"This is the first book that I have read that explained how it could have come about that, in the twentieth century, it was possible for a generation of poorly-educated people to seriously disadvantage their children and grandchildren by intentionally depriving them of access to the best available information."
Evolution vs Creationism
by Eugenie C. Scott .
Second edition . Conneticut : Greenwood Press , 2009 . 376 pp. Hardback. ISBN 978 0313344275 . £34.95 .
It should be clearly stated, at the outset, that this book does not suppose there to be any inherent conflict between ‘Science’ and ‘Religion’, perceiving these two systems to be complimentary rather than contradictory. Nor does it suggest that it is difficult for main-stream Christians to accept the fact that evolution has occurred and is currently occurring in the world around us. Rather, it is concerned with the legal conflict, in parts of the United States, between certain Fundamentalist Christian groups and any body (or anybody) likely to suggest to children that the Bible is not literally true in all respects. Jewish and Muslim Fundamentalists probably hold similar views in relation to the Torah and the Koran but, in America, they have never been able to wield as much political clout as have their Christian equivalents.
Genie Scott traces the origin of the modern anti-evolutionary stance to the founding of Fundamentalism, between 1910 and 1915, a sect which stresses the inerrancy of the Bible. (She doesn't say it – but I think she means the inerrancy of an English translation of the Bible). She then describes how ‘Creationism’ and ‘Christian Science’ evolved (although their adherents would never use that word) from Fundamentalism in a determination to protect children from the supposed heresy of evolution.
It is hardly necessary to describe, here, what is meant by ‘evolution’ but ‘Creationism’ is taken to mean a literal belief in the account of the creation of Earth, and of all life upon it, as recorded in the Book of Genesis. Such Creationists proclaim, inter alia, a comparatively young age for the Earth (6 000–10 000 years), an ancient, catastrophic, world-wide flood and the subsequent repopulation of all terrestrial habitats by animals protected by Noah in his ark. (The equally-unlikely survival of terrestrial vegetation, during the year-long inundation, is quietly overlooked.)
This is the first book that I have read that explained how it could have come about that, in the twentieth century, it was possible for a generation of poorly-educated people to seriously disadvantage their children and grandchildren by intentionally depriving them of access to the best available information. It seems that, to a certain extent, America was founded by religious dissidents from Europe; mostly Protestant Christians of a decentralised, non-hierarchical Congregationalist tendency. Seeking religious freedom for themselves, they were intolerant of other people who held variant opinions and so founded a rash of independent sects. In their new and sparsely-populated country they sought spatial freedom as well. As the settlers spread west across the (soon to be United) States they outstripped the trappings of government and individual communities set up their own brands of civilisation; local government, law enforcement systems, medical care, churches and schools. Purists proclaim this as true grass-roots democracy with local committees acting as custodians of the American Way of Life. Local school boards still have a major input over what is or is not taught in their schools, and by whom. It is easy to forget now that belief in the accuracy of biblical story, or at least of those sections usually read out loud during church services, was the norm across Europe, as well as America, in the seventeen and eighteenth centuries. Teaching the Bible as fact would certainly have been regarded as traditional in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.
This is notwithstanding the fact that the early church had been well aware that some passages could not be regarded as factually ‘true’. Genie Scott quotes St. Augustine (354–430 AD) who wrote – in De civitate dei– that it was bad theology to proclaim, as fact, biblical statements about the natural world that were easily shown to be false (e.g., despite Genesis 30.35–39, it is not possible to influence the coat colour of lambs or kids by placing peeled sticks near the troughs from which their mothers drink.) The infidels were not uneducated savages and would never be convinced by the Christian message if the missionaries talked rubbish about astronomical and biological phenomena readily observable by anybody who took the trouble to look.
Unfortunately such liberal views were not universal later on and one consequence of the Reformation was to drive the Reformed Churches to place great emphasis on the Bible as the Word of God – a work to be revered, not questioned or criticised. In America, the Fundamentalists seem to have taken the most extreme view on this matter.
Contemplation of the appalling death, brutality, destruction and devastation produced by the First World War led many conservative Christian Americans to conclude that civilisation itself had failed. Their remedy was a return to biblical authority and a literal interpretation of those scriptures. Germany had been not only the source of rampant militarism but also of biblical criticism. Opposition to their views on a Teutonic master race became confused with opposition to evolution (especially the ‘survival-of-the-fittest attitude of laissez-faire capitalism). The fundamentalists, led by William Jennings Bryan, persuaded several state legislatures to outlaw the teaching of evolution. On 23 March 1925 Tennessee passed the Butler Act which included the injuncture: ‘It shall be unlawful for any teacher to teach any theory that denies the Story of Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animal.’
It was not until 1968 that the US Supreme Court ruled that the antievolution law was unconstitutional because it ‘selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine’. The First Amendment to the US Constitution requires schools to be neutral toward religion. To ban a subject (evolution) from being taught because of a particular religious view (Fundamentalism) violates the Establishment Clause.
The Fundamentalists had lost their case but not their cause; a change of tactic was required. There had long been a clearly-stated requirement for religious neutrality in schools. William Jennings Bryan had argued that strict neutrality consisted of teaching neither evolution nor creationism there. Now that evolution was to be taught, his successors argued that neutrality required that creationism should be taught as well – and given equal prominence. After all, evolution ‘is only a theory’ on a par with the ‘theory of creationism’. Not surprisingly, this was strongly contested on the grounds that creationism was a religion not a science and, compared with the immense volume of information associated with the ramifications of evolution, what was there to say about creation?
Creation Science was invented to counter the religion objection. But it is hard to see very much that is scientific about it. Unfortunately (for them) there is no scientific evidence to support any conviction that all existing life forms were separately created during a period of days in 4004 BC. So-called ‘creation scientists’ concentrate on trying to pick holes in the ever-accumulating evidence for evolution. Not surprisingly, they steer clear of the evolution of pesticide, herbicide and antibiotic tolerance and the appearance of AIDS.
In General, Europeans are not much bothered by Christian Fundamentalism; its Muslim equivalent attracts more attention – but the two have much in common when they seek to withdraw to a mind set in which the ancient holy texts have to be believed to be literally true, even when (as in the formation of rainbows, for example) there is no need to invoke a supernatural influence at work.
According to this book, this remains the position of not only the mainstream Christian churches but also of Jewish and Islamic scholars. The pre-Reformation Roman Church (it never was catholic [= universal] since it split away from the original, Orthodox, church) had undoubtedly veered away from the beliefs and practices of the early church, but, in their desire to get back to basics, the most ardent reformers rejected all church authority and based their whole lives on the text of the King James Bible of 1611
I am grateful to this book for the reference to St. Augustine and to those verses from Genesis (which, not surprisingly, I have never heard read in church); for an origin of the term ‘fundamentalist; for the reasons why ‘Creation Science’ was invented and an explanation of how it was possible for so-called ‘religious groups’ to bias the educational system in America for so long. |
