After the trial, in September , The Scientific Monthly published a series of statements prepared for Scopes's defense. Curtis described work prior to Darwin that helped set the stage for the rapid acceptance of evolution by the scientific community. The concept of evolution was accepted immediately; however, the mechanisms, including natural selection, were still being discussed. Evidence for human evolution also continued to accumulate, demonstrating kinship with other animals.
It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised. Raulston, urged the prohibition of the teaching of evolution in schools to prevent the corruption of society and the downfall of civilization Anonymous If science was not consistent with Christ's religion, he concluded, the choice was obvious. Evolution was an incentive to larceny and murder. If people lost faith in Genesis, they were likely to lose faith in the rest of the Bible.
Raulston argued that there was no justification for accusing Tennesseans of being yokels or ignoramuses, but that if learning would cause loss of faith, they would be better left in a state of ignorance. The address of the retiring vice president of the AAAS zoology section, and self-proclaimed evolutionist and Christian, Edwin Linton, was reprinted in two parts Linton a , b.
Unlike dogmatic religionists, Linton argued, scientists do not suggest that their views are infallible, but rather that they are the best explanation available, to be changed if new evidence is presented. Modernist theologians show no hostility toward the theory of evolution; only the fundamentalists have objections. Linton described a wave of antiscience sentiment sweeping the country.
Linton characterized the leading opponents of science as antisocial eccentrics, citing as an example the antivaccinationists, who opposed smallpox vaccinations. In the face of clear evidence of a reduction in the illness, they remained unconvinced because they were in-convincible. A recent attempt to measure how the teaching of evolution damaged religious beliefs showed 66 respondents reporting that their faith was strengthened, 20 reporting no effect, and 2 reporting a weakening of faith.
In late , the American Association of University Professors agreed to develop more efficient means of cooperation in opposing the spread of antievolution legislation Anonymous a.
An antievolution bill had been defeated in Louisiana, and a new one was pending in Arkansas. One week later, the decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court was announced. A three-to-one vote upheld the antievolution law Anonymous b. The specific Scopes decision was sent back to the court for retrial on a technicality. Not all biologists accepted evolution. A letter to the journal Ecology was reprinted in Science Moore Barrington Moore, the first editor of Ecology and a past president of the Ecological Society of America, discontinued his subscription because papers on evolution had been published in Ecology.
A posthumous publication from W. Davis, Harvard emeritus professor of physical geography, called science and religion the greatest products of the human mind Davis Davis recognized that his definition would cause dissent, since many believed in the supernatural origin of modern religion. However, many of these same people could easily accept the human origin of primitive religions.
When theology and science conflicted, theologians generally formed the attack. However, without exception, reconciliation of religious and scientific beliefs resulted from a modification of the theological perspective, not from a change in science. Acceptance of evolution was an example of the process. Davis credited theologians with a desire to improve the human condition, a direct goal of few professors.
Nearly two decades later, an article by K. Mather addressed the problem of antiscientific thinking. Although critics of science and scientific methods had been around for centuries, Mather argued, the conflict between evolution and religion in the 19th century gave rise to an antiscience attitude among much of the population that continued into the s Mather Mechanistic and materialistic methods of science appeared to reduce the status of man and could be blamed for a lapse in moral principles and ethical standards.
Mather saw the solution as more, not less, science. The potential for nuclear war and the dangers of overpopulation were issues that engendered antiscience attitudes. Scientists needed the courage to publicly counter the antiscience arguments, although to do so could result in branding as anti-American by some of the active an-tiscience organizations. Like Smith and other scientists before him, Mather argued that education was essential for life in a free society.
Schaar described some of the professional duties and responsibilities of chemists. Schaar quoted a editorial from the Chemical Bulletin in which wider distribution of knowledge was seen as a counter to an illiberal spirit including censorship, the Eighteenth Amendment, the Ku Klux Klan, and the antievolution movement Schaar Schaar took encouragement from the waning of dispute between science and religion over evolution.
Science transcended international borders, and in nations that allowed science to progress, there was also social progress. Schaar concluded that scientists and engineers have a responsibility to share knowledge and to educate the public. A review by C. Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes suggested that, from the per-spective of a third of a century, everyone involved with the trial behaved badly Reed The spectacle was a made-up affair that reflected the feelings of the time.
