This is Part 2 of a three part series. The first two are from my article on the
Scopes Trial from Origins Research associated with Access Research Network:
https://arn.org/
Part 3 will contain my current thoughts on the topic. ARN was one of the pioneer proponents of
Intelligent Design #ID
“The Scopes Trial and After,” Origins Research (later Origins & Design), Vol. 2, No. 2,
Sep-Oct 1979, pp. 5,6.
-- Scopes Trial in Retrospect --
Many comments and observations about the Scopes trial
have been made since 1925. Clyde Roddy,
an eyewitness, said "It was strictly a publicity stunt!"[13] The businessmen wanted the publicity. As a former student of Scopes, Giles Ryan,
said "It was all made up that he would teach that particular lesson, that
particular day. The businessmen pushed
John into it."[14] Scopes did not
teach evolution. The students that testified that he did were coached by the
defense lawyers. Some wondered who was
on trial: Scopes or Bryan?
Alistair Cooke states that Bryan's "rude Old
Testament idea of the dignity of man was made to look foolish by the awesome
figure of Charles Darwin!"[15] Fredrick
Lewis Allen contends that "The sort of religious faith which he represented
could not take the witness stand and face reason as a Prosecutor."[16] After July of 1925, a large segment of people
associated fundamentalism with bigotry and ignorance. Negative opinions of
Bryan helped create the play Inherit the
Wind which presents Bryan, using a different name, as an ignorant
narrow-minded hypocrite. It became a movie in 1960 and was performed on
television in 1965. A more realistic
appraisal of Bryan is given by John W. Klotz: he "did a poor job in the
role which he accepted."[17] During
the climax of the trial Darrow referred to George M. Price as a pretender. Price wrote The New Geology, published in
1923, in which he documents the case against evolutionary geology and for Flood
geology. Although Price was
self-educated in geology, Whitcomb and Morris state clearly that "Price
was really ignored because of his strong case against uniformitarianism, a case
more easily ignored than refuted.[18] The
Scopes trial has been described as being representative of the conflict between
academic freedom and bigotry, materialism and theism, pure science and
mythology, in addition to evolution and fundamentalism. Paul and Maureen Wesseler conclude that the
Scopes trial "was the turning point in popular thinking regarding the
creation vs. evolution issue."[19]
-- Evolution Theory Gains Popularity --
A variety of developments in the creation-evolution
controversy have occurred since the "Monkey trial." Bryan's death generated growth of the
anti-evolution movement, but only temporarily. Bryan was a well known national figure and
nobody could replace his leadership. By 1929 the anti-evolution crusade had
essentially come to a halt. One seeming
result of the movement was the sharp de-emphasis of evolution in biology texts.
Publishers didn't wish to lose the
Southern market, predominantly fundamentalist, where the majority of the states
using state-wide textbook adoption were located. An example showing the decrease of material on
evolution is noticed in Civic Biology
by George Hunter, the text from which Scopes taught. The 1914 edition contained an evolutionary
“tree” along with a paragraph entitled "The Doctrine of Evolution.” These features were removed in the 1926
edition.
Another case in point is Truman Moon's Biology for Beginners. In the 1921 edition the frontispiece consisted of a picture of Charles Darwin, but this was replaced in 1926
by a diagram of the digestive system; also, the word “evolution” was replaced
by "development." Dynamic Biology by Baker and Mills, the
most popular text in the 1930s, included a chapter covering evolution;
nevertheless, the noun "evolution" does not
appear in the index. The heading of the chapter was "Changing
Forms of Living Things" and it ended with a religious couplet. These
examples illustrate the fact that the most widely used biology texts of the
’20s and ’30s presented evolution in a limited way. Although evolution was given less importance
in texts after the Scopes trial, Henry M. Morris describes the period of
1925-40 as the “dark ages’’ of creationism.”[20] Most scientists and colleges supported evolution.
The public was influenced by movies,
museums, books, and magazines to accept evolution.
Although evolution increased in popularity, it was mentioned
in less than half of the high school biology courses in 1942. Four years later (1946) That You Might Believe by
Henry M. Morris was published. It became the first book since the Scopes trial
to be authored by a science professor. advocating the creation model at a secular
college. Following the trial, evolution
did not grow in importance in the majority of biology texts until after 1960.
Today the best-selling texts (BSCS) emphasize evolution. Only three major textbook publishers offer creation as an alternative to evolution: Macmillan,
McGraw-Hill, and Allyn Bacon. In their
texts both views are presented, but evolution is favored. One of these, Stanley Weinberg’s Biology - An Inquiry Into the Nature of Life,
published by Allyn Bacon, shows a two column chart comparing creation and
evolution.
-- Controversy Renewed on Scientific Grounds --
In contrast the ACLU fights against teaching creation
along with evolution. The U.S. Supreme Court declared anti-evolution laws to be
unconstitutional for public schools in 1968. In 1973 Tennessee’s legislature passed a law
requiring equal presentation of creation and evolution; however, it was
repealed in 1975. Within the government there is a closed attitude toward creation.
For instance, Dr. Anthony Ostric, an anthropologist at
Notre Dame University, was denied a grant from the National Endowment for the
Humanities for the reason that his research would challenge man’s supposed
evolution. More research favoring
creation has been done in recent years than ever before. Many creationist scientists were once
evolutionists, but changed their view because of the evidence. This has not always been true. As John Whitcomb states, “Back in the time of
the Scopes trial, the people who argued for a literal interpretation of the
Bible didn’t have scientific backgrounds. They couldn’t argue successfully."[21] Today there are over 600 creationists with a
master’s or doctoral degree in a natural science who are voting members
of the Creation Research Society, established in 1963, which holds to the
belief that the Genesis account of creation and the Flood is factual. The Institute for Creation Research, founded
in 1970, has been of great significance to the current creationist movement in the more than one hundred
debates involving evolutionists and ICR staff at various universities since the
early 1970's.
