

It has been a very long struggle; it’s not over. But the progress has been real. The Creationists have been steadily adapting to science, not the other way ’round. Which brings up a question, “Why not just give ‘em a little? It’s not so much.” It’s because 2 times 2 is 4. The ID’rs say, “Look, you can have 6 x 7 = 42. 8 x 1 = 8, no problem. You can even have that troublesome 2 x 0 = 0. Almost the entire times table. But we just want 2 x 2 = 5, that’s all. Just give us 2 x 2.” Nope. 2 x 2 =4. No exceptions. Sorry, in the realm of the material universe, in the realm of matter and energy, we can look to natural explanations for natural phenomena.

In many ways, I regret that so many religious Americans have committed themselves to such a backward doctrine, instead of heeding the counsel of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Christian bishops all over the world.