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).

[forsnax5]

Personally, I find this debate on Freerepublic entertaining, thought provoking, disgusting, irrational, and sometimes enlightening. It is too bad that this debate could not happen in classrooms across America. The kids might even enjoy school more and stay awake in science class.

I see that you follow these threads for the same reasons I do.

And if I still had any kids in high school, I'd tell them to lurk on these threads. With all the points of view expressed here, there's something for everyone -- and that promise comes with a monkey-back guarantee!

:)

[js1138]

The most hypocritical aspect of the Evos is their desire to constantly have this debate on Freerepublic.

Creationists have brought this on themselves with political organizations like the Discovery Institute. DI is modeled after the way leftists do science. Don't bother with research, just claim the other side is immoral.

[PatrickHenry]

At last, the long-awaited text version of the Dover decision is available, and added to The List-O-Links in the LITIGATION section:

NEW Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..

[RaceBannon]

People who cite sources of the quotes they provide are not plagerists.

You need some new material

[RaceBannon]

And what you posted was an APE SKULL

The only reason you call it a missing link is the THEORY of EVOLUTION, not any facts, not any evidence, but a BELIEF IN A FALSE SCIENCE

See? It is easy to refute evolution, all you have to do is look and think, all an evo has to do is put on blinders and copy phrases and then, place some obscure fossil into the family tree because they have initials after their name.

Any child that has seen a human skull and an ape skull will know it is an APE skull you posted here, not something that was in line to be an ape

BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THIS ANIMALS ANCESTORS DIED OFF OR NOT BEFORE THEY EVER BECAME MAN, DO YOU?!?!

This is so fun watching you guys try hard and then implode when common sense is applied to your posting...

[VadeRetro]

Funny! All but one of the creationists sampled here say that one (WT 15000) isn't "An ape! Just an ape!" Most of them say "Man! Just a man!" on that one.

Why is it so hard for creationists to agree on what is an ape, just an ape, and what is a man, just a man, if these are separate "created kinds" and nobody would ever mistake one for the other?

[Coyoteman]

And what you posted was an APE SKULL The only reason you call it a missing link is the THEORY of EVOLUTION, not any facts, not any evidence, but a BELIEF IN A FALSE SCIENCE

See? It is easy to refute evolution, all you have to do is look and think, all an evo has to do is put on blinders and copy phrases and then, place some obscure fossil into the family tree because they have initials after their name.

So the fossil I posted is an ape. OK, here are some additional specimens. Please tell me which of the specimens in this photograph are apes.

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

[RaceBannon]

As soon as you post the pics of them all on the same scale size of 1:1, I will.

[VadeRetro]

Any child that has seen a human skull and an ape skull will know it is an APE skull you posted here, not something that was in line to be an ape

I think you mean "in line to be a human." However, it actually is pretty far from resembling any modern ape skull. Not a chimp. Not a gorilla. Not an orangutan. Again, in that collection of Young Earth bin-game lawyers, only Cuozzo came down on your "Ape! Just an ape!" position. The rest were yelling "Man! Just a man!"

That's the effect an in-between thing produces when shown to obersvers who on doctrinaire grounds will not acknowledge the plain existence of an in-between thing.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THIS ANIMALS ANCESTORS DIED OFF OR NOT BEFORE THEY EVER BECAME MAN, DO YOU?!?!

I think you mean "descendants." (If your ancestors died off without issue, there is no you.) It doesn't matter whether the individual fossilized had any kids that lived or not, or even if he lived within 1000 miles of the population that gave rise to humans. He's a real clue to what that population would have looked like in his time.

This is so fun watching you guys try hard and then implode when common sense is applied to your posting...

If you're having fun, why are you dissolving in shrill, screaming incoherence?

[RaceBannon]

that was a great find, I have to admit. Like I just posted, we need to see them as the same scale size to make a genuine comparison of some of those...very easy to make fool of oneself guessing from that pic! :)

[RaceBannon]

hehe

Yes, descendants, sorry! :)

On that one, you got me! :)

[Coyoteman]

As soon as you post the pics of them all on the same scale size of 1:1, I will.

It is morphology that is important, not size. Come on, take a whack at which fossils are what.

[PatrickHenry]

I can't stop watching this thread. It's like slowing down to study a crash scene on the highway. And all the while, I'm waiting for that golden quote to add to THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM.

[VadeRetro]

For a bigger, closer look, click here.

[VadeRetro]

You have to hope the lurkers can figure this out without a road map.

[RaceBannon]

Umm, no...(It is easier when we see them next to each other anyways...)

[Coyoteman]

Umm, no...(It is easier when we see them next to each other anyways...)

That's true. I grad school we used to go into the bone lab and do just that with many of these specimens, along with a lot of the smaller parts. Its very instructive.

After learning the bones of the human skull, when you pick up a monkey skull the bones are all the same; different size of course, and slightly different shape, but you can recognize each bone and many of the landmarks instantly.

[PatrickHenry]

Unless something better comes along, I may have to go with this gem from post 98: I would safely bet that over 90% of all fossils are from the Flood. But I'm hopping for better. Need another bag of popcorn.

[b_sharp]

"Any child that has seen a human skull and an ape skull will know it is an APE skull you posted here, not something that was in line to be an ape

I see you have rigged it so there are only two groups - human and not human. No bias there against the possibility of intermediates between the two, is there? Nice set up.

"BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THIS ANIMALS ANCESTORS DIED OFF OR NOT BEFORE THEY EVER BECAME MAN, DO YOU?!?!

Since in your mind there are no transitional fossils, just them or us, what does it matter?

Funny thing about hominid fossils, they show a gradual increase in brain size, face flattening, upright stance, and leg length. Do you draw your dividing line between the fossils that walk upright (very much unlike other apes) but have small brain size and are quite short and those that don't quite walk upright but have small brain size and are quite short? Or at some other equally arbitrary point?

Tell us, what are the criteria used to differentiate between human and ape fossils?

[RaceBannon]

Sagital crest, number5 of teeth, shape of jawbone

Now, tell me, what features that I just listed show in these non-scale pictures?