Back to Trial -- Scopes Revisited

(Note: Originally Posted 6-29-05)

Eighty years ago, in the sweltering summer of 1925, William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow faced off in one of the most famous trials in history. In the Scopes Monkey Trial, as it has become known, the legality of a (non-enforced) statute outlawing the teaching of Darwinian Evolution in Tennessee schools was argued.

Contrary to the propaganda film Inherit the Wind (which purported to tell the story of the trial), John Scopes, the substitute teacher who claimed to have taught evolution theory (but probably didn’t) was in no real jeopardy. He was not about to be lynched by the local townspeople, as portrayed in Inherit the Wind, but rather willingly offered to be indicted for the purpose of a show trial. The ACLU was on the hunt for a test case that would set a precedent for its secular agenda.

The trial was the first trial broadcast nationwide; the drama played out on the big stage with celebrity lawyers. Those early volleys fired in the culture wars continue to reverberate today.

This week the ACLU returns to the courtroom (in Federal District Court in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) to argue a similar case; but this time the ACLU is not concerned with crashing the classroom delivering books on Darwinian Evolution. This time they are bolting the classroom door against alternate theories of biological origins, namely the theory of Intelligent Design. (ID theorists claim we find structures in nature that are irreducibly complex; such structures, they argue, cannot have come about solely as a result of random mutations and natural selection.)

Some observers see the case (Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School District) as an attempt by the ACLU to intimidate local school boards who find the Intelligent Design argument warrants discussion in our schools. (School Board members, in increasing numbers, are warming to the idea that students should be exposed to debate between ID and Evolution Theory and allowed to exercise critical reasoning.)

In the Dover case, the local school board has not proposed teaching Intelligent Design. The crime for which they are accused is requiring ninth-grade biology students to listen to a brief statement which informs them there is a controversy regarding Evolution and informing them that, if they wish, they can go to the library to check out a book that presents the argument from Intelligent Design.

In the Dover case it is no longer the Bible which stands above challenge. Biology textbooks are now considered sacred and exempt from challenge.

The brave souls from the ACLU claim they are protecting our children from the terrible evils of religious thought. Their argument equates any scientific theory that fails to adhere strictly to the metaphysical assumptions of naturalism with religion. They argue such theories must be banned from the curriculum.

In fact, according to the ACLU, a scientific premise that stands outside the dogma of naturalism and even suggests an alternate theory of origins violates our civil liberties. The mere mention of such a theory, as in the Dover case, is a violation warranting a full-scale legal attack by a cadre of ACLU lawyers.

What, exactly, is the ACLU’s argument? As in 1925, they will not argue the case for Evolution. Instead, they argue the need to defend our schools from religion-in-disguise.

They cannot argue the case for evolution, for once they do, Evolution Theory is exposed as other than undeniable fact; evolution will be exposed to be a theory, a collection of hypotheses and inferences, supported by some observations, while failing to explain all observations.

Arguing the merits of the science, the ACLU will lose; arguing Evolution is an unchallengeable fact, they will lose. If they debate the veracity and completeness of Evolution Theory, they engage in that which they seek to deny students—an open forum for open debate.

Instead, the ACLU attacks the alternate theory based on its being religion, not science. They have cleverly and successfully used this tactic in the courts in the past.

The argument starts with a narrow definition of science, one which claims science addresses only natural phenomena—if it ain’t natural (material), it ain’t science. Science that hypothesizes a universe consisting of both natural and supernatural factors, no matter how accurate that theory might be, gets tossed a priori.

Philip Johnson (author of Darwin on Trial) points out such faulty reasoning amounts to covertly advocating the dogma of philosophical naturalism rather than protecting science. The ACLU has not gone to war on the side of science. The ACLU advances a metaphysical position masquerading as science. While they claim intelligent design is religion masquerading as science, they offer anti-religious philosophy disguised as science.

Hopefully the Federal District Court in Harrisburg will listen carefully and grasp this important point.

Up-to-date information on the Dover Trial.

Tags: Scopes Monkey Trial, Inherit the Wind, intelligent design, evolution, Darwin, Darwinist, ACLU, Darwinian Evolution, Dover Trial, Christianity, religion, science