That could well have been the headline back in 1925. For it was on this very date of July 10, 1925 that the trial of a high school football coach and substitute biology teacher – John Scopes – began after he was arrested for teaching Evolution in Dayton, Tennessee. It became known as the Scopes Monkey Trial – but many of us may be more familiar with it after being memorialized on Broadway and in film as "Inherit the Wind".
Today, four score and three years later, we're still engaged in that same struggle to let science teachers actually teach secular science, rather than sectarian religion masquerading as "creationism" or "intelligent design" or whatever other false incarnation radical religious fundamentalist evangelicals want to pass their charade off as.
In fact it would certainly seem that "Inherit the Wind" authors Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee were prescient when writing their preface that the battle to protect the First Amendment was not specifically set only in 1925, but instead:
It might have been yesterday. It could be tomorrow.
So it’d be well if we learned a bit about these zealots and the chicanery they plan to use in our public schools to force their theology on our kids.
There are Wedgies ... and Then There Are Wedgies
Key to understanding the sectarian religious designs to replace the teaching of evolution with creationism is the battle plan formulated by the Center for Science and Culture (CSC – formerly known as the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture) backed by a Seattle-based evangelical "think tank" called Discovery Institute. They titled it "The Wedge Strategy" – and it outlines how they intend to wage their war of getting religion into our classrooms.
Phillip E. Johnson, a former UC-Berkeley law professor now at the Discovery Institute, is author of "The Wedge Strategy." At the age of 38, following a failed marriage and a disastrously difficult divorce, Johnson admits he had a "religious conversion." And in his 1996 book "Defeating Darwinism" Johnson explains his "Wedge Strategy" analogy:
We call our strategy 'the wedge.' A log is a seeming solid object, but a wedge can eventually split it by penetrating a crack and gradually widening the split. In this case the ideology of scientific materialism is the apparently solid log.
(An interesting sidebar about Johnson is that he also is a strong supporter of a fringe faction that denies HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.)
The opening paragraph of The Wedge Strategy lays to rest any doubt anyone might still harbor that ID/creationism’s primary goal is to forever banish evolution from our classrooms and replace it with biblical creationism:
The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which western civilization was built.
They Can Change Their Name ... But Their Game’s the Same
Giving credit where credit is due, fundamentalist evangelicals who vehemently oppose teaching the facts of Evolutionary Theory have certainly learned from their mistakes. Or, ironically, one could say they have "evolved". So "creationism" is now out – and "Intelligent Design" is what they’re calling it. [Note: since they’re one in the same, I will refer to them as "ID/creationism"]
In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v Aguillard that a Louisiana law which mandated equal time and "balanced treatment" for the teaching of creationism along side evolution violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court stated Louisiana’s statute breached the separation of church and state because it clearly served no secular purpose, but instead tried to advance its own agenda of promoting a particular sectarian religious belief.
Justice William Brennan, writing for the 7–2 majority, declared Louisiana’s law violated the First Amendment’s ban on statutes "respecting the establishment of religion." Continuing, Justice Brennan found creationism:
"... embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind. [And creationism] advances a religious doctrine [which] seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve religious purposes."
Less we take comfort in a 7–2 majority, we should pay attention to the two dissenters – Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist (both Reagan appointees) – who incredulously opined that the Louisiana law was merely an attempt to let students decide "for themselves, based upon a fair presentation of the scientific evidence, [Emphasis Added] about the origin of life."
Because of the Edwards v Aguillard ruling, the Discovery Institute folks realized they would repeatedly fail to get creationism into our classrooms with it so transparently lugging the baggage of religion. They decided it was time to for a cosmetic makeover: creationism is now disguised as Intelligent Design (ID).
But make no mistake about it – Intelligent Design is merely creationism tarted up in a lab coat.
The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: "We Only Want To Teach the Controversy"
Quite naturally, reputable science is always open to alternative explanations or theories. And ID/creationism backers are using science’s willing openness for dialogue and exploration to cram their religious wedge into our classrooms. And to do so, they now falsely claim that they have no desire whatever to promote ID or (heaven forbid) creationism. My lord, no ... they "only want to teach the controversy" or "review the strengths and weaknesses of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution" or "discover alternative theories."
