Monkey laws evolve into new debate

By J. Brent Walker

Reflections
March 2005

Debate about whether and how to teach evolution in the public schools continues to rage 80 years after the Scopes "Monkey" trial in Tennessee. And the debate itself keeps evolving.

In 1928 Arkansas passed its own law banning the teaching of evolution in its public schools. A high school biology teacher, Susan Epperson, challenged the law as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Overturning the decision of the state's Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that she was right. Justice Abe Fortas, delivering the opinion of the Court, wrote, "There is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma." The Court concluded that Arkansas had tried to keep teachers from teaching evolution because it was against the belief of some that Genesis was the exclusive source of teaching on the origin of human beings. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968).

After this case was decided, Louisiana passed a "Balanced Treatment Act" that said if the schools teach evolution, they must also teach "creationism." The Supreme Court also struck down this law, this time by a 7-2 decision. Justice William Brennan, writing for the Court's majority, wrote that "the Creationism Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science which embodies a particular religious tenet by requiring that creation science be taught whenever evolution is taught or to prohibit the teaching of scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects by forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught." The Court concluded that the "legislative history documents that the Act's primary purpose was to change the science curriculum of public schools in order to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety." Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

In the aftermath of the Court's clear ruling that evolution cannot be banned and, where evolution is taught, creationism cannot be required, opponents of evolution adopted other strategies.

Some have advocated the use of disclaimers placed inside the front cover on state-approved textbooks. The school board in Cobb County, Ga., required one of these stickers to be included in new biology textbooks, stating that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" and that "the material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." In a case brought to challenge this disclaimer, a federal judge ruled that the disclaimer was unconstitutional as an endorsement of a religious view that the world was created by God. Selman v. Cobb Co. (2005). The case is now on appeal.

To declare that evolution is only a "theory" suggests that it is a mere hunch, when actually the overwhelming scientific community endorses it. And, to single out evolution for critical scrutiny ignores the fact that every area of scholarly inquiry should be approached the same way. Both disparage the concept of evolution.

Over the past several years advocates of "intelligent design" have come to the fore of debate. (See Larry Hudson's fine piece about the ID movement.) As he points out, those who espouse intelligent design say that nature is so complicated that one must infer a designer of some sort. Proponents conclude that life as we know it could not have possibly developed through natural selection. Although advocates of ID do not name the designer (i.e., "God"), there is little doubt that the movement represents a roundabout way of advancing a creationist agenda.

A county in Pennsylvania has become the first to formally push the teaching of intelligent design. Parents in Dover, Pa., filed suit last December to seek to bar the district from teaching intelligent design. The case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, has not yet been decided. As supporters of intelligent design seek to have it taught in school districts across the country, the Pennsylvania decision will prove to be a powerful precedent.

All of this is to say it is constitutionally impermissible to teach religion in guise of science in the public schools. But that's not to say creationism and intelligent design should be ignored in the public schools. These could be taught in an appropriate context—such as a comparative religion course examining various theories of origin or in a social studies class that teaches the controversy itself. Nor does it mean that evolution cannot be critiqued in science classes. But such critiques must be scientifically based and leveled by respected members of the scientific community. Finally, it does not mean that evolution and faith are mutually exclusive. Even the Pope has said they are not. People of faith who take the Bible seriously and respect good science quite comfortably embrace "theistic evolution."

A failure to adhere to these salutary principles and to appreciate these distinctions threatens to make monkeys of us all.