Evolution and Censorship

Definition:Evolution is the scientific theory that explains the creation and mutability of life forms

Significance: Accepted by scientists as consistent with fact, the theory of evolution has been attacked in legal and political arenas by “creationists,” who argue that the creation of the world, people, and animals happened literally as described in the Bible

The battle over whether to allow American schoolchildren to be taught the theory of evolution is almost as old as the theory itself. Many states enacted laws forbidding the teaching of evolution in the early years of the twentieth century, but the last of these laws was overturned during the 1960s. Since then, evolution has steadily conflicted with creationism. With the introduction of evolution into the curriculum, creationists began lobbying for, and achieving, balanced-treatment laws, which require that creation science be presented as an alternative to evolutionary science. Scientists, science teachers, and the American Civil Liberties Union have successfully argued in courts of law that creation science is religion flimsily disguised as science, so most of these laws have been overturned on constitutional grounds. Creationists have been more successful in watering down or eliminating entirely any mention of evolution in high school biology texts by pressuring publishers to change textbooks to suit the dictates of large markets in conservative regions. In 1984 People for the American Way, an organization that fights censorship, could find no mention of the theory of evolution in 17 percent of the biology texts adopted by American school boards.

The Nature of Scientific Theory

The underlying assumption of science is that all observed phenomena are governed by natural laws, which researchers attempt to discover, succinctly express, explain, and use to make predictions about nature. In science, experimental observations are facts. A generalization relating or explaining the facts is termed a scientific law. A scientific law typically describes some aspect of nature but provides no explanation. For example, Isaac Newton’s laws of motion describe the motion of a planet or a tennis ball; they do not explain why the planet or tennis ball has such motion.

The explanation for the “whys” of natural phenomena is supplied by a scientific theory. Theories are grand conceptual schemes that usually incorporate many laws and that explain a variety of behaviors in a diversity of circumstances. In the popular usage of the word, “theory” implies a tentative or incomplete explanation based on little or no evidence; the meaning in science is quite different, almost the opposite. Usually considerable effort and many years of painstaking effort are required to formulate a valid theory; that is, a theory that explains and unifies many diverse phenomena into a coherent whole. A valid theory makes the prediction of new phenomena possible. Theories are formulated, evolve, and are discarded when better, more inclusive explanations appear. In science, theories must be modified or discarded if they cannot account for the observed facts. Finally, scientific theories deal only with what can be observed in nature. Anything outside the realm of the human senses, or extensions of human senses, is considered to be outside the realm of science, and therefore not assessable to the scientific method. For example, information gathered from observing Jupiter through a telescope is scientifically acceptable. Other people can look through telescopes and see for themselves and confirm or cast doubt upon what the first observer reports.

The Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution, first presented in detail in Charles Darwin’s 1859 book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, may be summarized as follows: Plants and animals produce more offspring than can possibly survive. Because of this overproduction of offspring, a large number of every species compete for a limited food supply. Genetic variations occur in all living organisms and are passed on to the offspring. Some genetic variations are favorable, others unfavorable for a given species. Since favorable traits give an advantage in the struggle for food and mates, they are naturally selected to be passed on to the next generation. Thus, species may evolve over time; they may die out; and new species may arise, as the conditions for life change.

Creation Science

The central assumptions of mainline creationism follow. First, a supernatural force, God, created the universe, energy, and life from nothing over a span of six days. Second, only micro-evolutionary fine-tuning of originally created plants and animals has occurred since then, since God created the world in a state of perfection. Third, the earth and universe are only six to twelve thousand years old. Fourth, the earth’s present geography is the result of a series of catastrophes, including a worldwide flood. These events as described in the Bible are true in the most literal sense.

Historical Context

In 1831 Darwin furthered his scientific ambitions by accepting the position of naturalist on a British survey ship exploring the coastal regions of South America. It was during the course of this five-year expedition that Darwin laid the groundwork for his theory. Returning to England, he used his treasure-trove of notes, sketches, and specimens, assembled in South America, to write several specialized monographs, but not a word appeared concerning the origin of species. In the secrecy of his study, however, he slowly and painstakingly developed his evolutionary theory of natural selection, so that by 1842 a detailed outline, meticulously detailing the mechanisms of evolution, was extant. It was not, however, a politically auspicious time for introducing a scientific theory that removed God from creation, replaced a divine design with random variation, and relegated survival to the best adapted in the competition for limited resources.

Darwin, in short, was aware of the religious implications of his theory, and he was aware that his theory would cause great controversy. Furthermore, the issue of the ape ancestry of human beings would likely be viewed as a degradation of the human species, and Darwin was apprehensive about the effect of this news on public morals. Although Darwin continued to gather supporting evidence for his theory for fifteen years, the theory itself remained a carefully guarded secret. Darwin may have kept his secret until after retirement, or he may have died with it, were it not that he received a letter from biologist Alfred Russel Wallace, who, knowing nothing of Darwin’s work, had arrived at the same theory, but without benefit of Darwin’s vast assortment of evidence. This forced Darwin’s hand; he immediately began writing a short outline of his theory of evolution. By almost imperceptible degrees it evolved into the five-hundred-page tome published in 1859.

