ON 10 July 1925, a drama was played out in a small courtroom in a Tennessee town that touched off a far-reaching ideological battle. John Scopes, a schoolteacher, was found guilty of teaching evolution (see 鈥淭he monkey trial 鈥� below鈥�). Despite the verdict, Scopes, and the wider scientific project he sought to promote, seemed at the time to have been vindicated by the backlash in the urban press against his creationist opponents.
Yet 80 years on, creationist ideas have a powerful hold in the US, and science is still under attack. US Supreme Court decisions have made it impossible to teach divine creation as science in state-funded schools. But in response, creationists have invented 鈥渋ntelligent design鈥�, which they say is a scientific alternative to Darwinism (see 鈥淎 sceptic鈥檚 guide to intelligent design鈥�). ID has already affected the way science is taught and perceived in schools, museums, zoos and national parks across the US.
In the US, Kansas has long been a focus of creationist activity. In 1999 creationists on the Kansas school board had all mention of evolution deleted from its state school standards. Their decision was reversed after conservative Christian board members were defeated in elections in 2002. But more elections brought a conservative majority in November 2004, and the standards are under threat again.
Advertisement
This time the creationists鈥� proposals are 鈥渇ar more radical and much more dangerous鈥�, says Keith Miller of Kansas State University, a leading pro-evolution campaigner. 鈥淭hey redefine science itself to include non-natural or supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.鈥� The Kansas standards now state that science finds 鈥渘atural鈥� explanations for things. But conservatives on the board want that changed to 鈥渁dequate鈥�. They also want to define evolution as being based on an atheistic religious viewpoint. 鈥淭hen they can argue that intelligent design must be included as 鈥榖alance鈥�,鈥� Miller says.
In January in Dover, Pennsylvania, 9th-grade biology students were read a statement from the school board that said state standards 鈥渞equire students to learn about Darwin鈥檚 theory of evolution. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence鈥�. Intelligent design, it went on, 鈥渋s an explanation for the origin of life that differs from Darwin鈥檚 view鈥�. Fifty donated copies of an ID textbook would be kept in each science classroom. Although ID was not formally taught, students were 鈥渆ncouraged to keep an open mind鈥�.
聯Proposed school standards redefine science to include supernatural explanations for natural phenomena聰
These moves are part of numerous recent efforts by fundamentalist Christians, emboldened by a permissive political climate, to discredit evolution. 鈥淎s of January this year 18 pieces of legislation had been introduced in 13 states,鈥� says Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which helps oppose creationist campaigns. That is twice the typical number in recent years, and it stretched from Texas and South Carolina to Ohio and New York (see Map). The legislation seeks mainly to force the teaching of ID, or at least 鈥渆vidence against evolution鈥�, in science classes.FIG-mg25073801.jpg
The fight is being waged on other fronts as well. Scott counts 39 creationist 鈥渋ncidents鈥� other than legislative efforts in 20 states so far this year. In June, for example, the august Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC allowed the showing of an ID film on its premises and with its unwitting endorsement. After an outcry, the endorsement was withdrawn 鈥� officials insisted that it was all a mistake, although the screening did go ahead (New 杏吧原创, 11 June, p 4).
Also in June, a publicly funded zoo in Tulsa, Oklahoma, voted to install a display showing the six-day creation described in Genesis. The science museum in Fort Worth, Texas, decided in March not to show an IMAX film entitled Volcanoes of the Deep Sea after negative reaction to its acceptance of evolution from a trial audience. The museum changed its mind after press coverage evoked an outcry, but IMAX theatres elsewhere in the US have not screened science films with evolutionary content to avoid controversy. Since 2003 the bookstores at the Grand Canyon, part of the US National Park Service, have sold a young-Earth creationist book about the canyon, repeating the creationist assertion that it was formed by Noah鈥檚 flood.