Many states enacted restrictive laws, and in Tennessee, several legislators voted for the antievolution law, expecting a veto from the governor; however, the governor refused. The effect on those teaching biology was chilling. Reed urged scientists to read the book as a reminder not to let antievolutionism creep back into the classroom. Promising potential scientists had avoided a career in science because of the atmosphere created by the trial. Science and The Scientific Monthly merged operations in Editorial policy changes produced more news articles and comments.
Evolution and creation remained important issues. In the next four decades, references to the controversy appeared, addressing three major legal challenges to the teaching of evolution, and the introduction of the concept of intelligent design.
Rather than attempting to prevent teaching of evolution, creationists started to demand equal time. At least 11 states had laws proposed with variations on that theme. Creationists urged the adoption of texts that included creationist materials, and requested that, if evolution was presented, creationism be given equal time Wade The dispute began 10 years earlier when two housewives, concerned that their children would be confused by the evolutionary perspective at school and the biblical teaching at home, began a movement to have the California State Board of Education change the textbooks.
The Creation Research Society, with members who included scientists with doubts about evolution, got involved, and a private citizen offered new science guidelines that included creationism as an alternative to the science guidelines used by the board. The board accepted the revisions, over the objection of scientific advisors.
The first high school text written by a practicing biologist was by Alfred C. Kinsey, of Indiana University, in Grabiner and Miller The first edition had explicit definitions of evolution and Darwin; later editions removed or reduced such references. In the early s, several texts included descriptions of evolution, but most of them included little direct coverage of evolutionary theory.
Russian scientific advances of the late s prompted a new look at teaching science. The development of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study texts, with explicit descriptions of evolution and its implications, brought the issue before the public. Significant resistance to teaching evolution remained, and Grabiner and Miller blamed the community of professional scientists for failing to pay attention to what was happening to high school science.
The California creationist suit was expected to be a replay of the Scopes trial, but the focus was drastically narrowed by the creationist lawyers Broad a. The creationists felt this was enough of a victory and stopped the case. Louisiana passed a law requiring creation science be presented when Darwin's theory was described Broad b.
Governor David C. Treen signed the bill, saying he had some reservations but felt that academic freedom could not be harmed by inclusion, only by exclusion, of different points of view. Governor Treen reported getting letters from both sides of the issue from the biology department of his own university, Tulane.
Arkansas passed a new law in March, with little discussion. Louisiana's bill had been vigorously debated by scientists, creationists, and the press. In California, evolution was attacked as a religion; in Louisiana, creationism was considered science Broad b. In each case, the creationists' effort was to put creation and evolution on the same footing. The NAS group agreed to put together a booklet explaining evolution in layman's terms. The NABT agreed on a booklet specifically responding to creationists' arguments.
Both groups recognized that they were facing a political, not a scientific problem. Eugenie Scott, then of the University of Kentucky, described a local effort to change the policy of a school board near Lexington. Both the creationists and the evolutionists used a localaction approach to convince the school board. The evolutionists won by a vote of three to two.
Such local actions would be required to counteract the creationist activities Lewin a. First, creationism was not science, but religion.
Second, academic freedom was infringed by the law. Finally, the statute was unconstitutionally vague, not giving fair notice of what could and could not be taught. The ACLU filed a federal suit because of constitutional issues and the belief that a state judge would be likely to feel strong local pressure because of the emotions surrounding passage of the bill.
In contrast to the Scopes trial, the nine-day event was formal and low-key Lewin a. Along with the ACLU, plaintiffs included bishops, preachers, and ministers—religious people who saw the act as threatening rather than enhancing religion. Each testified that evolutionary theory was scientific and that creation science was not. Local schoolteachers, brought in to describe efforts to draw up a creation science unit for instruction, testified that they could find no science to put in the unit.
The defense called six science witnesses. Their credibility was damaged when one declared UFOs to be agents of Satan and another discussed other satanic and demonic issues.
A meeting of the AAAS featured all-day sessions on evolution, with much discussion of the creationist—evolutionist controversy Walsh Carey, issued a statement on behalf of the association welcoming the ruling. Judge Overton found that the law violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Kurtzman: It was closely identified with the fundamentalist viewpoint, its prime motivation was promotion of Christianity, and the sponsor of the bill was motivated by religious concerns. During the trial, the defense argued that the act should be judged on content, not on the motives of its supporters Lewin a.
