Tennessee Monkeys

Eighty years ago this week, in Dayton, Tennessee, the case of Tennessee v. Scopes began trial. Excellent summaries of the case can be found on the internet, and I will not attempt to recap the story for the Loyal Readership when others have done so quite well before me. Dayton is about two-thirds the way from Knoxville to Chattanooga. And like the city in which it took place, the issues raised in the Scopes Monkey Trial remain close to home today.

Laws banning the teaching of evolution are now unconstitutional but laws mandating the teaching of crypto-creationist theories alongside scientific evolution, presenting those ideas as the equivalent of science, and condemning evolution as “just a theory” are still quite fashionable despite being unconstitutional. Disturbingly, this is so in places very near to me and affecting people I interact with on a daily basis.

The theory of “intelligent design” has been systematically debunked by logic, evidence, and the forces of science. It is founded upon a single fallacy, or worse yet, a deliberate misunderstanding of how logic and science work. For something to be elevated to the level of a “theory” in science is to indicate that substantial evidence suggests the truth of the theory – but science does not exist to prove that something is true. That the “theory” of evolution has survived more than two hundred years of scientific criticism is testament to the validity of the basic idea. “Intelligent design” defenders need to include within their embrace those who believe in the creation mythos of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is, after all, within the scope of what “intelligent design” embraces as long as His Noodly Appendage was acting with conscious intent. Yet they have as of yet been strangely resistant to this idea.

There is also still a lot of misunderstanding, if not deliberate misrepresentation, about what evolution really is. No, there is no such thing as a “cat-dog.” But evolution does not suggest that the world works like The Isle of Dr. Moreau.

That early scientists who studied evolution, famously including Charles Darwin, (Darwin’s own grandfather suggested the concept well before Charles began his scientific career) have had their ideas repudiated and improved upon does not mean that the underlying concept is invalid. Isaac Newton suggested a law of gravity, and his ideas and theories about how gravity works were largely superceded by Albert Einstein. That does not mean that gravity does not exist. So just because Stephen Jay Gould has suggested that evolution takes place “suddenly” (in geologic terms) rather than gradually, or because some scientists now suggest that animal behavior as well as external stimuli may affect a species’ evolutionary path, does not mean that Darwin’s core idea – that species change over time to better adapt and survive – is wrong. Christians disagree with one another sharply about interpreting the Bible, too.

The problem goes back to the need some people feel to insist that the Bible is literally true. This school of thought was what William Jennings Bryan tried to give voice to during the Scopes trial. Among other concepts at odds with science are not only that God created the universe and man, but also that the sun revolves around the Earth, that the world is flat and has four corners, and that a man was swallowed and later regurgitated, undigested and healthy, by a large fish. I’ve heard one amusing suggestion for anti-evolution literalists to put their money where their mouths are. But seriously, why do the faithful feel the need to dress up their beliefs in the clothes of science? Faith, after all, does not require proof; once proof is offered, faith is unnecessary. Science is the realm of logic, evidence, deliberation, careful observation, experimentation, and reasoning. Religion is the realm of faith, mysticism, and belief; often of ceremony and dogma; sometimes but sadly not always the realm of morals, ethics, compassion, and forgiveness.

I suppose the problem is that both call themselves the “truth” and Biblical literalists need that truth to be exclusive unto themselves. The Gospels explicitly discourage skeptical inquiry and demands for proof. (Science invites such inquiry.) Those two facts should raise a warning flag to those who truly yearn for the truth -- anyone who claims to possess "the only truth" and also discourages independent thought about that "truth" probably has an ulterior motive for making such a claim.

For my more religious or spiritual friends, please note that I do not now, and never have, denied the powerful moral teachings of Jesus found in the Gospels. While I do not share a belief in Jesus' ressurection or divinity, I praise his efforts to effect social, moral, and political reform during a very troubled time of world history, and I acknowledge that a study of his teachings and life would profit anyone today. But I do condemn in no uncertain terms the use (misuse? abuse?) of religion to attack science; religion should promote wisdom, not ignorance. Thinking back to 1925, I would have wanted to have been right alongside Clarence Darrow at the defense counsel's table, and not just for the chance to work with one of the most brilliant lawyers of the day. The Scopes Mokey Trial was a battle between right and wrong, and the prosecution's tissue of Biblical truth did not then, and does not now, bestow the mantle of righteousness upon those who would destroy knowledge and learning in the name of a far-from-universally held vision of religious orthodoxy.