Chris Calihan, Book Review
Mano Singham, God vs. Darwin: The War between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom (2009)
I. Overview. Ever wonder where the backwoods stereotypes of the public education systems in places such as Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Texas are founded? The book was a refreshingly pleasant & even-handed read for a study of 80 years of court precedent on government-sanctioned religious curriculum in schools. Singham brought his first-hand experience, from the advisory board which set the science standards for K-12 education in Ohio, to bear on the specific issue of teaching creationism (in its various guises throughout the years) in school. Starting with the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, the first case to address evolution in school, the author sets the stage for the argument as it "evolves" through its many re-manifestations up to 2005. Reminiscent of Brecht's Life of Galileo, Singham also shows how popular conceptions of the trial and its issues were distorted by the more-artistic/dramatic-than-accurate Broadway play and then successful 1960 film, Inherit the Wind. Singham also does a thorough job of detangling the intricately complicated controversies of creation vs. evolution, hype vs. fact, religion vs. other-religions vs. secularity and then setting them within their historical contexts. The book then proceeds to analyze the subsequent trials in light of their preceding manifestation, current and historical scientific standing, religious zealotry, and relation to constitutionality. The author was impressively impartial when pointing out the folly of state legislatures repeating, near verbatim, the mistakes of the past. Most impressively, God vs. Darwin accounts for the strategic and tactical objectives, plans, and tactics of the persistent creationists in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, court precedent, and hypocrisy.
II. Review. The book illustrates plainly the cyclical pattern of the radical religious element who, like a squirrel, methodically attempts to solve a puzzle to get food by probing the device installed to keep it from getting to the bird food. There is an equally radical atheist movement, but the author did not address the confrontations between these, save for acknowledging its support for the evolution argument in general and/or when present in a specific case.
Singham presents religions' attempted attacks on evolution in four phases: Phase 1 - "try to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools altogether;" (1) Phase 2 - "balance the teaching of evolution and biblical stories of creation by requiring that both viewpoints receive 'balanced treatment' in the classroom;" (2) Phase 3 - "teaching of evolution. . . .accompanied by the teaching of . . . . 'creation science;'" (2) and Phase 4 - "undermining the credibility of the theory of evolution by natural selection." (2) [emphasis added] Although not listed as a phase, a fifth approach was "intelligent design," a claimed "credible alternative . . . . which postulated that an unnamed and unidentified agency was necessary to explain key steps in biological development." (2)
Phase 1
Phase 1's attempt to ban evolution outright reminds me a little of scene 4 in Brecht's Life of Galileo when Galileo could not convince the people to even look through the telescope because they were too busy telling him how wrong he was. In reality, the Scopes trial could not have been written as dramatically as it actually played out. To set the scene, Darwin must be put in proper perspective. He published On the Origin of Species in 1860, and
"almost the entire scientific establishment coalesce[ed] around the basic assumption that evolution had indeed occurred. By the end of the nineteenth century, the idea that all species were descended with modification from common ancestors was widely accepted and had been taught in schools for some time." (10)
This does not seem to hold the potential for climatic build up, but just as Galileo's propositions were anticipated to have far-reaching implications, Darwin's theory implicated the "direction for evolution" (10) and therefore, humanity's specialness/importance. Humans cannot be special if we are random; it would be as if the earth was not the center of the universe! People could not argue the mechanics of animals procreating but wanted to maintain a god(s)' influence over the administration of those mechanics. Another parallel to Galileo existed; Darwin's theory had to wait for further proofs.
The "perfect storm" of events which led to the Scopes trial included the location of the trial (Dayton, TN), the recent forming of the ACLU, the involvement of dynamic representation by zealous advocates for both sides (Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan), and an ill-conceived publicity stunt.
Right from the beginning, rather than being a bitter adversarial contest between science and religion that tore apart a small town, the arrest and prosecution were staged by the civic leaders of Dayton mainly as a public relations exercise to benefit the town by increasing its visibility through publicity. (23)
All of this was taken to the next level by the infamous atheist newspaperman H.L. Mencken reporting events in humorous, inflammatory articles.
It may seem fabulous, but it is a sober fact that a sound Episcopalian or even a Northern Methodist would be regarded as virtually an atheist in Dayton. Here the only genuine conflict is between true believers . . . . To call a man a doubter in these parts is equal to accusing him of cannibalism . . . .
The selection of a jury to try Scopes, which went on all yesterday afternoon . . . . showed to what extreme lengths the salvation of the local primates has been pushed. (36)
This emphasis on the spectacle being more important than the substantive issue reminds me of the way Galileo performed his arguments. Finally the trial commenced and lasted only eight, scenes-from-a-play-like days starting with the entertaining argument that "evolution was as well established as the Copernican theory." (35)
The trial had experts testifying to about the concrete issues, "[He] distinguished between the fact of evolution having occurred, which he said scientists accepted, and the theory behind it, about which he said there were still some unanswered questions." (38) But analogous to Galileo, the real issue of individuals being responsible for their own interpretation of the circumstances was concomitant. The trial concluded brilliantly with the defense questioning the prosecutor.