-- How Should Origins be Taught? --
The concluding question then, is “How should origins be
taught in public schools?’’ Currently
creation is not presented equally with evolution in the vast majority of schools.
Bolton Davidheiser’s judgment is that, "the attitude
of the evolutionists is a shameless travesty on academic freedom."[22] Even Clarence Darrow confirmed that the
teaching of only one model of origins in public schools is "bigotry."
The sole teaching of evolution is
harmful in view of the doubts caused among
creationist students. Surveys reveal
that belief in the literal Genesis creation
record declines during the ages from twelve to eighteen.[23]
The exclusive instruction of evolution is often defended
with the argument that it is the only "scientific" explanation of
beginnings. Evolution is no more scientific than creation. According to L. Harrison Matthews, writing in
the Foreword to Darwin's Origin of Species (1971 edition), "The fact of
evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position
of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a
faith? Belief in the theory of evolution
is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts
which believers know to be true; but neither, up to the present, has been capable
of proof."[24] In the same manner evolutionists
Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch admit that, "Our theory of evolution has
become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus ‘outside of empirical science,’ but
not necessarily false."[25]
In a similar thought Wendell Bird states in the Yale Law Journal that concerning
evolution and creation, "...the conflict is not between science and
religion, but between two theoretical models that build upon scientific criticism and that harmonize with
some religions and have overtones contrary to others."[26]
-- The Solution --
The conflict as it relates to origins teaching in public
schools has three solutions: exemption, neutralization, and elimination.[27] Exempting creationist students from class whenever evolution is taught would
cause more problems than it solves, since this would affect a large number of
students. A better way is neutralization, the teaching of both creation and
evolution impartially.
If creation is presented in a scientific context rather
than a religious one, it does not violate church and state separation. The two model (creation and evolution)
approach has successfully been used in the large school districts of Columbus,
Ohio; Dallas, Texas; and Kanawa County, West Virginia. Students presented with two models of origins
instead of just one are more motivated, learn better, and become more critical,
as one recent study determined.[28] Another
factor which supports the teaching of two models is that random surveys taken
in various parts of the country indicate that more than 80% of the people favor
presenting creation at least on an equal level with evolution.[29] A third solution to the problem of teaching origins
is elimination. Eliminating both
creation and evolution in schools,
however, is clearly academic suicide. As
Wendell Bird concludes, “Comparison of these alternative remedies in light of
their protection of religious liberty and impact upon state educational interests
suggests that the preferred remedy in secondary schools is neutralizing
instruction in the origin of the world and life..."[30]
REFERENCES
13) James C. Hefley, "Fifty Years After Scopes,"
Christianity Today July 18, 1975,
p.34.
14) Hefley, p.34.
15) Alistair Cooke, Alistair
Cooke’s America (Alfred Knopf, New York: 1974), p.271.
16) Fredrick L. Allen, Only Yesterday (Harper and Row, New York: 1964), p. 171.
17) John W. Klotz, "The Philosophy of Science in
Relation to Concepts of Creation vs. the Evolution Theory" in Why Not Creation?, Walter E. Lammerts
ed. (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1973), p.13.
18) John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood
(Presbyterian and Reformed, Philadelphia: 1961), p.184.
19) Bolton Davidheiser, “The Scopes Trial,” in A Symposium on Creation III, Donald
Patten ed. (Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Mich.: 1971), p.5.
20) Henry M. Morris, Banquet address, Sixth National Creation-Science
Conference (Wichita, Kansas: Aug. 22, 1978).
21) David Harris, "Genesis Tells It Like It Was,"
The Wichita Eagle, Aug. 21, 1978,
p.1C.
22) Bolton Davidheiser, ‘‘A Brief History of Evolutionary
Thought” in A Challenge To Education,
Walter Lang ed. (Bible-Science Assoc., Caldwell, Idaho: 1972), p.48.
23) Wendell Bird, "Freedom of Religion and Science
Instruction in Public Schools," The Yale Law Journal, Jan. 1978, p.537.
24) Quoted by Henry M. Morris, The Scientific Case For Creation (Creation-Life Publishers, San
Diego: 1977), p.7.
25) Quoted by Henry M. Morris ed., Scientific Creationism (Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego: 1974), p.6.
26) Bird, p.517.
27) For further discussion see Bird.
28) Richard Bliss, "A Comparison of Students
Studying the Origin of Life From a Two-Model Approach vs. Those Studying From a
Single-Model Approach" (ICR
Impact Series no. 60) Acts
and Facts June 1978, p.iv.
29) Henry M. Morris, ‘‘Creation and Public Opinion,” Acts and Facts Dec. 1976, pp.3,4.
30) Bird, p.570.
#Scopes_Monkey_Trial #Wendell_Bird #Henry_Morris #Destination1925
#ScopesTrial #Origins_Research #Davidheiser #Origins #Genesis #Mk10_6
#Access_Research_Network #Goleta #Santa_Barbara #UCSB #arn #Intelligent_Design
#ID #Phillip_Johnson #Darwin_on_Trial #evo #Crevo #Destiny ↑ #Origins&Design
#ScopeZ #controversy #YoungEarth
#Young_Earth_Science #YES #trial #Dayton #Tennessee #Year1925 #WilliamJenningsBryan
#WJB #Clarence_Darrow #History #His_Story ╬
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
