Not Much Has Changed Since the Scopes Monkey Trial

Jerry Coyne analyzes two essays directed at the 85th anniversary of the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee.  Immortalized in the movie Inherited the Wind, we often forget that evolution actually lost in that trial.  However, it did start the process of promoting evolution education and dismissing creationism as a non-science.


While science has prevailed in the classrooms (most classrooms) and in the court of law, the public still lacks a basic understanding of evolutionary theory and in some places the majority prefer creationism.  Coyne's article critiques an authors approach to how we can help teach evolution to our students and a public that fears the subject.  The original author favors a more accommodating approach to science and religion, while Coyne is much more direct.


I will outline the original author's suggestions as categorized by Coyne below and make my own comments:

1. Distinguish between science and scientism.  Too often, people claim that science, and evolution specifically, is itself a religion.  In most ways, they are wrong, but in others they are right.  We must understand the difference between a methodological naturalism and a philosophical naturalism, as Genie Scott describes.  The first uses science to explain natural phenomena, while the second believes that nothing exists but the natural.  All scientists use methodological naturalism when experimenting through the scientific method, but a great number of scientists do believe or accept the supernatural, or God.  The philosophical naturalists make up a subset of the first group and include the New Atheists seeking to explain everything in natural terms.  In these terms, we can fully accept science and religion as they coexist.  Such a distinction helps allay the fears of the deeply religious that science attempts to destroy their faith.
2. Humanize Darwin and the other scientist.  While most scientists revere Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Galileo, we understand them to be mere mortals.  They were people who saw the world differently than anyone else at the time and changed the way WE see the world.  For Darwin in particular, many groups defame the character of the man in an attempt to attack his brilliant insight.  Charles Darwin grew up in a moderately religious home, where he planned to become a doctor and then a priest.  Given the opportunity to explore the world, the 22-year-old Darwin jumped on the HMS Beagle.  Portrayed as anti-religion, Darwin viewed the world through a religious prism.  Only after witnessing the horrors of slavery and later the death of his young daughter, did he put aside the God question to refer to himself as an agnostic.  Shortly before his death, the admitted that he would have to consider himself a theist.  Darwin, like all important historical figures, lived a complicated, and interesting, life.
3. Question bifurcations of the religious and the secular.  Society readily divides science and religion, at the expense of both sides.  This is the point of this blog.  Maybe, we can find a common ground.
4. Cultivate more careful readings of scriptures, not their dismissal.  This is the important thing.  As believers, we must understand the history of the Bible and the history of the interpretations of the Bible.  Once you understand how heavily edited and pieced together the Bible is, it becomes incredibly difficult to read it literally.  The importance of scriptures comes from the message and meaning, not the specific words.  You don't have to completely throw out Genesis 1 to accept evolution, but you do have to look at it in a different light.

Overall, I actually think some of these are good ideas.  Jerry Coyne does not like most of them, which would be expected if you have heard of him.  I, however, will always promote both science and religion.  I truly believe that both offer something to human understanding.  Unfortunately, too much distortion exists in the public about evolution that the message gets lost.  

Since the Scopes trial, public opinion has not changed very much.  I hold out hope that rational argument will win out.  An analysis of the data clearly points to evolution.  Too many people seem prepared to reject solid evidence to protect their particular interpretation of Scriptures.  We surely should base our interpretations of God's Word on what we know about God's Works.