History of the creation–evolution controversy

Part of a series on
Creationism

History of creationism
Neo-creationism
Types of creationism

Young Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism
Gap creationism
Day-age creationism
Progressive creationism
Intelligent design
Mythology and theology

Creation myth
Genesis creation narrative
Framework interpretation
Genesis as an allegory
Omphalos hypothesis
Creation science

Baraminology
Flood geology
Creation geophysics
Creationist cosmologies
Intelligent design
Controversy

History
Public education
Teach the Controversy
Particular religious views

Deist · Hindu · Islamic · Jewish
Pandeist
Book · Category · Portal

The creation-evolution controversy has a long history. In response to theories developed by scientists, some religious individuals and organizations questioned the legitimacy of scientific ideas that contradicted the literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis. Interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible had long been the prerogative of an orthodox priesthood able to understand Latin who traditionally held that Genesis was not meant to be read literally and taught it as an allegory.[1] With the advent of the printing press, the translation of the Bible into other languages, and wider literacy, sundry and more literal understandings of scripture flourished.[2] This allowed some religious persons and groups to challenge supporters of evolution, such as Thomas Henry Huxley and Ernst Haeckel.[3]

Contents

Creation-evolution controversy in the age of Darwin

The Creation-Evolution controversy originated in Europe and North America in the late eighteenth century, when discoveries in geology led to various theories of an ancient earth, and fossils showing past extinctions prompted early ideas of evolution. Such ideas were particularly controversial in England where both the natural world and the hierarchical social order were thought to be fixed by God's will. As the terrors of the French Revolution developed into the Napoleonic Wars, followed by economic depression threatening revolution in Britain itself, such subversive ideas were rejected, associated only with radical agitators.[4]

Conditions eased with economic recovery, and when Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation was anonymously published in 1844 its ideas of transmutation of species attracted wide public interest despite being attacked by the scientific establishment and many theologians who believed it to be in conflict with their interpretations of the biblical account of life's, especially humanity's, origin and development.[5] However radical Quakers, Unitarians and Baptists welcomed the book's ideas of "natural law" as supporting their struggle to overthrow the privileges of the Church of England.[6]

Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation remained a best-seller, and paved the way for widespread interest in the theory of natural selection as introduced and published by English naturalist Charles Darwin in his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Darwin's book was praised by Unitarians as well as by liberal Anglican theologians whose Essays and Reviews sparked considerably more religious controversy in Britain than Darwin's publication, as its support of higher criticism questioned the historical accuracy of literal interpretations of the Bible and added declarations that miracles were irrational.[7]

Darwin's book revolutionized the way naturalists viewed the world. The book and its promotion attracted attention and controversy, and many theologians reacted to Darwin's theories. For example, in his 1874 work What is Darwinism? the theologian Charles Hodge argued that Darwin's theories were tantamount to atheism.[8] The controversy was fueled in part by one of Darwin's most vigorous promoters, Thomas Henry Huxley, who opined that Christianity is "a compound of some of the best and some of the worst elements of Paganism and Judaism, moulded in practice by the innate character of certain people of the Western World."[9] Perhaps the most uncompromising of the evolutionary philosophers was the German, Ernst Heinrick Haeckel, a professor of biology, who dogmatically affirmed that nothing spiritual exists.[10]

A watershed in the Protestant objections to evolution occurred after about 1875.[11] Previously, citing Louis Agassiz and other scientific luminaries, Protestant contributors to religious quarterlies dismissed Darwin's theories as unscientific.[11] After 1875, it became clear that the majority of naturalists embraced evolution, and a sizable minority of these Protestant contributors rejected Darwin's theory because it called into question the veracity of Scriptures.[11] Even so, virtually none of these dissenters insisted on a young Earth.[12]

The greatest concern for creationists at the turn of the twentieth century was the issue of human ancestry. In the words of an 1896 tract:[13]

“ I do not wish to meddle with any man's family matters, or quarrel with any one about his relatives. If a man prefers to look for his kindred in the zoological gardens, it is no concern of mine; if he wants to believe that the founder of his family was an ape, a gorilla, a mud-turtle, or a moner, he may do so; but when he insists that I shall trace my lineage in that direction, I say No Sir!...I prefer that my genealogical table shall end as it now does, with "Cainan, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."[14] ”

Creationists during this period were largely premillennialists, whose belief in Christ's return depended on a quasi-literal reading of the Bible.[12] However, they were not as concerned about geology, freely granting scientists any time they needed before the Edenic creation to account for scientific observations, such as fossils and geological findings.[15] In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or clerics rejected the antiquity of the earth, the progressive nature of the fossil record.[16] Likewise, few attached geological significance to the Bibilical flood, unlike subsequent creationists.[16] Evolutionary skeptics, creationist leaders and skeptical scientists were usually either willing to adopt a figurative reading of the first chapter of Genesis, or allowed that the six days of creation were not necessarily 24-hour days.[17]

Scopes Trial

Main article: Scopes Trial

Initial reactions in the United States matched the developments in Britain, and when Wallace went there for a lecture tour in 1886–1887 his explanations of "Darwinism" were welcomed without any problems, but attitudes changed after the First World War.[2] The controversy became political when public schools began teaching that man evolved from earlier forms of life per Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. In response, the State of Tennessee passed a law (the Butler Act of 1925) prohibiting the teaching of any theory of the origins of humans that contradicted the teachings of the Bible. This law was tested in the highly publicized Scopes Trial of 1925. The law was upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court, and remained on the books until 1967 when it was repealed. However, the next year, 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), that such bans contravened the Establishment Clause because their primary purpose was religious.

