1. The trials of creationism
and intelligent design
John Wilkins
2. Why creationism
goes to court
Unique 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
3. 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
5. 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.
6. 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.”
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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)
10. 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.
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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.
17. 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
18. The judgement and
trial
The 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. SCOPES 1925
EDWARDS V
AGUILLARD 1981
MCLEAN V
ARKANSAS 1987
KITZMILLER V
DOVER 2004
WHITCOMB AND
MORRIS 1960
WHAT ELSE HAPPENED?
RISE OF RELIGIOUS BLOC
IN 1970S
HOW INFLUENTIAL IS CREATIONISM?
22. References
McLean 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
