Summer for the Gods: A review

I finished this yesterday, and it is truly a remarkable book. The author, Edward J. Larson, won the Pulitzer Prize in History in 1998 for this book, and it is well deserved. It is a scholarly work, with fascinating details about the Scopes trial, and it is meticulously researched.

First of all, if your opinions on the Scopes trial are based on pop culture, such as the play and movie “Inherit the Wind,” you should probably read more about it, and this book is a great place to start. The trial became mythologized starting in the 1930s, and it continued through the 1950s, when “Inherit the Wind” debuted on Broadway in 1955, and the movie was released in 1960. As much as I loved the movie (and would love to see the play one day), it is a distortion of the truth of the trial and the sentiments of many involved. It is entertaining and moving, but it’s not entirely accurate.

The trial was actually brought about by the newly-formed ACLU and a few townspeople in order to stage a “test case” for Tennessee’s recently enacted bill that barred the teaching of evolution in public schools. Contrary to popular belief, teacher John Scopes was not removed from his classroom in handcuffs; the trial was all pre-arranged, and Scopes agreed to be part of the test case. The ACLU wanted to test their chops against the bill, and the townspeople involved wanted some publicity for their sleepy little town of Dayton.

Publicity they got, especially when two of the more famous lawyers in the country, Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, became involved. (Oddly enough, both Darrow and Bryan were considered to be progressive reformers; the difference was that Bryan was a fundamentalist and Darrow was an agnostic and/or atheist.) Unfortunately, the town of Dayton and the state of Tennessee didn’t fare well in public opinion nationally; they were seen as backwards and ignorant, and the horde of journalists who descended upon the town both perpetuated and put to rest such sentiments. Although the anti-evolution statute was still considered to be ignorant, most out-of-towners found the town to be friendly, clean, and welcoming.

In the years soon after the publication of Charles Darwin’s theory, there was widespread acceptance of evolution, not only among scientists, but among many in the religious community, many of whom found it perfectly compatible with their religion. It wasn’t until the rise of fundamentalism in the early 1900s that the split began, due to the tenets of fundamentalism:

1. The accuracy and divine inspiration of scripture
2. The virgin birth of Christ
3. Salvation only through Christ’s sacrifice
4. The bodily resurrection of Christ and his followers
5. The authenticity of biblical miracles

Once these tenets were in place and accepted by fundamentalist sects, there was no room for evolution and no compromise.

At the time, the argument in court was framed as majoritarianism vs individual freedom. Bryan argued that the people of Tennessee had the right to decide what their children were taught in public schools; Darrow and the ACLU argued that teachers had the right to their freedom to teach accepted scientific principles. It wasn’t until the mid-twentieth century that the trial began to be reframed as fundamentalism vs skepticism/Modernism.

To make a long story short, Darrow and the ACLU lawyers defending Scopes’ right to teach evolution lost. The success of the anti-evolution bill in Tennessee prompted several other southern states, including Mississippi and Arkansas, to pass such laws. The anti-evolution movement didn’t gain much ground anywhere other than the south and west; any attempts to pass such laws in the north and east were defeated. It wasn’t until the mid- to late ‘60s that anti-evolution laws began to be overturned as unconstitutional.

Fast forward to the 21st century, and it seems we’re heading right back to the fundamentalist, anti-science attitude. It was astonishing to me to read these arguments from almost 100 years ago and realize that I have seen the exact same arguments against the teaching of evolution—and very recently, when my own state of Indiana considered a bill that would open the door to teaching creationism in our science classrooms. A local station posted a question on Facebook concerning the bill, and there were several people that said the parents should get to determine whether or not evolution is taught! I wonder if they realized they were making the same arguments from a century ago?

Of course, the tactics have changed now. Rather than laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution, fundamentalists are trying to pass laws to allow the teaching of creationism alongside. Never mind that this is a religious belief rather than any sort of scientific theory...they want to “teach the controversy.” For anyone who has ever studied science, there IS no controversy. You can decide whatever you want in terms of how evolution happened—if you have decided that there was a divine presence guiding it, that’s your right. But the denial of the fossil record, anthropological finds, and most recently, genetic testing, is a rejection of all science.