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) textbooks

Work in genetics culminating in the 1937 publication of Genetics and the Origin of Species by Theodosius Dobzhansky, combining Mendelian genetics with Darwinian natural selection, and explaining, through neutral mutations, the source of the variation upon which evolution acted, led to a synthesis that brought together disparate fields of biology and other sciences into a strong, coherent explanation of evolution.[18] A campaign ensued, urging schools to teach the "fact" of evolution,[19] and in the 1960s, the federally supported Biological Sciences Curriculum Study[20] biology text books were introduced, promoting evolution as the organizing principle of biology.[21] The belief in the power of science amongst biologists was running especially high: One of the prominent creators of the modern synthesis, Julian Huxley, made a religion of humanism, saying that a "drastic reorganization of our pattern of religious thought is now becoming necessary, from a god-centered to an evolutionary-centered pattern",[22] and advocating the use of science to further expand human capacities.[23] Meanwhile, public opinion polls suggested that most Americans either believed that God specially created human beings or guided evolution.[24] Membership in churches favoring increasingly literal interpretations of Scripture continued to rise, with the Southern Baptist Convention and Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod outpacing all other denominations.[24] With growth, these churches became better equipped to promulgate a creationist message, with their own colleges, schools, publishing houses, and broadcast media.[21]

With decreasing church membership among evolutionary scientists, the role of opposing the anti-BSCS textbook movement passed from prominent scientists in liberal churches to secular scientists less equipped to reach Christian audiences.[21] Anti-evolutionary forces were able to reduce the number of school districts utilizing BSCS biology text books, but courts continued to prevent religious instruction in public schools.[25]

ICR and the co-opting of the creationist label

Main article: Institute for Creation Research

Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr.'s influential The Genesis Flood was published in 1961.[26] The authors argued that creation was literally 6 days long, that humans lived concurrently with dinosaurs, and that God created each kind of life. With publication, Morris became a popular speaker, spreading anti-evolutionary ideas at fundamentalist churches, colleges, and conferences.[27] Morris set up the Creation Science Research Center (CSRC), an organization dominated by Baptists, as an adjuct to the Christian Heritage College.[28] The CSRC rushed publication of biology text books that promoted creationism, and also published other books such as Kelly Segrave's sensational Sons of God Return that dealt with UFOlogy, flood geology, and demonology.[29] These efforts were against the recommendations of Morris, who urged a more cautious and scientific approach.[28] Ultimately, the CSRC broke up, and Morris founded the Institute for Creation Research. Morris promised that the ICR, unlike the CSRC, would be controlled and operated by scientists.[30] During this time, Morris and others who supported flood geology adopted the scientific sounding terms scientific creationism and creation science.[31] The flood geologists effectively co-opted "the generic creationist label for their hyperliteralist views".[32] Previously, creationism was a generic term describing a philosophical perspective that presupposes the existence of a supernatural creator.[33]

The Catholic Church and Evolution

Main article: Catholic Church and evolution

Among the first recorded responses of a prominent Catholic clergyman to Darwin's theory was that of the Venerable John Henry Newman, who in 1868, in a letter to a fellow priest, made the following comments:

As to the Divine Design, is it not an instance of incomprehensibly and infinitely marvellous Wisdom and Design to have given certain laws to matter millions of ages ago, which have surely and precisely worked out, in the long course of those ages, those effects which He from the first proposed. Mr. Darwin's theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill. Perhaps your friend has got a surer clue to guide him than I have, who have never studied the question, and I do not [see] that 'the accidental evolution of organic beings' is inconsistent with divine design — It is accidental to us, not to God.[34]

More recent statements have been made by Pope John Paul II[35] and Pope Benedict XVI[36] that also support a theistic understanding of evolution.

