In 1925, John Scopes, a high school biology teacher in Tennessee, was found guilty of violating Tennessee law against the teaching of evolution in public schools. Leading the case for the prosecution at the Dayton, Tennessee, trial was three-time Democratic nominee for President, William Jennings Bryan. Bryan had been a fiery crusader against evolutionary biology, which he derided during one of his speeches as 'the most paralyzing influence with which civilization has had to contend during the last century.'

Bryan’s attacks on evolution struck a chord in a number of southern and southwestern states where the appeal of Christian fundamentalism had flourished and resulted in the formation of large and powerful groups such as the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association and the Baptist Bible Union. The main tactic of these groups, and that of individuals like Bryan, was to lobby state legislatures to ban the teaching of evolution in schools. Bryan himself felt that the teaching of evolution as a 'hypothesis' and not a scientific fact was acceptable and could be 'considered as giving information as to views held, which is very different from teaching it as fact.' Creationist Arguments

Creationist arguments themselves have evolved over time, creating new theories and explanations in response to social progress. Early proponents, such as Bryan, argued that evolution contradicted a literal reading of the Old Testament and the Bible. In a speech at the Scopes trial, Bryan is recorded as saying,' The purpose of teaching evolution is…to banish from the hearts of the people the Word of God as revealed.' Such views were supported by fundamentalist Christian groups, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But, the growing success and popularity of science, particularly during and after World War II, weakened these moral arguments.

The latest round of attacks on evolution gained prominence in the late 1960s, flourishing throughout the last two decades of the twentieth century. In many aspects, the tactics used by its proponents are similar to those used at the turn of the previous century – attempts to replace high school textbooks that teach evolution with creationist alternatives, introducing legislation at the state level to provide equal time for creationist ideas in public school education, and the like. But, the post-1960s movement differs from its predecessors in two important ways. First, the growing presence of scientists within the creationist movement has allowed it to challenge the scientific evidence for evolution. Simultaneously, the movement has sought to use the language and methods of science to argue for the 'scientific teaching of Biblical creationism.'

Prominent among these groups are the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in California and the Creation Research Society (CRS) of Michigan. The ICR views itself as existing 'to train students in scientific research and teaching skills, preparing effective warriors for the faith.' The CRS promotes itself as 'a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation.'

Most anti-evolutionist groups agree on a few basic principles of 'scientific creationism': 1) The Universe, including the Earth, is relatively young and was created instantly; 2) All life was created instantly and life forms have remained unchanged since creation; 3) Features of the Earth, fossil records, etc. can be explained by catastrophic processes, such as the Great Flood of Noah’s time. These principles are combined to argue for the validity of a literal reading of the Bible, and the presence of an all-powerful Christian God who is the Creator. Variations on these ideas have led to new groups and schisms within the creationist movement. Some have retreated to a version that abandons the young-Earth principle, while others have removed explicit references to God or a Creator. The growth of the 'Intelligent Design' movement is an attempt to attack evolution using a seemingly secular approach that avoids identifying who the 'designer' may be.

Schisms within creationist ranks must not obscure the fundamental impact of all these ideas, which regard Darwinism and evolution as threats to Christian ideology. As author Douglas Futuyma warns in his book Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 'Creationists represent only one facet of a movement that is dedicated to extinguishing secular humanism, under which they include all attitudes and educational program that do not explicitly include their theological doctrines. …Fundamentalism’s defense of 'traditional' values and mores feeds on anti-intellectualism, conservatism and fear of social change.'

The Social Basis of Creationism

In an essay written for the New York Review of Books in June 1983, biologist Richard Lewontin places the growth and popularity of creationist groups and arguments within the American social context, when he asks, 'Why now? Why only in America? Why the passion, commitment, expenditure of time and money by fundamentalists?' The answers, in his view, lie in a 'historical understanding' of the economic and political nature of 'southern and southwestern American populism' that flourished in the early 20th century, as well as in 'materialist explanations of the world.'

Globalization is radically restructuring the US economy in the 21st century through global trade treaties and domestic policies that benefit multinational corporations at the expense of workers and the middle class. The rapid polarization between rich and poor is creating growing instabilities in the social structure. The changing cultural landscape due to immigration, the outsourcing of jobs, the disappearance of the manufacturing base, are resulting in the dislocation of individuals and families, primarily among the poor and the working class. But, as Lewontin puts it, if they 'have no control over their economic and political lives, at least they [can] control their cultural and religious lives and what [goes] into the heads of their children.'

The struggles over creationism and other conservative social issues such as reproductive rights, gay marriage and the separation of church and state will sharpen over the next decade. The task of the left and progressive forces must be to shift the debate back to the true nature of capitalism and reframe the debate on cultural and religious values within this context.



--Prasad Venugopal is science editor of Political Affairs. Reach him by e-mail at pa-letters@politicalaffairs.net. This article originally appeared in the February 2005 print edition.