In the Beginning: Evolution & Creation in America
In 1925, Tennessee high school teacher John Scopes was charged with violating a state law banning the teaching of evolution. Back then, many people believed the Scopes “Monkey Trial” would be the last gasp of the anti-evolution movement. But 85 years later, only a minority of Americans believe Darwin was right.
On this episode of BackStory, the History Guys explore the ways Americans have attempted to grapple with the biggest question of them all: “Where did we come from?” Together, they trace the ups and downs in the relationship between science and religion. Are there times when the two have not been at odds? How did the Founders conceive of “creation,” and why did the idea of extinction pose such a challenge to their worldview? How were Darwin’s ideas received in the U.S., and why did it take six decades before public school systems started challenging the teaching of his theories? What lessons does history offer those interested in charting a peaceful relationship between science and religion in the future?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Guests Include:
- Ronald Numbers – Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
- Joe Wilkey – Head of the Department of Science at Rhea County High School, Evensville, TN.
Features and Highlights
Listen to an extended interview with Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Further Reading
Resources galore! The BackStory team has pulled together some outside material to help you navigate the world of origin stories.
Even Further…
21 Responses
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
-
In The Beginning: Features and Highlights | BackStory with the American History Guys :
[...] The following are extended versions of interviews included in the BackStory episode “Beyond Numbers: A History of the U.S. Census,” broadcast in December of 2010. You can listen to the entire episode here. [...]
Quote -- November 3, 2011 @ 3:11 pm -
History of creationism « The Dispersal of Darwin :
[...] Guys brought on historian of science Ronald Numbers and high school educator Joe Wilkey to discuss “In the Beginning: Evolution & Creation in America” (mp3): On this episode of BackStory, the History Guys explore the ways Americans have attempted to [...]
Quote -- November 18, 2011 @ 11:54 pm -
“In the Beginning”: Transcript | BackStory with the American History Guys :
[...] This is the transcript of “In the Beginning: Creation and Evolution in America,” originally broadcast in November of 2011. You can listen to the entire show here. [...]
Quote -- November 22, 2011 @ 5:58 pm
Would any of you see this as a continuation of the tension between modernism and enlightenment thinking on one hand, and evangelical Christianity on the other, that would have separated Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin from Patrick Henry and George Whitfield?
QuoteAll systems are attempts to negotiate the context in which those systems find themselves. The distinction between system and context dissolves and there is only an apparent conflict between the different parts or moments or solutions.
QuoteIn America there are deep connections in the fabric of the culture that link the work done by religion and science in their particular areas. Since they have a common context their varied output puts them in conflict. This seems to be part of the major cultural challenge in a global context. Diversity, autonomy, security.
Opposition is one of the simplest and most recognizable forms of collaboration.
Thanks again for the opportunity to call in to your wonderful show—I only hope that I sound somewhat articulate when it finally airs! I tried to make the point that we can’t lump all religions together or even all Judeo-Christian faith traditions in relation to science or how they each interpret the Bible. I used the Eastern Orthodox Church as an example, which though only playing a very minor role in American History, is still a major expression of Christianity world-wide (the second-largest Christian communion after Rome) and represents a much older, more mystical and holistic tradition than mainline Protestantism or modern Roman Catholicism.
The Orthodox Church has never read the Book of Genesis as a science textbook or an eyewitness account, but rather emphasized its spiritual lessons about God and his relationship toward the created order and all human beings. The Church has always considered the act of creation to be a mystery and the description of it in Holy Scripture to be one of accommodation to the limits of human reason.
In general, I believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church has had a very positive track record with science and learning over its 2,000-year history. This is partially due to its mystical orientation and the high level of education among many of its greatest teachers, but also its more organic, less-centralized church structure, usually independent from the State, with a strong tradition of non-clergy leadership. You don’t usually see the same power struggles between Church, State, and the educated elite, but more often a relationship of cooperation between the three (though problems have arisen, usually after Orthodox nations have adopted trends from Western culture in an attempt to “modernize”).
While recognizing the limits of reason, especially in an imperfect world where spiritual problems often cloud our minds, the Eastern Church has also done much to contribute to science and learning. Even an illiterate desert mystic such as St. Anthony the Great of Egypt has encouraged people to examine the natural world to learn more about God’s Word. Another Father of the Church, St. Justin Martyr, taught that the Word of God in “seed-form” existed in all of the world’s greatest philosophies. A hymn written by the persecuted Church in Soviet-era Russia expounds that “the breath of the Holy Spirit inspires poets, artists, and scientists”.
