The trials of creationism and intelligent designJohn Wilkins

Why creationism goes to courtUnique factors to United States

Separation of church and state

Democracy at all government levels

School boards decide curriculum and teaching materials by popular vote

General factors

Social movements, particularly the Christian lobby, seeking greater impact on social discourse

Reactionism against evolution as a surrogate for other social concerns

The Scopes Trial

Dayton, Ohio, 1925

Usual view: forces on enlightenment against forces of reactionary conservatism (Inherit the Wind)

Context: the “Eclipse of Darwinism” period

Not yet clear how evolution worked

Neo-Lamarckism, progressivism, saltationism

John Thomas Scopes

The protagonists

Clarence Darrow

William Jennings Bryan

H. L. Mencken

The Scopes Trial the only trial in history where:

The defence kept the defendant off the stand to keep secret that the defendant may not have violated the law.

The defence wanted the jury to convict the client

The chief prosecutor was expert witness (indeed the only witness) for defence

The three main defence attorneys were scheduled to be expert witnesses for the prosecution

On a topic that the judge had already ruled was irrelevant to the trial

Nation-wide radio broadcast (first time in history)

The jury were about the only people in the country who didn’t hear the key testimony

Highly illegal phone call from the Governor, telling the judge that the trial was embarrassment for Tennessee.

The chief prosecutor offered to pay the defendant’s fine.

The trial

Cross-examination ended in screaming match between chief prosecutor and his expert witness (who loathed each other):

Bryan  (pounding his fist in rage):  “I am simply trying to protect the word of God against the greatest atheist or agnostic in the United States. … I want the papers to know that I am not afraid to get on the stand in front of him and let him do his worst.”

Final Testimony: 

Bryan: “The only purpose Mr. Darrow has is to slur the Bible, but I will answer his questions.”Darrow: “I object to your statement. I am examining your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on Earth believes.”

The outcome

Scopes was found guilty, but the judgement was overturned on a technicality

Never went to state or federal Supreme Courts on appeal

Legislation remained on the books until the 1980s

The play and film Inherit the Wind set up a mythology of religion against science

What was the real issue?Given that creationism per se was still being formulated, and

Most evangelicals (even most Fundamentalists) were not committed to biblical historical literalism yet or to opposing evolution,

… what was the issue?

Bryant was a social liberal

Opposed eugenics

Opposed racialism

Opposed social engineering

Mencken, at any rate, was a racist and antisemite

McLean v Arkansas

1981/2

“Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act 1981”

Challenged as against First Amendment

Lemon Test

Creationism as “science”

Popperian demarcation (Ruse)

The Lemon Test

From Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971):

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion ...; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

Overton held that the Act did not survive tests 1 and 3, and was therefore unconstitutional.

Ruse on Popper

Ironic that Ruse made Popperian demarcation a legal precedent as philosophers were abandoning it:

“More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:(1) It is guided by natural law;(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;(3) It is testable against the empirical world;(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and(5) It is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).”

Overton held that creation-science was not science

Edwards v Aguillard

1987

Tested Louisiana act substantially the same as the Arkansas one (down to the title)

Used Lemon Test explicitly and more rigorously than McLean v Arkansas

What next for creationism?They can’t call creationism science

They can’t get the religious element into public schools

So they devise a strategy: The Wedge

Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity

Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making

Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

Intelligent Design

Taking the ideas of the Natural Theology movement of the 18th and 19th centuries

The idea is that it can be scientifically proven that an intelligence is responsible for evolution

Front loading

Irreducible complexity

Attacks on natural selection

Of Pandas and People

Published in 1993

Selected by various school boards across USA

Dover, Pennsylvania school board adopted it as a school textbook in 1995

They required a disclaimer to be read in schools

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized

test of which evolution is a part.Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.Intelligent Design is an explanation of the

origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be

interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve

proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

The Dover Trial

2004–5

Brought by Tammy Kitzmiller and a number of other parents; hence Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District

ACLU again, supported by NCSE

Conflict of Interest: I was peripherally involved as an advisor to plaintiffs

The judgement and trialThe textbook was written as a creationist book and revised as an intelligent design: cdesignproponentsist

ID advocates William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and others withdrew as witnesses

Judge John E. Jones III

ID is clearly an end-run abound the second amendment

“Breathtaking inanity”

Involvement of philosopher/sociologist of science, Steve Fuller:

ID is like any nascent science and deserves room to grow

The outcomes

65% of Americans are in favour of teaching ID or some other form of creationism

This has risen since the 1960s [oxygen theory?]

More laws have been passed, most die in committee

What is going on?

Religious movements arise when religious people feel they are sidelined in the public forum

In the 1970s, Catholics and Evangelicals made common cause against secularisation of American society

So-called “religious right” arose, and started a process of “regaining the public debate for Jesus”

Creationism is predominantly about controlling education

SCOPES 1925EDWARDS V

AGUILLARD 1981

MCLEAN V ARKANSAS 1987

KITZMILLER V DOVER 2004

WHITCOMB AND MORRIS 1960

WHAT ELSE HAPPENED?RISE OF RELIGIOUS BLOC

IN 1970SHOW INFLUENTIAL IS CREATIONISM?

ReferencesMcLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project

Crimes and Trials of the Century

The Creationists: The evolution of scientific creationism

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Intelligent Design case

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education

Creationism and the Law | NCSE

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | NCSE

Creationism and the Law | NCSE

Edwards v. Aguillard; Cornell Law School

Creation–evolution controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

William Jennings Bryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clarence Darrow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

H. L. Mencken - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia