Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at 
Via PZ Myers, I learn of a new entrant into the science/religion accomodation fracas. Mano Singham's generally well-grounded historical look at how these arguments have played out historically begins:
The accommodationists argue that it is a mistake to insist that science is antithetical to religion because if science is determined to be an intrinsically atheistic enterprise, then even so-called moderate religionists will turn away from science and not support efforts to oppose the teaching of religious ideas such as intelligent design in science classes. This kind of mistaken solicitousness for the sensitivities of religious people, the fear that they will take their ball and go home if others are mean to them, is not new. During the run up to the Scopes Monkey trial in 1925, there were many accommodationists of that era who did not want Clarence Darrow to defend Scopes because they felt that his scorn for religious beliefs would alienate potential religious allies. We now view Darrow's performance in that trial as one of the high points in opposing the imposition of religious indoctrination in public schools.However we view Darrow's performance in retrospect, one thing is absolutely true about his work in Scopes. Darrow lost. Scopes was convicted (his sentence – a $100 fine – was overturned on a technicality). Darrow's legal strategy failed.
In fact, it was not until 1968, 43 years after the Scopes trial, that laws like that in Tennessee were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. For over 40 years, science classes in several states could not cover human evolution. Darrow dealt creationism a PR blow, but by the time Epperson overturned the laws of the Scopes era, creationists had moved on to a new legal strategy.
The initial strategy attempted by the ACLU and Darrow was … to present theistic evolution and argue that evolution did not necessarily violate the prohibition on "teach[ing] any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible." The judge forbade the testimony of theologians and scientists about the ways evolution and the Bible could be reconciled, and instructed the jury not to consider anything about the validity of the law, only to ask whether Scopes broke the law. Since he basically admitted he had done so, this left little room for Darrow and the ACLU. They preserved their grounds for appeal, and Darrow gradually became more and more vigorous in attacking the supposedly literal interpretation of the Bible.
And he lost.
In Dover, as in McLean before, theologians were allowed to testify about the compatibility of science and religion, and judges cited their testimony in rulings against creationist laws. Based on the available evidence, then, the accommodationist view works in court, and anti-religious rhetoric fails. Of course, correlation doesn't equal causation. That doesn't seem to stop the anti-accommodationists from claiming that accommodationism has failed since creationism still exists.
But before anyone advocates a return to Darrow's anti-religion tirades, remember that he failed, and that his failure held back science education for decades. And religion didn't go away, so it's not like the anti-accomodationists got their wish, either. I'm fine with the anti-accommodationists proposing their own strategies, but I hope they don't expect me to accept a strategy which would consign thousands of kids to substandard education.
Comments
Not being a US citizen with complete knowledge of the history of your nation I wonder about your conclusion that Darrow failed and in so doing held back science education.
Have I got it completely wrong by thinking that Darrow was trying to get Scopes convicted rather than released since he and the ACLU wanted the case to be appealed later in a higher court (which would be allowed to take into consideration the first amendment and the separation of church and state)?
They ultimately failed due to a technicality connected with the amount of the fine levied on Scopes.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Posted by: Sigmund | June 26, 2009 6:39 AM
The strategy pursued by Darrow et al in the Scopes trial was essentially an accommodationist one based on a literal reading of the law. They maintained that the prosecution had to demonstrate two separate things for Scopes to be found guilty: (1) that he taught a "theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible," and (2) that he taught "instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." What the judge ruled was, in effect, that the accommodationists were wrong, and that as far as Tennessee was concerned, the two elements were one and the same: teaching evolution was denying the story of the Divine Creation of man--end of story. Darrow's "anti-religion tirades" had nothing to do with this ruling. What the judge ruled against was the whole idea of accommodating religion to science, and that's what determined the outcome of the trial.
Posted by: sbh
| June 26, 2009 10:00 AM
you have a lot of fundamentalist scientists' history to overcome, shorttimers. L. Pasteur's work on biogenesis, accepted as law for centuries.
Mindless matter never made microbes and men according to science priciples. You still need cause and effect from real science; mere say-so still won't get it.
What provoked brainless matter to construct our brain? To say it's powered by two destructive processes is like saying two wrongs make a right.