Prominent Orthodox Christians of the 20th century with scientific backgrounds include Metropolitan Anthony Bloom (medicine), geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky (who received an honorary degree from St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in up-state New York), Serbian geophysicist Milutin Milankovic, and philosopher Charles Habib Malik (physics) who helped draft the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All of these men drew from both their spiritual and scientific backgrounds for the greater good, and both Dobzhansky and Malik were naturalized American citizens. The most highly regarded bishop in the Church (the Orthodox do not have a Western-style pope) the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew gives talks around the world on issues of ecology as well as Church doctrine and the plight of Christians living in the Middle East.
However, there is currently no consensus among Eastern Orthodox Christians about the theories of human evolution. Some like Dobzhansky believe that evolution is simply the manner it which God chooses to create, but others are very critical of Darwinian ideas. There are many Traditionalists, especially in Eastern Europe, that believe that the Orthodox Church has been far too open to Western influence, and they are not without their points. “Modernity” in the West has lead to social disintegration, spiritual confusion, empty materialism, de-humanization, and ecological disaster. Orthodox Christians in Europe have also seen first hand the horrors caused by madmen like Stalin and Hitler who have used Darwinian ideas to justify their war on humanity. Consequently, human evolution is not an easy topic to discuss.
Matt
QuoteAlso, here’s a helpful quote from a prominant 20th century personality of a different faith tradition—
“The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice.” –Mohandas K. Gandhi
Matt
QuoteI work at the Dayton Metro Library in Dayton, OH. Nearly every year, as we near the anniversary of this case, we get a phone call from someone in the media asking about local newspaper articles. We have to remind them that the Scopes Monkey Trial was in Dayton, TENNESSEE, not Dayton, Ohio.
Just discovered your podcast and am enjoying it immensely.
QuoteSeveral comments (if it’s not too late to chip in to the conversation):
First, the history of the Scopes trial has been colored radically by the play and movie, “Inherit the Wind,” in which William Jennings Bryan was portrayed as a narrow-minded Young Earth Creationist fanatic, while Clarence Darrow was portrayed as a reasonable, tolerant crusader for truth and honesty, with the teacher (Scopes) as the victim of persecution. The play was written in the 1950s, at the height of McCarthyism, and was really designed to tackle the battle between anti-Communist fervor and the voice of reason and tolerance. But the actual trial, which took place in 1924, had issues and undertones not mentioned in the play.
When Darwin’s ideas first came out, supported by the research of other scientists (many of whom were Christians), mainstream Christianity had no quarrel with evolution. Young Earth Creationism wasn’t yet a force of any strength, because for most of its history, believers in Christianity had interpreted the first chapters of Genesis much more symbolically or loosely, and the issue seemed like a minor point anyhow. Many Christians welcomed the idea of evolution as a unifying factor that could help explain the relationships among plants and animals.
Evolution wasn’t even the factor that shook Darwin’s own faith in God. It was two deaths in his family, including the death of his young daughter, that made him question.
But by the early 20C, Darwin’s ideas had become wedded to broader philosophical ideas, including the eugenics movement. Proponents took the notion of “survival of the fittest” and used it to argue their beliefs that the “unfit” should be sterilized. It was part of the bigger idea of “social Darwinism,” which was definitely not science, but got confused and conflated with science.
By the time of the Scopes trial, William Jennings Bryan, a champion of populism, had become intensely concerned about evolution’s link (in the minds of many) to social Darwinism. It was this threat that made him accept the challenge of prosecuting the Scopes case. And he had some basis for it: the textbook that Scopes was using in the classroom included at least one chapter that promoted social Darwinist notions.
Bryan wasn’t a Young Earth Creationist. In fact, there was disagreement on the age of the earth, and the acceptance of evolution, even among the very conservative Christians who wrote “The Fundamentals,” a series of pamphlets upon which Christian Fundamentalism built itself. Belief in a young earth, and rejection of evolution, were not mandatory even among these people.
Evolution is no longer tied to eugenics in most people’s minds. But in the minds of many, it’s tied to materialism: the belief that there’s no reality beyond what’s testable by the natural sciences, and that spiritual life is a product of biochemistry. Naturally, people of faith take issue with that idea. Materialism is a philosophy, just like social Darwinism, but both philosophies have been confused with the science of evolution.
In my church, and in the Christian school where I teach, views on creation and origins run a wide spectrum. There are people who reject mainstream science altogether and follow the teachings of people like Ken Ham (Answers In Genesis). These folks believe in Young Earth Creationism–the idea that the world was created in six literal days, that each animal species (including humanity) was created specially and did not evolve except in tiny ways, and that the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old. There are others who believe that evolution was a mechanism used by God to generate biodiversity, leading ultimately to creatures (humans) who would be capable of having a personal relationship with God. There are also many other positions that fall somewhere between these two.