The judge found that the act failed under this test also; the act was intended to advance a particular religion.
Creation science did not meet the criteria to be considered science—it offered no power of explanation. Finally, the act would require the state to become involved in religious decisions in setting curriculum, clearly prohibited by the First Amendment.
A paper from The Yale Law Review by the creationist lawyer Wendell Bird, presented as evidence that evolution could be considered religion, was rejected. Overton said that the First Amendment was not based on public opinion or majority vote.
In an unprecedented response, Science published the entire text of Judge Overton's ruling, 10 journal pages Overton The many suits and motions filed made the process more complicated than in the Arkansas case, but the ACLU hoped for a summary judgment without a trial.
In the one-hour hearing on 10 December , Bird, the attorney for Louisiana, claimed that the law expanded students' academic freedom to hear additional evidence of origins, and that although some supporters were religious, that was not a primary purpose of the law. Jay Topkis, of the ACLU, said that the legislative history of the law demonstrated its religious motivation Lewin The Supreme Court, by a vote of seven to two, ruled that the law promoted religion and was therefore unconstitutional Norman Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, contending that the case had not received a full hearing and should be sent back to the appeals court.
The decision was expected to put an end to the six-year legal battle. Creationists began new projects to take their case to state legislatures in several states, including Ohio, Tennessee, and Georgia Schmidt Scalia had written that the fundamentalists were entitled to have evidence against evolution presented in their schools. Scalia apparently believed there was serious debate within the scientific community concerning evolution. Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education NCSE , cautioned individual scientists against debating creationists, and others who had tried to do so agreed Schmidt The church's position allowed human origin from living material, but the spiritual soul was seen as created by God.
In a poll by Edward Larson of the University of Georgia, about 40 percent of working physicists and biologists claimed to have strong spiritual beliefs. Ayala, the leader of the AAAS project, said it was important to dispel the common perspective that science faculty would attempt to destroy students' religious beliefs. Furthermore, history is littered with examples of things that were once given a supernatural explanation but which we now understand have their basis in nature.
In 'Evolution' Evolution resources for schools. Generally, Creationists attacks on Evolutionary Darwin theory often contain the following characteristics: Faith vs Evidence: There is a fundamental difference in the ways that Creationists and Scientists reach their conclusions about the world around them.
Inaccuracy This does not mean statements that creationists and Darwinian scientists might disagree about. Lack of logic. Winterbourne House and Garden University Music. Research and Cultural collections.
Partly in response to these court decisions, opposition to teaching evolution has itself evolved, with opponents changing their goals and tactics. In the last decade, some local and state school boards in Kansas, Pennsylvania and elsewhere have considered teaching what they contend are scientific alternatives to evolution — notably the concept of intelligent design, which posits that life is too complex to have developed without the intervention of an outside, possibly divine force.
Other education officials have tried to require schools to teach critiques of evolution or to mandate that students listen to or read evolution disclaimers, such as one proposed a number of years ago in Cobb County, Ga. These debates are just as prevalent in the court of public opinion as they are in the courtroom. Moreover, they say, a scientific theory is not a hunch or a guess but is instead an established explanation for a natural phenomenon, like gravity, that has repeatedly been tested through observation and experimentation.
Indeed, most scientists argue that, for all practical purposes, evolution through natural selection is a fact. See Darwin and His Theory of Evolution. These scientists and others dismiss creation science as religion, not science, and describe intelligent design as little more than creationism dressed up in scientific jargon.
So if evolution is as established as the theory of gravity, why are people still arguing about it a century and a half after it was first proposed?
See Evolution: A Timeline. The answer lies, in part, in the possible theological implications of evolutionary thinking. For many, the Darwinian view of life — a panorama of brutal struggle and constant change — goes beyond contradicting the biblical creation story and conflicts with the Judeo-Christian concept of an active and loving God who cares for his creation. For example, the Texas Board of Education recently debated what kinds of biology textbooks students should and should not read.
And while evolution may not attain the same importance as such culture war issues as abortion or same-sex marriage, the topic is likely to have a place in national debates on values for many years to come.
0コメント