Three Stumbles

The debate over Darwinism is frequently lost by persons taking an opposing view right at the outset because of some fundamental mistakes in perception about the terms of the debate. Philip Johnson has identified three critical errors we must learn to avoid.

1. We're only arguing about length of time. Emphatically, no. While it is true that there is a debate within the Christian community regarding old versus young earth creationism, to characterize the difficulty with evolution as merely a matter of the age of the earth is highly misleading. Instead, the concept of Darwinism seeks to do away with God altogether. Witness this 1995 statement by the National Association of Biology Teachers: "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments." Note well the emphasis on unsupervised and impersonal--there is to be no allowance for God at all. And do not neglect the imprecise use of "chance" in that statement either, assigning creative power to a non-entity (chance has no being and it is not a thing; it is a useful but abstract mathematical concept related to probabilities). Here is an another definition, this one put forward by George Gaylord Simpson: "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." No purpose (there's that blasted teleology again) and no mind. The entire approach of modern biology is founded on naturalism, the philosophy that the material universe is all there is. God is automatically excluded from the start. The theist of whatever stripe who enters the debate has been given three strikes before he even opens his mouth.

2. God made the laws and then retired. Allowing momentarily for the disqualified idea of God, this argument permits God as the starter or creator of the natural process, which is then left to function on its own. The analogy of the clockmaker is often invoked, which is a stand-in for deism. But this is not the God of Christianity, who remains active and involved with his creation. Practically speaking, what is the difference between a God who goes away after initiating creation and no God at all?

3. Erect a wall of separation between faith and reason. Cannot faith and reason simply be two different ways of looking at the same reality? No, primarily because there is assumed here a wrong definition of faith, that of belief divorced or apart from, despite, or contrary to the evidence. Biblical faith is trust based upon the established and demonstrated character of the God who keeps his promises. But if faith is used in the former, erroneous sense, it is no wonder that scientists consider this irrational. It allows them to lump Christianity together with astrology and the Tooth Fairy. A Christian who accepts a false dichotomy between faith and reason abandons the field of rational debate at the start and has already lost.

A Fictionalized Version of the Scopes Trial, Indeed

Comparing the plot summary of Inherit the Wind with the historical synopsis I provided earlier should make the numerous historical inaccuracies of the play readily apparent. And perhaps that would be altogether fine--as already observed, the authors' intent was to criticize McCarthyism and not necessarily to promote Darwinism--if the play and the movie had not taken on a life of their own in the public mind.

The real theme of the play is the modernist understanding of freedom. An enlightened society should throw off the shackles of restrictive, authoritarian forms of thought. Human reason should be unfettered, to follow the facts wherever they lead. Lawrence and Lee identified conservative Christianity (or their caricature of it) that retains a regard for the Bible as an accurate historical record with the McCarthyism of their own era.

But the accuracy of the events depicted in the play and movie hardly matter. To most who have seen either this is the way they think of the Scopes Trial and how the two sides were constituted. It illustrates well the power of the microphone--those who control the means of communication (demonstrated just as well in the 1920s as now) control the debate. The way the controversy is cast by the media largely determines the shape of the debate. So long as the Darwinists and their journalistic allies control the microphone, opposing views will have very little success getting a fair hearing.

Art Imitates Life: The Phenomenon of "Inherit the Wind"

Inherit the Wind was written in the mid-1950s by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee (for the history-challenged, not the famous Confederate general). It was not specifically intended to be a faithful dramatization of the Scopes Trial or even to promote the truth of evolution per se. Rather, it was a veiled critique of McCarthyism. But that little detail has been lost in the ensuing years, especially as the controversy over creation and evolution flared back up again and proponents of Darwinism sized on the play (and especially the movie version, produced in 1960) as a vehicle for warning the public of the dangers for science of ignorant religious fundamentalism.