聯Creationists depict evolutionists as a cultural elite, out of touch with American society聰
Anti-Darwin campaigners have not won everywhere. A Georgia court ruled that stickers describing evolution as 鈥渢heory not fact鈥� must be removed from textbooks. A bill in Florida that might have allowed students to sue teachers 鈥渂iased鈥� towards evolution died. And Alaska rewrote its school science standards to emphasise evolution. But religious fundamentalists have succeeded in insinuating a general mistrust of evolution. 鈥淐reationists depict evolutionists as a cultural elite, out of touch with American society,鈥� says Kenneth Miller of Brown University in Rhode Island.
Creationism has had less cultural impact in Europe, but in the UK some state schools are incorporating it into science classes. The English education system allows private donors to invest in the refurbishment of state-funded schools in deprived areas, in return for controls over what is taught there. Emmanuel College at Gateshead in north-east England opened in 1990, financed by millionaire car dealer and Christian fundamentalist Peter Vardy. It teaches both evolution and creationism in science classes and, school officials say, lets children make up their own minds. Little notice was taken until 2002, when Vardy proposed opening more schools. A second opened last year in Middlesbrough, and a third will open near Doncaster in September.
Last September, Serbia briefly banned the teaching of evolution in schools. It changed its mind days later after scientists and even Serbian Orthodox bishops spoke out. There was also uproar over creationism in the Netherlands. The Dutch have several sects that teach creationism in their own schools. But in May, Cees Dekker, a physicist at the Delft University of Technology published a book on ID, and persuaded education minister Maria van der Hoeven that discussion of ID might promote dialogue between religious groups. She proposed a conference in autumn, but dropped the plan after an outcry from Dutch scientists.
In Turkey there is a strong creationist movement, sparked initially by contact with US creationists. Since 1999, when Turkish professors who taught evolution were harassed and threatened, there is no longer public opposition to creationism, which is all that is presented in school texts. In another Muslim country, Pakistan, evolution is no longer taught in universities.
聯What is happening is a political effort to force a change in the nature of science itself聰
Fundamentalist Christianity is also sweeping Africa and Latin America. Last year Brazilian scientists protested when Rio de Janeiro鈥檚 education department started teaching creationism in religious education classes.
The fear among creationism鈥檚 critics is that a pattern is emerging that will culminate in a new wave of creationist teaching. They are worried that this will undermine science education and science鈥檚 place in society. 鈥淭he politicisation of science has increased at all levels,鈥� says Miller. 鈥淲hat is happening is a political effort to force a change in the content and nature of science itself.鈥�
THE MONKEY TRIAL (from above)
In 1925, John Thomas Scopes was a 24-year-old physical education teacher at the secondary school in Dayton, Tennessee. He was put on trial after confessing to teaching evolution while acting as a substitute biology teacher 鈥� something Tennessee had recently made illegal. The so-called 鈥渕onkey鈥� trial became a media circus and struck a powerful chord in American society.
The reasons are still with us. Natural selection provides an explanation for the origins of living things, including humans, that depends entirely on the workings of natural laws. It says nothing about the existence, or otherwise, of God.
But to many believers in such a God, if humans are just another product of nature with no special status, then there is no need for morality. Worse, evolution with its dictum of survival of the fittest seems to encourage the unprincipled pursuit of selfishness. At the time of the Scopes trial these were not merely academic concerns. The first world war had convinced many of the brutalising effects of modernity.
Scopes lost. The newborn American Civil Liberties Union paid his $100 fine and planned to appeal to the US Supreme Court, where they hoped laws like Tennessee鈥檚 would be declared illegal. They were thwarted when the verdict was overturned on a technicality.
In Dayton, though, it appeared that Darwin had won. The anti-evolutionists and rural, religious society generally had been held up to nationwide ridicule by the urban press covering the trial. As a result there were few overt efforts to pursue such legal attacks on evolution for decades.
But for some historians Scopes was no victory for Darwinism. The prosecutor, populist politician William Jennings Bryan, was seen as speaking for the 鈥渃ommon people鈥�. Those people, repelled by an alien, arrogant, scientific world that seemed opposed to them and their values, developed a separate society increasingly bound to strict religious laws. Before the trial, evolution had not been an important issue for these people. Now it was. For many Americans, being in favour of evolution is still equated with being against God.