Francis Collins, of course, is a good example of an evangelical Christian who fully accepts the theory of evolution. He was head of the Human Genome Project, and he’s now head of the NIH. His book, The Language of God, is well worth reading.
Finally, there’s an issue that all of us non-scientists face, whether we’re religious or not. Science is harder and harder to understand at a deep level. It takes years of specialized training–and even then, scientists in one field don’t necessarily understand other subspecialties deeply. Yet we’re asked to make personal and civic decisions all the time, based on our notions of science. Our decisions are ultimately based, not on our own investigations, but on trust. Whom do we trust?
Liz Shively
QuoteI recently read a good book, Why Evolution Works, that deals with the subject science and religion by using the battles between evolution and creationism. It has a wonderful final section that discusses the emotions, ethics, and research involved over time with this subject. The authors are Paul Strode who is at the University of Colorado and Matt Young who is at the Colorado School of Mines. And , in the interest of full disclosure, Paul was a floormate of mine at Manchester College in Indiana, but the book is really a good volume on this subject. Thanks for the great show….the podcast gets me through miles of marathon training!
QuoteI have been listening to your podcasts as intellectual therapy. Thank you. Thank you.
Don’t you guys think we need to start a Church Backstory with the American Church History Gals? Skip and John at Yale trained a great team, and Grant’s students from Duke are fabulous. I will write the grant, if you all can imagine helping out. Think of it as Michael Denning meets Peggy Bendroth . . . Maybe?
Meanwhile, on topic, Marilynne Robinson has the best essay I know of on this, in her non-fiction book The End of Adam. I assign it to Duke undergrads, and it always scrambles their brains. They can’t quite sort out how a brilliant author like Robinson could be critical of Darwinism. I also still find Social Darwinism in America to be essential reading. Thank God for Hofstadter.
As a left-leaning, anti-death- penalty Christian, I also have students read Darrow’s argument against the death penalty in the Leopold and Loeb trial, alongside William Jennings Bryan on the dangers of social-Darwinism. At the very least, this conversation requires students to think in more nuanced ways about what is at stake when Darwinisms make their way into popular thought.
Finally, Stephen Jay Gould’s \Ladders and Cones: Constraining Evolution by Canonical Icons,\ is a helpful way to help students sort through the role of Harry Emerson’s little brother, Raymond, as he lead the \Science of Man\ project. \There is no short cut to the promised land,\ he intoned. (Lily Kay’s Molecular Vision of Life is great on this.)
Thanks for the monthly dose of strong hope.
QuoteI actually just incorporated a quotation from Draper’s book into a lesson plan for ninth graders. I hope there will some mention that since Draper’s time historians of science have more or less universally repudiated the Conflict Thesis, at least as White and Draper presented it. The scholarly consensus nowadays tends to emphasize the extent to which science and faith interacted amicably and cooperatively during the Scientific Revolution, and continued to do so until at least the second half of the nineteenth century. Isaac Newton wrote far more about biblical prophesy than he did about physics; and Galileo’s writings were actually widely praised by many Catholic prelates, including Pope Urban VIII, until a variety of political, personal, and other factors finally led to the notorious confrontation of 1633.
QuoteGreat show! I’ll be assigning it in my Religion in the U.S. class next semester. Interestingly, I listened to this as I was finished reading _The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age_ by Randall Stephens and Karl Giberson. The authors recently wrote for the NYT: http://nyti.ms/tzjJCo. So many wonderful connections between this show and their work!
Quote“As used in science, “theory” does not mean the same thing as it does in everyday life. A theory is not a guess, hunch, hypothesis, or speculation. It is much more full-blown.
A theory is built upon one or more hypotheses, and upon evidence. The word “built” is essential, for a theory contains reasoning and logical connections based on the hypotheses and evidence. Thus we have Newton’s theory of gravity and the motion of planets, Einstein’s theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the cell theory of organisms, plate tectonics (theory of the motion of land masses), the valence theory of chemical compounds, and theories of evolution in biology, geology, and astronomy. These theories are self-consistent and consistent with one another.”