In brief, the play concerns one Bert Cates, a handsome young science teacher caught by angry local leaders in the illegal act of teaching evolution to Hillsboro high school students. Bert is in love with Rachel Brown, the daughter of a fiery bigoted preacher. The famous antievolution crusader and former presidential candidate Matthew Harrison Brady arrives to prosecute the case. Hillsboro welcomes him with open arms. Hardened reporter E. L. Hornbeck of the Baltimore Herald arrives to offer acid reflections on the developing spectacle; he takes special glee in skewering the townsfolk for their mindless religiosity. Brady is characterized as a genial but pompous, gluttonous windbag who is not above manipulating Rachel into making certain confidences that he will use against Bert in the trial. All the hoopla is interrupted by the arrival of Henry Drummond, a principled defender of the oppressed, to act as defense counsel. His reception in Hillsboro is not nearly so friendly. Drummond is given all the good lines. The defense cause is pure and noble but in an impossible legal position. Brady forces Bert to admit to having taught evolution in the classroom, some reluctant students are made to corroborate this confession, and even Rachel is brought to the stand to weepily document Bert's heterodox opinions. His scientific witnesses disallowed by the court, Drummond brilliantly maneuvers Brady into taking the stand to give "expert testimony" on the Bible. The ensuing exchange goes all Drummond's way as he succeeds in flummoxing and embarrassing Brady and makes of him a laughingstock. But the foregone guility verdict is returned. Embarrassed civic leaders convince the judge to impose a small fine, which Bert in principle refuses to pay. He and Rachel, who has learned the errors of her narrow ways of thinking, leave town to get married. Brady lets loose with an incoherant rant that ends in a physical collapse and his death off-stage. At the end, Drummond is left alone in the courtroom. He takes a Bible in one hand and a copy of Origin in the other, weighing them as if in a balance. He then shrugs and places both books in his briefcase as the curtain falls.

The reader may compare this plot synopsis with the historical account of the actual Scopes Trial I wrote last week.

Doug Thiessen, Now with the Lord

This blog began almost two years ago as an exploration of the Westminster Confession of Faith. I had a lot of help with the material I posted, none more valuable than the contributions of a man who co-taught the adult Sunday school class at my church that formed the basis for the series.

In my 27 August 2007 I paid tribute to Doug by name. It is my sad duty to do so again, this time on the occasion of his death two days ago in a skiing accident. This dedicated servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, this lover of the Word enscripurated and made flesh, went to his eternal reward while still in the very prime of his vigorous young life. He leaves a loving wife and five children, the youngest of which was born just two months ago. She will know her father chiefly by the fruits of his life.

When Doug went out on that mountain Friday I doubt very much that he knew he would not come down again. But I know he was ready when the Lord called him home.

We'll pick up again with the series on Darwinism tomorrow. Today we should just take a moment to reflect.

The Drama Unfolds

Following his indictment, John Scopes was free--never in danger of being jailed--and traveled to New York, where he met with members of the executive board of the ACLU. Back in Dayton, he continued to live at his boarding house and interacted freely with townspeople and all the visitors gathered for the spectacle. He was friendly with several young men on the prosecution team. Bryan and Darrow were well-received by the town. Several other well-known attorneys joined the defense team. The trial itself lasted only a few days. Some students were called to testify; Scopes himself was never put on the stand, because his grasp of Darwinism was rudimentary at best and the defense team did not want to risk embarrassment under cross-examination. So the real drama of the thing was in the exchanges between Bryan and Darrow. The former more than held his own against the latter, although his willingness at the end of the trial to take the stand as a "witness for the Bible" was ill-advised; by and large he acquitted himself well but there were a few slips that made for good, damaging sound-bites. The media coverage of the event was a travesty of journalistic integrity. Little attempt was made to capture the reality of the thing. Instead, reporters pretty much knew what their editors wanted them to write and so there was a great deal of embellishment. Some didn't even bother to attend the courtroom proceedings. Many, including Mencken, left town before the end of the trial. Ultimately, Scopes was found guilty (at the behest of Darrow, who sought grounds for appeal and was confident that the verdict would be overturned by a higher court and the Butler Act declared unconstitutional; the additional publicity would be good for his anti-religious cause) and subjected to a modest fine. He later went on to graduate school and had an active career as a geologist.