Although Darwin had scrupulously avoided mentioning human evolution in his book, the Church of England (also known as the Anglican church) realized the implications and became the theory’s bitter enemy. In an effort to discredit the theory, a debate was staged in 1860 between biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, known as Darwin’s bulldog, and Anglican bishop Samuel Wilberforce, a skilled debater whose slippery argumentation had earned him the nickname “Soapy Sam.” During the course of the ensuing pyrotechnics the bishop, without considering scientific aspects, used rhetorical tricks in an attempt to discredit the theory, and he was demolished by Huxley’s clear logic and scientific acumen. Although the day was won for Darwinism, and although the Anglican church soon conceded, the battle has continued unabated among other scientists and other churches.

Evolving Issues of Censorship in America

By 1900 Darwin’s theory had proven to be so extraordinarily successful in explaining many seemingly unrelated facts that virtually all biologists accepted it and praised its brilliance. Emotional disputation, however, concerning the teaching of evolution in public schools prevailed during the early decades of the twentieth century. Biologists wished to include this important new theory, but conservative religious organizations vehemently opposed the idea. The World’s Christian Fundamental Association, founded in 1919, was the first group formed for the sole purpose of keeping Darwin’s theory out of the public schools. To accomplish this goal, the group lobbied state legislatures to pass laws banning evolution from the curricula, making the teaching of evolution a crime, and prohibiting textbooks that referred to evolution. The group achieved a considerable measure of success: Antievolution bills were introduced in more than twenty state legislatures. By the 1920s, for example, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas had outlawed the teaching of evolution, and Texas and Florida had imposed nonbinding resolutions opposing the teaching of Darwin’s theory.

The issue of censorship as related to evolution first became a legal question in the Scopes trial of 1925. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, was being tried for violating a Tennessee statute that made it unlawful for any teacher in any public school or university “to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.” The battery of lawyers defending Scopes never denied the charge that he had broken the law, and Scopes was convicted and fined for this offense. The real motive behind the defense was to appeal the conviction in order to have the issue reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The defense lawyers’ argument was to be that the law prohibiting the teaching of evolution violated the First Amendment, which prohibits the mixing of church and state. Their action was stymied because the Tennessee Supreme Court rejected the conviction on a technicality. As a result, for the next thirty-five years science texts devoted little space to the concepts of evolution, and virtually none mentioned Darwin’s name.

Renewed Emphasis on Evolution

When the Soviets launched the world’s first artificial satellite in 1957, Americans began to reassess the quality of their science education. The resulting extensive effort to upgrade the science curriculum included putting the theory of evolution back into the biology curriculum, thus setting the stage for the battles that followed. Several states began to enforce the antievolutionary statutes that had lain dormant for decades. The constitutional issue was finally settled in 1968, when prohibitions against teaching evolution in public schools were struck down by the Supreme Court. Susan Epperson, a high school biology teacher, successfully challenged a 1929 Arkansas law forbidding the teaching of “the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals.” The Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that this law was an attempt to establish religion in the classroom because it sought “to blot out a particular theory because of its supposed conflict with the Biblical account.”

Although the Epperson case was thought to have settled the debate by flatly declaring that laws censoring the theory of evolution are unconstitutional, the losers began fighting back on new constitutional territory. Rather than expunging evolution from the curriculum, they fought to have creationism taught as a viable scientific alternative. In the early 1970s, two institutes were formed to abet this cause, the Creation Science Research Center and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). In addition to promoting creationism as a legitimate scientific theory, these institutes led challenges to the Epperson case on the grounds that the decision is hostile to the First Amendment by not respecting neutrality toward religion. The ICR claims that evolution promotes a hostile attitude toward religion. Since the state must remain neutral on religious issues, any statute supporting the teaching of the theory of evolution as the only explanation of creation cannot, the creationists argue, be legal. The ICR proposed “scientific creationism” as a legitimate alternative to evolution and fought to have this hypothesis included in public school science curricula.

“Balanced-Treatment” Laws

Consequently, during the early 1980s, when in the political arena the fear of God was regaining ground lost to fear of the Soviets, several states enacted balanced-treatment laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools without granting creation science equal time. The law enacted in Arkansas, although manifesting a surface plausibility, floundered in attempting to define creation science by enumerating its basic precepts. Brought to court in December, 1981, creationist lawyers were not able to convince the judge that biblical beliefs, such as Noah’s flood and the relatively recent creation of the universe, could be defended as legitimate science rather than religion disguised as science. The Arkansas balanced-treatment law was declared unconstitutional; the judge ruled that “Creation science is not science because it depends upon supernatural intervention.” The only real effect of the law seemed to be to advance religion by forcing biology teachers to purvey religious beliefs in science classrooms.