Among many other pertinent points and quotes, here are a couple that especially struck me. I suppose it should have been self-evident to me, but the main problem the anti-evolutionists had with evolution was that it would lead to questioning and an eventual disbelief in God the creator. Bryan charged that it would lead to an abandonment of divinely inspired morality. Nothing has changed, because we still see these same arguments today. According to an editorial in the Memphis Commercial Appeal:

“The thing we got from the trial of Scopes” was that most “sincere believers in religion” simply wanted to avoid the origins dispute altogether. “Some have their religion, but they are afraid if they go out and mix in the fray they will lose it. Some are afraid they will be put to confusion. Some are in the position of believing, but fear they can not prove their belief.”

In the appeal before the Tennessee State Supreme Court, Darrow stated:

...that religion was a personal matter “that ought to be the affair of the individual,” and science as a public activity that “is the cause of progress...and everything that makes civilization today.” In accord with his viewpoint, he asserted, “The schools of this state were not established to teach religion. They were established to teach science.”

Let me make a very important distinction here, because there are many who say that those of us opposed to such ‘creationism’ bills want to eradicate all mention of religion from schools, and even any religious belief itself! That is not the case. If there is some sort of a comparative religion class, or a literature class that focuses on religious texts, that is the appropriate place to discuss creation myths. (But keep in mind that Christianity is not the only religion out there. Any and all creation myths could be addressed.) It does not belong in the science classroom. Yeah, that gets italicized and boldicized. (Emboldened?)

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It cannot be tested; therefore it cannot be proven. (If you counter with “evolution is a theory and cannot be proven,” you need to read more about it and understand the concept of a scientific theory. It is being proven every single day, with every additional piece of data.) There is nothing to test, no results to be duplicated and peer-reviewed. If you want to teach your kids about it, teach them at home, teach them at church, or send them to a parochial school and teach them there. It has no place in our public school science classrooms. It just doesn’t. You can try to spin it and justify it in any way you want to, but it. is. not. science.

It’s hard for me to believe that a trial that happened almost a hundred years ago still has such pertinence today...and that this argument is still happening. I actually find it shameful. This book was a wonderful read and a wonderful resource for future debates (and I’m sure there will be some). We hear far too often lately about a “war on religion.” There is no war on religion. There certainly seems to be a war on scientific progress and academic freedom, however!

A non-designing woman

Before I get into that, I hope you’ll send positive thoughts to my dear Cousin Shane. His awesome Dad, John, passed away yesterday. You all know that I love Shane like a brother, and it pains me to see him hurting. John loved road trips, cars, and Route 66. I wish him pleasant travels. Be careful on the highway out there. (One of his favorite things to say to Shane.)

In the interest of not letting myself fall back into the abyss of sadness, I will try to keep my mind occupied by writing a few things about the documentary I watched yesterday afternoon before I got Shane’s phone call. My friend Darren recommended it to me, and I can tell you that it is well worth watching.

“Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” was a Nova episode on PBS. It deals with the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial in 2005 in which concerned citizens brought suit against the school district for trying to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum. (The link is the Wiki article, which is pretty good and jibes with what I saw in the documentary.) I recall reading and hearing about this, but didn’t pay close attention at the time. I suppose I probably felt that it was a no-brainer, not realizing how much sway the equal-timers had upon our school districts.

To sum up: a couple of fundamentalist Christian school board members decided that teaching evolution in science class wasn’t giving the students the full picture. When their proposal of an additional textbook promoting intelligent design was rejected, they took matters into their own hands and secretly purchased the textbook from the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank that advocates for the teaching of intelligent design (AKA creationism) in our high schools. A battle of wills ensued, in which the science teachers refused to add ID to the curriculum, the superintendent required that they read a statement stating that evolution was “only a theory” that had significant gaps, and that some see intelligent design as an alternative possibility; the teachers refused to read the statement, so the assistant superintendent came into their classrooms and read it to the students.

As concerned parents got wind of this from their kids, one of them called the ACLU, and we were off to the races! This was a battle that had continued to brew after the Scopes trial of 1925, with many people refusing to accept the exclusion of creationism from the science classroom. (Eight decades, America? Really? Really?!) There was no jury here; it was heard by district court Judge John E. Jones III, a conservative appointed by George W. Bush, and his decision would be the final one on the case.