The whole affair sort of backfired for Dayton, Tennessee. The inaccurate journalistic portrait of a town full of rubes and religious bigots did not help the town. Urban skeptics were confirmed in their ill opinion of rural religious conservatives. The Scopes Trial was mostly a propaganda victory for the ACLU and others desiring to discredit religion. Its real value came in the ground it laid for an even more effective weapon in the culture war.

The Scopes Trial's Principal Players

1) John Scopes: A young math and physical education teacher who did some substitute teaching work, Scopes later recalled having subbed briefly in a science class but did not think the subject of evolution ever came up in the classroom. But he had friends who convinced him to help them initiate a legal challenge to the Butler Act.

2) The ACLU: The organization had actively sought a test case to challenge restrictions on teaching evolution in the public schools, even going so far as to advertise for possible "defendants."

3) The civic leaders of Dayton, Tennessee: Business leaders, looking for ways to revitalize the local economy, encouraged Scopes to take up the ACLU's offer to participate in a staged mock trial. They hoped the national attention the trial would bring would be good for business. Local prosecutors agreed to go along.

4) William Jennings Bryan: Populist politician, progressive icon, accomplished orator, three-time unsuccessful Democratic candidate for the United States presidency, and secretary of state in the Wilson administration. Bryan caught wind of the trial plans and volunteered to assist the prosecution. His personal interest in the case was his dismay over the way Darwinism had been used to justify unbridled capitalism and militarism. But he was not very knowledgeable regarding the scientific merits of the theory. The involvement of such a prominent national figure significantly elevated the political theater of the event.

5) Clarence Darrow: One of the leading trial lawyers in the country, Darrow was also an accomplished speaker who routinely lectured as a religious agnostic (a lawyer version of Thomas Huxley, in other words). He was fresh off the notorious Leopold and Loeb murder trial in Chicago in which he had argued the defendents should not be held responsible for their actions due to their lack of free will. He was brought in as lead counsel for the defense.

6) H. L. Mencken: The trial quickly became a media circus, which at the time meant newspapers and the "new-fangled" technology of radio. Dayton was overrun with reporters. The most famous figure was Mencken, a columnist for the Baltimore Evening Sun and a renowned curmudgeon, misanthrope, and religious skeptic. Interestingly, the Evening Sun helped underwrite Scopes's defense.

American Theater: The Scopes Trial Introduced

The intellectual climate of Europe did not have significant effects upon the United States for several decades, but in the early years of the 20th century the controversies over theological liberalism and the encroachment of scientific naturalism were becoming more strident. A group of conservative Protestant theologians published a collection of scholarly essays around 1910 called The Fundamentals in defense of basic Christian doctrine. Ironically, the term "fundamentalism" came to be associated with anti-intellectual fanaticism and slavish adherence to woodern literalism, possibly because around the same time popular American religion was characterized by revivalism and experientialism. There was unhappily also a certain amount of chicanery in preachers and evangelists, providing fodder for literary critiques such as Sinclair Lewis's Elmer Gantry. In academic settings, well-known seminary professors who strayed far from theological orthodoxy were subjected to censure and heresy trials, although most of these bore no fruit except notoriety. Theologically liberal pastors, such as Harry Emerson Fosdick, in large metropolitan churches preached sermons advancing a humanist reinterpretation of Christianity and gained a wide following.

In many parts of the country, there was resistance to teaching Darwinism in the public schools. In Tennessee in the early 1920s lawmakers passed the Butler Act, which forbade teaching Darwinism. The governor signed the bill, doubting it would ever be enforced--in fact, it never really was--so it was really more an act of political pandering than anything. But it created an opportunity for some to advance their own agenda. The wider context was the sensational legal atmosphere that existed in the 1920s. There had been some notorious criminal trials that were followed closely by the public. The Scopes Trial fed that appetite for legal drama.