The current controversy

Main article: Creation-evolution controversy

The controversy continues to this day, with the scientific consensus on the origins and evolution of life actively attacked by creationist organizations and religious groups who desire to uphold some form of creationism (usually young earth creationism, creation science, old earth creationism or intelligent design) as an alternative. Most of these groups are explicitly Christian, and more than one sees the debate as part of the Christian mandate to evangelize.[37] Some see science and religion as being diametrically opposed views which cannot be reconciled (see section on the false dichotomy). More accommodating viewpoints, held by mainstream churches and some scientists, consider science and religion to be separate categories of thought, which ask fundamentally different questions about reality and posit different avenues for investigating it.[38]

More recently, the Intelligent Design movement has taken an anti-evolution position which avoids any direct appeal to religion. However, Leonard Krishtalka, a paleontologist and an opponent of the movement, has called intelligent design "nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo",[39] and, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that "intelligent design is not science", but is "grounded in theology" and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."[40] Before the trial began, President Bush commented endorsing the teaching of Intelligent design alongside evolution "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about."[41] Scientists argue that Intelligent design does not represent any research program within the scientific community, and is opposed by most of the same groups who oppose creationism.[42]

Timeline of the controversy

See also

References

  1. ^ "[Darwin Kill God?]". Compass. November 22, 2009.
  2. ^ a b Moore 2006
  3. ^ Larson 1997, p. 17
  4. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 34–35
  5. ^ van Wyhe 2006.
  6. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 321–322
  7. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 500–501
  8. ^ Hodge 1874, p. 177, Numbers 1992, p. 14
  9. ^ Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish 1982, p. 965, Huxley 1902
  10. ^ Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish 1982, p. 965
  11. ^ a b c Numbers 1992, p. 13
  12. ^ a b Numbers 1992, p. 14
  13. ^ Numbers 1992, p. 15
  14. ^ Numbers 1992, p. 15, quoting H.L Hastings' tract in Was Moses Mistaken? or, Creation and Evolution (1896)
  15. ^ Numbers 1992, pp. 14–15
  16. ^ a b Numbers 1992, p. 17
  17. ^ Numbers 1992, p. 18, Noting that this applies to published or public skeptics. Many or most Christians may have held on to a literal six days of creation, but these views were rarely expressed in books and journals. Exceptions are also noted, such as literal interpretations published by Eleazar Lord (1788-1871) and David Nevins Lord (1792-1880). However, the observation that evolutionary critics had a relaxed interpretation of Genesis is supported by specifically enumerating: Louis Agassiz (1807-1873); Arnold Henry Guyot (1807-1884); John William Dawson (1820-1899); Enoch Fitch Burr (1818-1907); George D. Armstrong (1813-1899); Charles Hodge, theologian (1797-1878); James Dwight Dana (1813-1895); Edward Hitchcock, clergyman and respected Amherst College geologist, (1793-1864); Reverend Herbert W. Morris (1818-1897); H. L. Hastings (1833?-1899); Luther T. Townsend (1838-1922); Alexander Patterson, Presbyterian evangelist who published The Other Side of Evolution Its Effects and Fallacy
  18. ^ Starting “The Modern Synthesis”: Theodosius Dobzhansky
  19. ^ Larson 2004, p. 248,250
  20. ^ BSCS official website
  21. ^ a b c Larson 2004, p. 246,252
  22. ^ The New Divinity, Julian Huxley
  23. ^ Transhumanism, Julian Huxley, 1957.
  24. ^ a b Larson 2004, p. 251
  25. ^ Larson 2004, p. 253
  26. ^ Larson 2004, p. 255,Numbers 1992, pp. xi,200–208
  27. ^ Larson 2004, p. 255
  28. ^ a b Numbers 1992, p. 284
  29. ^ Numbers 1992, pp. 284–285
  30. ^ Numbers 1992, p. 286
  31. ^ Quoting Larson 2004, pp. 255–256: "Fundamentalists no longer merely denounced Darwinism as false; they offered a scientific-sounding alternative of their own, which they called either 'scientific creationism (as distinct from religious creationism) or 'creation science' (as opposed to evolution science.)"
  32. ^ Larson 2004, pp. 254–255, Numbers 1998, pp. 5–6
  33. ^ Hayward 1998, p. 11
  34. ^ John Henry Newman, Letter to J. Walker of Scarborough, May 22, 1868, The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973
  35. ^ John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution
  36. ^ Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004
  37. ^ Verderame 2007,Simon 2006
  38. ^ Dewey 1994, p. 31, and Wiker 2003, summarizing Gould.
  39. ^ As reported in the 4 May 2005 edition of the Washington Post
  40. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Case No. 04cv2688. December 20, 2005, Ruling Whether ID Is Science: Page 89, and Conclusion.
  41. ^ Bumiller 2005, Peters & Hewlett 2005, p. 3
  42. ^ Larson 2004, p. 258 "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of creation science; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific arguments for their position." See also Martz & McDaniel 1987, p. 23, a Newsweek article which states "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."
  43. ^ "Carter slams Georgia's 'evolution' proposal". CNN. 2004-01-30. http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/georgia.evolution/index.html. 
  44. ^ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol304/issue5671/r-samples.dtl#304/5671/677a
  45. ^ http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040429/01/
  46. ^ . http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/02/life.evolution.reut/index.html. 
  47. ^ http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=threw_the_book_at_em&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
  48. ^ Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Case No. 04cv2688. December 20, 2005
  49. ^ Creation and Evolution, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007, Sankt Ulrich Publishing. See also [1]

Citations