[NOTE: Please pay attention to the above quoted dog-whistle phrases, because they’re the coded words religious zealots who want to insert their theology into our classrooms will repeat again and again and again in every available venue open to them across our country]
Changing their focus to local school boards and state legislatures to wedge their way in, those advocating ID/creationism no longer speak of God, and they have tried to use scientific argot to disguise their intentions. Such was their aim in trying to get ID/creationism into the schools of Dover, PA.
But in a landmark 2005 ruling, U.S. District Federal Judge John E. Jones III (who happens to be a Republican appointed to the bench by Bush) was able to clearly see ID/creationism for what it is – and struck down their attempts to foist their theology on our children in Kitzmiller et al v Dover Area School District. Judge Jones even went so far as to characterize their thinly veiled attempts at promoting religion as burdened with "breathtaking inanity."
But in changing their focus to "only wanting to teach the controversy" – there remains two other insurmountable errors in ID/creationism's desire to be presented in our science classrooms:
[1] When it comes to the Theory of Evolution, for all recognized science education affiliations as well as scientific associations there is no controversy – zip, zilch, zero, nix, nil, none, nada, naught, the null set, cipher ... none at all. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is universally accepted in the scientific community as immutable as the earth revolving around the sun. (Which religious folks also had a problem with in ages past.)
[2] Intelligent Design doesn’t qualify as a scientific theory under even the most generous of metrics. Not one scintilla of ID/creationism "research" has ever been published in a recognized peer-review journal. Not one!
There are no problems, weaknesses, controversies, disputes, concerns or questions in the scientific community with teaching the Theory of Evolution. For ID/creationism zealots to try and falsely force their pseudoscience on our children is, as MIT Physics Professor Richard Milner so succinctly put it, "an exemplar of pandering politics, poor pedagogy, and tacky theology."
Using ID/creationism’s own argument of "only wanting to teach the controversy," it would be easy to make the case that the Flat Earth Society should likewise have an opportunity to provide its side of the story in our geography classes.
But After All, ID/Creationism Claims Evolution Is "ONLY" a Theory
Of course the easy riposte is, "As is gravity. So then why can’t I levitate?"
But it’s probably best to save that retort for the knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who are immune to sarcasm – as well as facts. We have a real battle on our hands, so it’s better to be civil in the hopes we can actually educate those who want to learn.
And who better to explain what exactly constitutes a Scientific Theory than The National Academy of Sciences:
In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. [T]he theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
Politics – and Religion – Make for Strange Bedfellows
It would most likely surprise many of us to learn that one of the staunchest critics of trying to allow ID/creationism in the classroom along with evolution is none other than arch-conservative pundit George Will, who wrote in a Washington Post column:
"It does me no injury," said Thomas Jefferson, "for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." But it is injurious, and unneighborly, when zealots try to compel public education to infuse theism into scientific education.
Amazingly he is joined in denouncing ID/creationism by fellow conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer (who happens to be a physician) also writing in the Washington Post:
Let's be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God.
In dealing with this issue at the local level, one frequently hears about the "gaps" in the Theory of Evolution from ID/creationism advocates – and there certainly are areas that we will continue to learn about as we expand our understanding of all the nuances of evolution.
But just because a fishnet has more holes than it has filament, that does NOT mean the fishnet doesn’t function successfully. Just check with the fish!
Trust Me – The Fat Lady Has NOT Sung Yet
We would do well to avoid violating the First Rule of Waging War: Never, ever underestimate your enemy! They’re likely to do anything – and everything – to prevail.
To that point, in his Dover ruling Judge Jones was sadly forced to observe:
It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the [Intelligent Design] Policy.
We minimize ID/creationism’s purpose at our peril. It has to be deeply disturbing for those of us who value our children’s education to learn that a recent survey by the National Science Teachers Association found that fully 30 percent of responding members felt pressure to entirely omit evolution from their science classes. And a similar percentage felt pressure to include nonscientific ID/creationism "alternatives" to evolution in their science courses.
"Inherit the Wind" has Henry Drummond (as a stand-in for Clarence Darrow) asking in his closing comment to his client, John Scopes:
"You don't suppose this kind of thing is ever finished, do you? Tomorrow, sure as hell, somebody else'll have to stand up, and you've helped give him the guts to do it!"
The separation of church and state does not abide the promulgation of religion in our public schools. No matter how couched, a school district simply cannot adopt a policy promoting religion. For those of us who feel strongly about defending the First Amendment and protecting our right to think freely, Drummond’s prescient observation emerges as a warning – and a call to arms – to guard fiercely those guarantees too often under attack.