Posted by: D Bunker Monquis | June 26, 2009 1:09 PM
"Darrow's legal strategy failed."
Riiight. And this is sooo relevant to what is happening in 2009 because ...???
"and instructed the jury not to consider anything about the validity of the law"
Riiight. We really wouldn't want someone to seriously consider the validity of the law under the First Amendment, would we?
"his failure held back science education for decades"
Riiight. Therefore they should not have tried? What's your point? What happened 84 years ago is relevant to today's "accommodationist" argument? Silly, silly.
"I hope they don't expect me to accept a strategy which would consign thousands of kids to substandard education."
You seem to be still living in 1925. In 2009, it's the religious right members of the Texas State Board of Education that wants to "consign thousands of kids to substandard education".
Archie Bunker:
"To say it's powered by two destructive processes"
To say something like that shows that you are an idiot.
Posted by: Mike McCants | June 26, 2009 6:25 PM
The real blunder was Huxley's public statement that by proving evolution, science would deal a death blow to religion. That mobilized the opposition and energized activists for Creationism to organize against teaching evolution in American schools.
Posted by: Monado | June 27, 2009 2:15 PM
Sigmund: Certainly there was hope of securing an appeal, but that would have followed any result, and getting the judge to rule that the law was invalid, or to allow the jury to rule on that matter, would have been very powerful.
Mike: I'm not the one who raised Scopes. PZ Myers and Mano Singham thought it was a relevant counterargument to the accommodationists, and I'm interested in making sure the history is described accurately. If you think it's "silly, silly" to raise Scopes, take it up with Myers and Singham. If you think that accurately describing the history is "silly, silly," then we don't have much to talk about.
Furthermore, I was in Texas, testifying against the new standards and lobbying the board not to water down the standards. And we held the majority's opposition together for a long time, until financial motives and behind the scenes pressure overcame the testimony of the scientific community. Don't lecture me about Texas. I was there, and I know that Francis Collins's accommodationist writings were more useful in retaining our majority as long as we did than was anything written by anti-accommodationists.
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | June 29, 2009 2:40 PM
You posted what Singham said:
"We now view Darrow's performance in that trial as one of the high points in opposing the imposition of religious indoctrination in public schools."
So he raised Scopes to point out that it was a high point.
You said:
"Darrow lost."
So you describe history correctly, but perhaps you do not describe how Scopes is currently perceived. Scopes was simply the first salvo.
"Based on the available evidence, then, the accommodationist view works in court, and anti-religious rhetoric fails."
Well, the only modern case is Dover and my opinion is that the "accommodationist view" was irrelevant there.
You seem to be completely ignoring Singham's comments about the Lemon test. Cherry-picking your history?
Posted by: Mike McCants | June 29, 2009 10:22 PM
Mike, you should look into the McLean case as well. Dover isn't "the only modern case." Cherry-picking history much?
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | June 30, 2009 11:36 AM
Darrow schmarrow - the major whack on the head suffered by religionists (and accommodationists) in 1925 was the acerbic reportage lobbed by H.L. Mencken.
Mencken, and the other journalists who followed his lead in mocking the ignorance and small-mindedness of backwoods Tennesseeans, contributed more than any legal decisions to the retreat from politics by US fundamentalists for at least two generations. (Okay, the obvious colossal failure of Prohibition played a major part as well.)
It must always be remembered that attempts to return creationism to the classroom are only a small part of a much larger "culture war". No ground won on that small battlefield can be held for long without victories on the larger front.
Fortunately, the lesbian/gay movement is advancing across the sociopolitical terrain, assisted considerably by the obvious colossal failures of the Republican party, while feminists and reproductive health advocates are generally holding their positions. Even atheists - of whatever vintage - are making a little progress.
Evolutionary education, now no less than 84 years ago, while facing unique challenges which cannot be neglected, will rise or fall depending mostly on the successes or failures of its de facto allies. As those include both progressive churchgoers and militant atheists, accommodationists might make their best effort in trying to reconcile that particular and inevitable tension, rather than hurling ineffectual verbal bombshells into the neighboring camp.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 30, 2009 8:07 PM