The Scopes Monkey Trial - Part 2

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 ╬