Evolution Versus Religion - Essay Example

EVOLUTION VERSUS RELIGION In this, the 200th anniversary of the birth of the great British biologist and scientist, Charles Darwin, it is fascinatingto look at how his powerful theory of evolution is still a subject of debate. Eight-four years ago The Scopes Trial highlighted how intransigent many people were to teaching the theory of evolution. They believed that it was directly contradictory to their faith that God created the world and everything in it. Indeed, the theory was a threat to their way of life, the way they thought about themselves. They used lawsuits to try to prevent evolution from being taught. Not much has changed in the last 84 years. The debate still rages in school boards across America. While most of the rest of the developed world would blanch at the notion of teaching Creationism—the idea that God created the world and everything in it—in the United States there are institutes and public figures who promote the idea. This essay will closely examine the situation and summarize the debate between the two sides in this highly contentious issue. The most famous case that dealt with this issue set the scene for the debate that would follow. The Scopes Trial held in Tennessee in 1925 challenged the Butler Act which made it illegal "to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." A schoolteacher was charged and put on trial for the crime of teaching Darwin. Although the teacher, Scopes, was eventually found guilty—and made to pay a fine—the Supreme Court of the United States eventually overturned the ban on teaching evolution in 1968, saying that such a ban would violate the constitution since it would be to the benefit of religion. Nevertheless, this trial turned into a circus and was a huge spectacle as it pitted passionate believers of religion and evolution against one another. Amazingly, the debate continues to this day, most recently in the last ten years with the rise of what is called Intelligent Design. The debate between evolution and creationism came back into the public sphere with a vengeance following a big fight on a school board in rural Pennsylvania. Here a number of advocacy groups had gone out of their way to repackage creationism which was seen to be explicitly religious in a format which they claimed was more secular: Intelligent Design, a theory which held that the world is simply too complicated to have occurred randomly without a directing hand. Often proponents of ID would quote scientists to this effect. They were in a manner trying to use science to prove the existence of God. On various school boards across the United States proponents of ID would not ask to ban teaching evolution; instead they would argue that there was more than one viewpoint on the matter and that schools should also teach ID or “teach the controversy.” Intelligent Design was legally exposed as a religious theory in the 2005 case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which was brought against a schoolboard that was angry evolution was being taught in their schools. The case brought a lot of attention (and similar cases have been fought in Wisconsin and Kentucky also). In his comprehensive ruling, Judge Jones found for the plaintiffs: After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) IDs negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. This was the contemporary nail in the coffin for supporters of Intelligent Design, following the ruling they were knocked back on their heels and have been trying to recover since. This is a brief summary of the issue. But what does this debate say about contemporary American feelings about religion, evolution, and education? There is a reason this issue is so contentious: it is the crossroads for a great deal of things people have culturally and emotionally invested in. Literature Review It is very worthwhile to examine several examples of academic writing on this subject to further explore its sociological impact. I have collected four prominent examples of articles that address the subject and will write about them below. 1. Robert Audi. “Religion and the politics of science can evolutionary biology be religiously neutral?” Philosophy and Social Criticism. Vol 35 Nos 1–2. pp. 23–50 This article argues that is possible to teach evolution in classrooms from a religiously neutral perspective which can be important when you have a group of religiously diverse students. Audi writes that, “Skepticism about the ‘value-neutrality’ of science is not new, but the striking advances and wider teaching of evolutionary biology have brought out both more writings and more protests by those who consider it biased against certain religious views.” He suggests that science is not biased against any particular religion and that those fundamentalists who claim it is, for example, anti-Christian are wrong. Audi asks, “Is the scientific habit of mind theological neutral?” His answer is an interesting response to critics of teaching evolution in American schools. Indeed, he sees quite a bit of common ground between theologians and scientists. The argument between them is in part a false dichotomy. One can view scientific inquiry as a use of reason conceived as a natural endowment from God. What about the theory of evolution? The theory is clearly inconsistent with the account of creation given in Genesis interpreted literally. But literal interpretation of scripture is not a requirement of a reasonable theology and is increasingly rejected by educated biblical interpreters. This is not to suggest that there can be no tension between scientific results and some scripturally based beliefs on the part of a religiously committed person. The point is that it is theologically implausible to think of Scripture as competing with scientific inquiry with respect to answering the same questions.1 Audi basically concludes that teachers should be sensitive to those with theological concerns. There are likely to be many critics out there with regards to this view who would be unhappy with a scientist being sensitive to supernatural explanations of the world. Nevertheless, Audi’s survey of the debate is comprehensive. 2. Matthew J. Tontonoz. “The Scopes Trial Revisited: Social Darwinism versus Social Gospel.” Science as Culture. June 2008. 17:2. pp 121 – 143. In this interesting article, Tontonoz revaluates the history of the debate between evolution and creationism, focusing on the first big encounter. He suggests the current debate is quite different that the historic debate, and that the current debate is in some way a caricature of the latter. We remember the Scopes Trial mostly through the lens of latter day cultural products such as the play/movie Inherit the Wind which show Bryan, the defender of the law against teaching evolution, as an early fundamentalist not unlike Jerry Falwell: “In the mythic version of the Scopes trial, the noble forces of Enlightenment trounce backwardness and provincialism.” The truth, Tontonoz writes, is more complex and interesting. He examines reactions to the Scopes Trial from the period and other historical documents some of which have been forgotten. He examines Bryan’s motives for opposing the teaching of evolution and the portrait revealed is of an individual with a deep sense of the fragility of the socially constructed world and a fear that evolution will bring down the pillars of the temple: But it is clear that, for Bryant at least, loss of faith was a slippery slope, and the dangers posed were much greater than the agnosticism of aging naturalists. There were also disastrous social consequences. Bryan’s main concern was that evolution bred dangerous political tendencies. It encouraged selfish individualism, for example, and undermined students’ sense of social responsibility, discouraging them from pursuing ‘the altruistic work that the world so sorely needs.’ Evolution, he claimed, ‘diverts attention from pressing problems of great importance’, causing students to ‘lose sight of the Rock of Ages while they study the ages of rocks’. It also discouraged hope in social reform . . . 2 Bryant felt that the public promotion of natural selection would encourage aggression, conflict, and even eugenics. The criticisms strike at the heart of social Darwinism and Nazism both of which attempted to import evolutionary theory into political ideologies with an incredibly destructive result. By examining the debate from this forgotten perspective we can see that the normal caricature of the discussion conceals more than it reveals. Tontonoz effectively shows how complex and rich the debate on this issue is. It is not quite an argument between cool-headed scientists and fire-breathing preachers. 3. Michael W. Apple. “Evolution Versus Creationism in Education.” Educational Policy. March 2008. Volume 22 Number 2. In this essay, Michael Apple traces the origins of the populist movements that seek to remove Darwin from the classroom. He does this by examining a great deal of their writings on the subject as well as case law on the debate. He sees them as a product of economic circumstances and the huge cultural shifts that have occurred in recent years. Many believe their way of life and religion are threatened and feel the need to fight back. Apple writes, “This movement—what I call authoritarian populism—has struck a responsive chord with millions of people who feel economically and culturally threatened.” Apple examines the political and linguistic strategies employed by religious conservatives in the United States in order to further their agenda. In a cultural discourse where people are easily swayed by emotion and rhetorical devices, religious groups have been masterful in trying to import Intelligent Design into the education system by dressing it up in scientific clothes. But more than that, they are inspired a righteousness that feeds on itself and encourages more and more distortions. The religious Right has demonstrated such linguistic talents before. For example, their claim that by bringing religious beliefs into the public arena of education, they are not doing anything more or less than what, say, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other leaders of the civil rights movement did is more than a little interesting. And it has been effective in enabling members of this movement to see themselves as the new oppressed. To them, everyone’s voice is heard except for religious conservatives.3 Apple concludes that there is no real conclusion to this debate; it will keep on happening. It is important to recognize what is legitimate and true about people’s concerns and what they have gotten themselves worked up about. It is also important to look for good argument underneath what may be merely a thicket of empty rhetoric. Eugenie Scott and Glen Branch. “Evolution: What’s wrong with teaching the controversy?” Trends in Ecology and Evolution. October 2003. Vol.18 No.10. The final essay I looked at also examined the rhetoric around this debate, but focused on an interesting aspect of American argument and education—the use of dialectical teaching which some people believe presents the most accurate view of the world to students. Instead of simply teaching students evolutionary theory, some people would rather see “the controversy” between evolution and religion being taught. They argue that this will present the fullest picture to students and will show both sides of the argument, which will allow students to make up their own mind. It sounds very good. Presenting all sides of a controversial issue appeals to popular values of fairness, openness and equality of opportunity. It thus plays well with the public. But it is important to examine any such appeal carefully, because it is easy to abuse the public’s willingness to be swayed by such a call.4 The authors plainly point out the controversy. Imagine the subject is the Holocaust. Should the “controversy” be taught? Should students have the arguments of Holocaust deniers placed before them in a classroom, and both sides of the “argument” lined up for them think about? Strangely, this breeds the worst form of moral relativism—something most religious people strongly oppose. Study Design One of the questions I would ask when doing further investigation into this issue is: What does the religious right really want? Do they want to simply “teach the controversy” or do they have a long-term goal to overthrow the Establishment Clause of the Constitution and ban the teaching of evolutionary theory. To find an answer to this question I would create a carefully worded survey to send out to clergy people across the United States and also members of the various think tanks that support Intelligent Design. I would also carry out a number of in-depth interviews with members of school boards. Just how do such people view the U.S. Constitution and its prohibition of mixing church and state? Do they believe in this principle or do they think it flies in the face of living an honest, religious life? These are interesting questions that I would be curious to know about from their perspective. I agree with the article above that said much of the debate is caricaturized—especially in the East Coast press. There is more to this argument that good versus bad—it really says a lot about the tensions at the heart of American culture. As such it is worthy of intensive and extensive study. I think the study would have to be anti-positivist rather than positivist as it is very difficult to quantitatively analyze and collect data about human institutions like science and religion. I think a sociological study that focused more on what these things mean to people than on a lot of mathematical data would be a better approach to the question. Things like values, norms, and symbols are better approached using anti-positivist models and can teach us more about ourselves. Clearly the debate between creationism and Darwinism is a loaded one with angry opponents on both sides. Everyone has a lot invested in the subject because it strikes at the core of the most philosophical issues: Why are we here? What are we here to do? How should we live? Much of the debate has been through the courts that have consistently ruled in favor of evolution. It is important not to get caught up in this debate which I believe has been won by the evolutionists, but instead look about what it says about our society and the way we live now. Works consulted Michael W. Apple. March 2008. “Evolution Versus Creationism in Education.” Educational Policy. Volume 22 Number 2. p 121. Robert Audi. “Religion and the politics of science can evolutionary biology be religiously neutral?” Philosophy and Social Criticism. Vol 35 Nos 1–2. p 31. Bowler, Peter J. 2003. Evolution: The History of an Idea. L.A.: University of California Press. Eugenie Scott and Glen Branch. October 2003. “Evolution: What’s wrong with teaching the controversy?” Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Vol.18 No.10. Matthew J. Tontonoz. June 2008 “The Scopes Trial Revisited: Social Darwinism versus Social Gospel.” Science as Culture.. 17:2. p 127. Read More