The plaintiffs presented a stellar group of witnesses, several scientists explaining the basic premises behind evolution and how scientific experimentation has supported the premise. Not only did they explain the science behind it, they explained how scientific inquiry itself works. In even more devastating testimony, they demonstrated that the ID textbook that had been sent by an “anonymous donor” to the science classrooms came from the Discovery Institute, and they showed that earlier drafts of the book had used the word “creationism,” which was altered in subsequent versions to read “intelligent design.” In other words, the concept was still the same--a religious one--and all they had done was change the phrasing. In yet more devastating testimony, they provided statements from a conservative advocate saying that the problem with the intelligent design movement was that they had no theory; if they were going to promote ID as an alternative to evolution, they had to come up with one.

In the most devastating testimony of all, they showed one of the fundamentalist school board members stating on camera that “creationism” needed to be taught alongside evolution, which showed that there was clear religious promotion there. Worse, they caught both of the fundamentalist school board members perjuring themselves when they said they didn’t know who they “anonymous donors” were; they had orchestrated the entire thing, and one of the board members’ fathers had written the check.

The defense countered with experts of their own, but their arguments were meticulously destroyed by the lawyers for the plaintiffs. The concept of “irreducible complexity” (which posits that there are some biological systems that are so complex that there is no function if one part is missing...the example of bacterial flagella was used, and was refuted) was discussed and proven wrong; one witness’s statements that no scientist has bothered to research or write about the complexity of our immune system was discounted in a very graphic way when he was handed numerous papers and a stack of textbooks that dealt with exactly that subject matter. The dismantling of every argument put forth about why ID is a legitimate scientific endeavor was a beautiful thing to see.

Judge Jones took some time to deliberate the case, and found that ID was not a scientific theory, and was, in fact, just another name for creationism. As a religious concept, it has no place in the science classroom. He also found that the two school board members violated the First Amendment in the Constitution by promoting a religion in the classroom. He also noted that the board members who had perpetrated this ID promotion because of their religion seemed to have no qualms about repeatedly committing perjury.

The whole documentary was excellent (if you have a couple of hours, and want to see more about the arguments put forth, I really recommend it), but there were a couple of things that I found of particular note. The witnesses for the plaintiff took particular pains to address the usual complaint of creationists that “evolution is just a theory.” (I’ve encountered that argument often, myself.) A quote from “The Princess Bride” is applicable here. Theory...“I do not think it means what you think it means.” A scientific theory is not an immutable fact; it is a body of thought that maintains, like all science does, that there may be modifications as more is discovered. Evolution is an ongoing investigation. Nothing has appeared to refute its claims, but more and more evidence is being found that confirms it. The scientists at the trial pointed out that the advent of molecular techniques, some of the most sophisticated tests to date that can provide incredibly detailed information, have only confirmed the theory of common ancestry. If anything were to disprove evolution, it would be looking at encoded information on a genetic level. Instead, we are finding incredible similarities between our own genetic code and that of other hominids, especially chimpanzees.

Speaking of that, another thing that creationists like to toss out is “I don’t know about you, but I didn’t descend from no ape!” Not only is that grammatically incorrect, it shows a complete ignorance about the entire concept. I shouldn’t have to say this, but I suppose I will: evolution is not a straight stick poking up out of the ground, with one-celled organisms at the base and us brilliant humans (ha) at the top. It is a tree with many branches. There have been many twists and turns along the way, with offshoots happening constantly over the millennia. Genetic mapping continues to show the similarities and where divergence took place.

After his decision, Judge Jones was accused by conservative groups of being an “activist judge.” Remember, he was appointed by GW Bush. He and his family received death threats, and one of the fundamentalist school board members said the judge is a “jackass.” Doesn’t that old-timey religion just make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Finally, the documentary showed a local pastor who said that he was “personally offended” that the kids were being “indoctrinated” with evolution, without hearing alternative viewpoints. If you want your kids to hear alternative viewpoints, go ahead and teach them that at home. Your alternative viewpoint is not a valid scientific theory. It is based on your religious beliefs, and as such, has no place in the science classroom. As for you being “personally offended”...cry me a river, dude. The Constitution guarantees us all certain rights. The right to not be offended isn’t one of them. Get over it, and keep your religion out of my science.