The balanced-treatment law enacted in Louisiana seemed to rest on firmer ground because the law required only the teaching of facts which attested a supernatural creation; the law was deliberately phrased to avoid any mention of religion. Nevertheless, the federal court and the court of appeals voted against the constitutionality of the law, noting that its intended effect was to “discredit evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism, a religious belief.” The state of Louisiana, represented by the ICR’s Creation Science Legal Defense Fund, put before the Supreme Court the question of whether the state statute violated the First Amendment. The court concluded in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) that the act was indeed a violation of the First Amendment because that act lacked a clear secular purpose and was designed not to protect academic freedom but to discredit evolution.

The teaching of evolution in science classes won a clear victory in the courts, but the impact of the victories was, arguably, diminished. The consequences of consistent antievolution grassroots pressure upon textbook publishers, who respond to market forces, and upon school boards were considerably greater. For example, Texas chooses textbooks for the entire state every six years. Creationists such as Mel and Norma Gabler succeeded in having the state-issued guidelines to publishers request that evolution be presented as “only a theory” (playing upon the difference between the popular and the scientific meanings of the word) and that creation science be presented as a valid alternative. In an effort to be admitted to the Texas market, publishers reduced, watered down, or even completely eliminated evolution from their biology textbooks. California’s book-adoption board, however, began to fight this trend in 1986, when it circulated new guidelines for its biology textbooks. California educators suggested that biology texts should include a discussion of evolution, and stated that discussions of creation should be placed in religious books.

Fundamentalist religious groups have applied pressure to school boards, administrators, and teachers to use the “dual model” approach. Highly educated, erudite, and well-prepared spokespersons for the creationist cause have been traveling to local PTA meetings to lobby, make presentations on creation science, and “explain” the flaws of evolutionary theory. Science educators have become cautious in designing their curricula and selecting their texts. Many are fearful of treading on controversial ground because legal proceedings may be instigated or because a negative community reaction may jeopardize their jobs.

Efforts to censor the teaching of evolution and claims that teaching evolution censors alternative views continued into the twenty-first century, occasionally reaching court rulings. Many creationist began to refer to their views as intelligent design in an effort to avoid the critique that creationism is invalid science due to its reliance on a specifically supernatural god. Under this rationale, intelligent design would be worthy of being taught alongside evolution. The efforts of the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute helped the Kansas State Board of Education pass lesson plans favoring intelligent design in 2005. However, the next school board rejected the changes. Additionally, a federal court ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) that intelligent design was a form of creationism and that teaching it as science violated the First Amendment. Despite these victories for evolution, Texas once again demonstrated its influence on national textbook standards in 2009, when the Texas Board of Education voted that science textbooks must include intelligent design.

Conclusion

To the vast majority of scientists, creation science is a sectarian religious belief disguised as science. Careful examination of the assumptions and the evidence behind creation science reveal only outmoded, incorrect, and occasionally directly dishonest distortions of true science. Most creationists however, claim that there are two competing and equally valid scientific theories to explain the origin and diversity of life: evolution and creationism. Creationists argue that the acceptance of the theory of evolution implies atheism since in evolution there is no room for God. Scientists argue, in turn, that acceptance of the theory of evolution implies nothing about God; one can believe in God, if one wishes, and accept the validity of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution and the biblical account of the creation of the world, however, are in contradiction, but only if one takes the biblical account literally.

The issue as defined by creationists is that the creationist theory is being censored by the educational and legal system. Most scientists hold that science, not censorship, is the issue. Creation science, by definition, cannot be science because the acts of a supernatural being are excluded from the realm of science. Scientists have supported litigation against equal-time bills, not as an act of censorship but because they are convinced that creation science is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It appears to be a highly sectarian religious belief system masquerading as science. Creationists counter by claiming that equal-time laws broaden the range of material presented to students and that a student’s right to know is abridged if instruction concerning the creation model is censored. On the other hand, if the creationist model is indeed religion it cannot, in good conscience, be presented as a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.

Scientists argue that they have no interest in forbidding the teaching of creationism, which may be taught in religion classes or Sunday school; rather, they seek to avoid being compelled to teach an invalid theory that is not scientific but religious. Creationists counter by arguing that it is an infringement of a student’s rights to practice religion freely if a student is taught only evolution in the classroom. Science, however, does not teach any theory as if it were the final truth. Students are not taught to believe in evolution, they are only taught what scientists think is true of the natural universe and why.

In the final analysis, the controversy between evolution and creationism is not a battle about science. The scientific debate is settled: evolution is a theory, creationism is not. The controversy centers on public opinion.

Bibliography

"Censoring Science: Battle over Creationism." NCAC. National Coalition Against Censorship, 30 June 2010. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.

Kitcher, Philip. Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Cambridge: MIT P, 1998. Print.

Laats, Adam, and Harvey Siegel. Teaching Evolution in a Creation Nation. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2015. Print.

Liebell, Susan P. Democracy, Intelligent Design, and Evolution: Science for Citizenship. New York: Routledge, 2014. Print.

Shapiro, Adam R. Trying Biology: The Scopes Trial, Textbooks, and the Antievolution Movement in American Schools. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2013. Print.