© 2009, Dustin J. Penn II. Creationists’ Opposition to Evolution "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." - Advocates of Intelligent Design Creationism, 19991 Summary Ever since Darwin, there has been opposition to evolution, and especially against applying evolutionary principles to humans. Christian fundamentalists in the USA have tried to ban evolution for decades. After failing to ban evolution, some creationists attempted to disguise creationism as a legitimate science they called "creation science" and then again later "intelligent design" (ID). Courts in the USA have ruled against teaching ID and any other forms of creationism as science, yet creationists continue trying new tactics, such as changing the definition of "science" to include religion. The public opposition to evolution in Europe is more complex than the USA, as it comes from education ministers, Catholic leaders, and Muslims, as well as Protestant Christian fundamentalists. This section provides an historical overview of creationists’ opposition to evolution in the USA and Europe. It addresses the political and legal controversies regarding the creationism- versus-evolution debates, and explains why scientists and educators generally oppose teaching creationism in science classes. Outline A. Creationists’ Opposition in the USA 1. Attempts to Ban Evolution 2. Disguising Creationism as Science 3. Intelligent Design: Creationism’s Latest Disguise 4. Re-Defining Science and Creationists’ other Tactics A. Creationists’ Opposition in the USA Evolution has been particularly controversial in the USA, where Protestant Christian fundamentalists have been trying to ban evolution or have creationism taught in public school science classes for over 80 years. In many states, courts have supported creationists’ efforts, but federal courts have so far blocked these efforts on the ground that it is unconstitutional to use public funds to promote a religion. After each defeat, however, creationists have continued to try to get creationism taught in public schools by trying disguise creationism as science. 1. Attempts to Ban Evolution A religious movement of Christian Protestant fundamentalism arose during the late 19th century, as a reaction to enlightenment thinking and modernism (i.e., the so-called "Great Awakening"). The publication of The Fundamentals (1910-1915) marked a second revival of fundamentalism among Christian Protestants. After the First World War (1914-1918), conservative Protestants attacked liberalism, and argued that evolution and other "modernist" views had turned Germans away from the Bible, and led their country into disaster. In the 1923, Oklahoma passed the first anti-evolution law, which offered free textbooks to public schools on the condition that neither their textbooks nor the teachers mention evolution. In 1925, Tennessee passed The Butler Act which made it "unlawful for any teacher in the Universities, Normals, and all other public schools of the state… to teach any theory that denies the story of the Devine [sic] Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has developed from a lower order of animals." The same year, a schoolteacher named John Scopes, was tried for teaching evolution in the famous "Scopes Trial" or "Monkey Trial". It was popularized by the play Inherit the Wind, and was made into a major Hollywood film and television film.2-4 The Scopes Trial is often thought to be a victory for evolution because it resulted in much ridicule of creationism, even though Scopes was found guilty for teaching evolution. Yet, science lost in most ways because laws banning teaching evolution remained on the books in the USA until 1967, and schools continued to ignore the topic. Figure 1 (a). Figure 1 (b). The Anti-Evolution League of America (Figure 1a) was organized by Conservative Christian Protestants in 1924, and helped to pass anti-evolution legislation. Its efforts were supported by William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic Party’s three-time nominee for President of the USA. Bryan crusaded against evolution and was the prosecuting attorney in the Scopes Trial. In the Scopes Trial, Clarence Darrow, the lawyer for the defense (left) (Figure 1b) called Bryan (right) to testify, and was able to get Bryan to admit that the earth is probably older than 6,000 years, and that the Bible needed to be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally. Since the Scopes Trial, evolution has been tried 10 times in U.S. courts, and two times by the Supreme Court. In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting evolution and ruled that teaching creationism in public schools would violate the constitution’s First Amendment separation between Church and State (Epperson v. Arkansas)5. Since then creationists’ have tried various ways of re-packaging creationism to get around the law. 2. Disguising Creationism as Science After failing to get evolution banned from public schools, creationists have tried to find new tactics to inject their beliefs into public schools. Rather than banning evolution, they aimed to convince people that creationism is a science they called "creation science". Creationists lobbied to get this dressed-up version of creationism into public school science classes during 1970’s and 1980’s.6 The center of creation science is the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) located in Dallas, Texas (Figure 2). Its goals are to provide scientific support for divine intervention and in the creation of the world, confirm the historical accuracy of a literal interpretation of Genesis, and provide various educational programs, including a creation museum.7 Its founders and faculty support literal interpretations of Genesis (Young Earth Creationism), and its members and researchers must adhere to the following statement: "The scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are inerrant in relation to any subject with which they deal, and are accepted in their natural and intended sense… all things in the universe were created and made by God in the six days of special creation described in Genesis. The creationist account is accepted as factual, historical and perspicuous and is thus fundamental in the understanding of every fact and phenomenon in the created Figure 2. Institute for 8 Creation Research (ICR). universe." Despite its name, so-called "creation science" is not a science.9 Science involves only natural explanations, and requires rejecting hypotheses unsupported by evidence. In contrast, creation science dismisses any evidence that fails to confirm to a particular religious belief. For these reasons, more than 45 scientific organizations have criticized creation science (see Section VI.). Nonetheless, the creation science movement became popular in the USA during the 1980’s, and as a result many states attempted to introduce legislation to require teaching creation science. Laws were passed in Arkansas and Louisiana to require teaching creation science along with evolution, though the U.S. Supreme Court eventually overruled them: In 1981, Arkansas passed a "Balanced Treatment" Act requiring creation science to receive equal time with evolution in public schools. The next year, however, this act was over-ruled in court (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education)10. Judge Overton (U.S. District Court) concluded that creation science is "simply not science", as it failed to meet the essential characteristics of science. Moreover, he concluded that the act is "a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact", and violated the First amendment’s separation of Church and State. In 1982, Louisiana passed an act requiring public schools to give equal time to creation science and evolution. Lower courts concluded that the actual goal of the act was to promote a religious doctrine, but the State appealed to the Supreme Court. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana statue is unconstitutional because creation science is not a science and instead its actual goal is to advance a particular religious belief (Edwards v. Aguillard)11. The reason for the Supreme Court’s decision is simple and clear: so-called "creation science" is not a science because it does not involve scientific research or other activities required to be an actual science. The Supreme Court’s decision against creation science was a major defeat for creationists, but creationists did not give up. 3. Intelligent Design: Creationism’s Latest Disguise Creationists have continued to find even more deceptive ways of masquerading creationism as a science in their efforts to get creationism into public schools. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against teaching "creation science", creationists adopted a different political and legal tactic: they dropped the term "creation science", and re-named their approach "intelligent design" (ID).12 The central idea of ID is that certain features of living organisms are better explained by an "intelligent designer" than by natural selection (ID advocates rarely say who the designer might be, or they say it could be God or an extraterrestrial alien). Using engineering language has helped make ID more respectable. Another reason ID has been popular is that its advocates promote the idea of teaching both ID and evolution in science classes. This "teach the controversy" argument seems reasonable to many people who are apparently unaware that ID is based on religion rather than science. Consequently, the ID movement (IDM) became very popular in the U.S. (e.g., in 2005, there were at least 17 bills in 13 states trying to introduce ID into classrooms), and it has become a global movement. In 2004, the school board in Dover attempted to force teachers to use an ID textbook, Of Panda’s and People, for teaching biology. Parents sued the school (and before the trial began, the parents ousted all members of the school board), which resulted in a lengthy trial.13 Judge Jones (a U.S.