Creationism and Intelligent Design are not based on science
I’d like to recommend a wonderful documentary:
Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
http://documentarystorm.com/intelligent-design-on-trial/
http://www.nebscience.org/theory.html
QuoteI found it difficult to believe the science teacher from Dayton Tn is in reality a science teacher. Of course Darwinian Evolution can’t explain the origin of life, Darwinian Evolution is about the evolution of life. One can’t have evolution without life. The question of where did life come from was answered in the 1950s by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey when they did a chemistry experiment. The “science teacher” you interviewed should be informed of this fact. Contrary to the teacher’s comments the evidence for the origins of life is without doubt. It is amazing that this “science teacher” says “let science lead us” when he has rejected science. Evolution on small and large scales has been tested over and over and found to be validated by these experiments. The fact of the matter is that “Intelligent Design” is untestable. I defy any “Intelligent Design” proponent to come up with a way to test “God did it”. In fact I live for the day a researcher to publish a paper that proves once and for all that god did create the universe and empirical evidence shows that the Hindus are right. Then you’ll hear the “Intelligent Design” proponents claim that the experiment was flawed because it did not show that the Christian god was the creator. This “science teacher” is who to blame when we wonder why students in the United States are not able to do science.
QuoteThis was the best coverage of the evolution vs creation debate that npr has put on but it still has some major drawbacks.
The arguments are not about science vs religion. It is an argument about two different views of science that have religious implications. Modern science believes in naturalism and creationists believe that there are supernatural forces in the world that can explain the origin of the world around us. Being a creationist does not stop individuals from being scientists. Many Bible believing scientists have used empirical scientific methods to successfully learn about and describe the world around us. I have a question for the naturalists. What if they are wrong?
One shouldn’t immediately dismiss the idea that the fossil record was triggered by a world wide flood that covered the whole earth. We certainly don’t see conditions today that would produce large world wide grave yards of extinct and current existing animals and plants. Also the methods that are used to give a billion or so years to the earth using radioactive dating are based on assumptions that are unknown to man. To date rock using radioactive methods the scientists have to know what the original rock contained regarding the parent and daughter compounds. Since no one was here to measure those quantities the scientists put into the equations numbers that will give you millions and billions of years so there will be enough time for evolution to occur. That is just playing unfairly.
Evolution is not real science. Oh just like creation scientists they use scientific jargon, scientific measurements, and write papers but unlike the empirical science that allows us to build and fly rockets and make computers evolution can’t study in real time what they claim has happened. No one has seen a land mammal go back in the water and become a whale. No one has seen a singular cellular organize and become a multi-cellular organism with different organ function. When genetic changes happen in organisms today through the sharing of genetic material or through genetic mutations the organisms are still microbacteria, dogs, corn, or birds. They don’t change into other organisms and they never will. Evolution is a belief system not a real empirical scientific endeavor.
No naturalist scientist has ever had an adequate explanation of the way we went from a mixture of molecules in the primordial soup to the exact code, language, decoding mechanism, repair mechanisms, and information that we have in a single living cell. Richard Dawkins when pressed with this issue said he believes life came from little green men from outer space. He can believe in little green men but not in God. This answer just begs the question since he would still have to explain how little green men evolved and he can’t. Another evolutionary scientist, I’m sorry I forgot his name, said that he admitted that science has not explained how we can go from molecules to man but he saw only two choice. One is evolution and the other is creation but an intelligent being. He also said that he didn’t want to believe in a God so he’s siding with evolution. Now there was an honest man.
QuoteI always floors me that a little knowledge of the nature of RNA/DNA and what it can do in a billion years is so easily denied by ignorance.
QuoteIt’s scary that Joseph Wilkie is the head of a high-school science department and has been teaching science for 27 years. Let science go where it may, he says, asserting that there has never been experimental confirmation of Darwinian evolution.
Natural selection (evolution) has been experimentally confirmed a thousand times over and is directly observable both in nature and in the laboratory be it with respect to the size of finch beaks or the color of London pigeons. Indeed, many of the miracles of modern medicine would be utterly impossible were the forces of evolution not at work.
How can Mr. Wilkie not know this? But he doesn’t. He is profoundly ignorant and presumably passing on his ignorance to a generation of students.
QuotePardon my spelling. I meant Mr. Wilkey.
QuoteAndy, you have one of those wonderful minds that stays open just long enough to find something it can absorb, then closes down to make sure that original piece of knowledge isn’t affected.
the argument is definitely about science vs. pseudo-science. The criticism that no one has “seen” evolution is infantile – no one has seen an atom or many of the molecules that are used on a daily basis in the “empiricial” sciences that you applaud. What about inference? Or do you mean that inference is valid only when you agree with it. Given an incomplete dataset, such as the fossil record, what is one supposed to do – infer, ignore, or read a book that was written long before the dataset existed, and use the dataset to support the book?
QuoteI find it incredible that in your discussion of Jefferson’s stated position that mixing the races contravened God’s plan because he clearly created them separately, you chose not to mention that Jefferson fathered several children with a slave woman in his household, Sally Hemings, who was apparently his white wife’s own half-sister!
How can you possibly justify an omission of such enormity?
Quote