[] Darrow, canny and experienced trial lawyer that he was, knew exactly what he was doing. He had zeroed in on his opponent's weakest point. He must have known that religion is at its strongest when it is making grand, sweeping statements on the nature of life and the universe, because those are vague and hard to pin down or contradict. It is at its weakest when trying to explain concrete and specific details.
[] It is easy to proclaim faith in grand beliefs, but when it comes to specifics like Noah's flood or the story of Jonah or a woman being created from Adam's rib, it becomes harder to explain how such particulars could possibly be literally true and, if they are not, why you should believe some things in the Bible and not others. As Darrow said later, his strategy was meant to force Bryan to 'choose between crude beliefs and the common intelligence of modern times . . . or to admit to ignorance.'" (47)
It revealed exactly why the Catholic church could not have let Galileo cross-examine it. The fact that Bryan died a few days after this interrogation, and that Inherit the Wind portrayed him dying of a heart attack in the courtroom, added to the mystique. H.L. Mencken glorified Darrow's tactic, "Few Americans have ever done so much for their country in a whole lifetime as Darrow did in two hours." (51) In fact, the case essentially stopped right there at the trial court since a technicality in the sentencing allowed the Tennessee Supreme Court to overturn the verdict, nullifying the plan to have the U.S. Supreme Court decide on the merits of creation vs. evolution. That would be another 40 years away.
This first, rollercoaster ride episode laid the foundation for future iterations.
Phase 2
In the subsequent 40 years, the law in question in the Scopes trial (as well as comparable ones in other states) remained on the books but not enforced. One such law in Arkansas rose to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in Epperson v. Arkansas[1]when the state teachers association decided to fight the law which prohibited teaching "that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals." (79) In its unanimous 1968 ruling, the Supreme Court held that Arkansas' law against the teaching of evolution was unconstitutional because the government cannot prescribe curriculum based on religion[2] - adding or omitting anything.
The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion. . . .
The State's undoubted right to prescribe the curriculum for its public schools does not carry with it the right to prohibit, on pain of criminal penalty, the teaching of a scientific theory or doctrine where that prohibition is based upon reasons that violate the First Amendment. . . . (81)
This appeared to be a victory for those originally hoping to get Scopes to the Supreme Court. Also interesting is that the Supreme Court limits pure majoritarian reasoning. But, the justices were divided on their bases for supporting the opinion, interpreted by creationists as encouragement. Interestingly, Justice Black's elaborations was evocative of the message Cardinal Bellarmino gave to Galileo, "Under this statute, as construed by the Arkansas Supreme Court, a teacher cannot know whether he is forbidden to mention Darwin's theory at all or only free to discuss it as long as he refrains from contending that it is true." (82) This failed first scheme to unequivocally ban teaching evolution led to Phase 2's "balance" for creation in the classroom in terms of time & emphasis. This would guarantee creation would be taught everywhere evolution was.
So, again the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the creation/evolution issue and established the three pronged "Lemon Test" in Lemon v. Kurtzman,[3]
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose (the purpose prong);
Second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion (the effect prong);
Finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion' (the entanglement prong). (88)
In response, and taking a lesson from the Galileo-era Catholic church, Tennessee passed a law saying, in part,
Any biology textbook used for teaching in the public schools, which expresses an opinion of, or relates a theory about origins or creation of man and his world shall be prohibited from being used as a textbook in such system unless it specifically states that it is a theory as to the origin and creation of man and his world and is not represented to be scientific fact. (89)
A poor effort to even meet the letter of the new law, Tennessee legislatures found their law quickly struck down.
Phases 3 & 4
Unwavering anti-evolution proponents, not to be deterred, realized they would have to draft their legislation more meticulously and with greater conscientiousness. Hence, we have "creation science!" [emphasis added] (93) Arkansas legislated that "creation-science is an alternative scientific model of origins and can be presented from a strictly scientific standpoint without any religious doctrine." (93) Even without substantial mental exertion, the underlying intent is easy to see – the same trouble Galileo got himself into with his thinly veiled Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems. In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education,[4] the district court held that not only did the law fail to meet all three prongs of the Lemon test, it failed to meet the criteria set to define "science." Some critics argue that the judge's definition of science was weak and quite a lot of wiggle-room people to find ways to fit their religious beliefs into it. Others argued that the problem with creation science, "was that it was a really bad theory." (95) Regardless, the important thing to keep in mind is that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution is not concerned with the quality or absurdity of a theory.
It seems to me that, if not earlier, by this point, most people would have to realize that religion and science are like apples and oranges. A system which begins with the conclusion and works to interpret observations to fit that conclusion is utterly incompatible with a system that has no allegiance to its conclusions but goes where its observations take it. Trying to use non-materialism[5] to integrate the creation and evolution approaches contravenes both since, for example, the whole point of miracles (i.e., divine intervention) is that they fly in the face of science; that is their only significance.
[T]he baggage of the historical record of religion-based efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution, starting with the Scopes trial, was too much to overcome. The Supreme Court had clearly determined that attempts to teach anything along the lines of "creation science" or to discredit evolution basically sprang from religious motivations; thus, any legislative attempts to mandate teaching such subject matter ran into the immediate presumption of failing both the purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test. (99)
According to Nietzsche, religion perpetuates the victimization of its followers. In light of the uninterrupted series of failures, perhaps anti-evolutionists' resolve was strengthened?