The Genesis of Young-Earth Creationism

[Scopes] is here because ignoranceand bigotry are rampant.

—Clarence Darrow, July 1925

Evolution is at war with religion.

—William Jennings Bryan, July 1925

Antievolutionism did not spontaneously generate itself in 1925, theyear of the Scopes trial, though one might think so in reading press accountsof subsequent innumerable cases involving teaching evolution inpublic schools. All of them seem to be "Scopes 2." There is justificationfor the now clichéd label attached to cases involving religious objections toteaching evolution in public schools. This is a result of the Scopes trial—thefirst one—having become more than cultural shorthand for the evolution-religionissue. The case also became a template for subsequent clashes overthe irreconcilable issue. That template includes

• Public schools as the battleground of choice.

• Winning media attention.

• Iconic figures, Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, whosearguments about the nature of science and appeals to cultural valuesand myths have endured.

• A political fight, as opposed to a philosophical, theological or scientificone. The issue usually erupts with elected local boards or statelegislatures. Now, there are national organizations devoted to campaigningfor young-Earth creationism, such as Answers in Genesis(AiG) in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the Center for Science and Culture, abranch of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington.

The political dimension of creationism versus evolution is important becausescientists and the public so often have attempted to explain or understandthese clashes as science-religion debates. Obviously, they are, in somerespects. But the debate and the success of creationists remain incomprehensibleto many because they ignore the political nature of antievolutionism.Like elections, campaigns against teaching evolution in public schools returnwith great regularity, the results of the last "election" cycle notwithstanding—i.e.,that creationists eventually lost the legal case. But like any political causeor party they did not just go away. The popularity of young-Earth creationismis incredible, particularly considering that it has almost no credibility in thescientific community. "Success" is measured on the basis of national pollsover the last several decades that have consistently showed anywhere fromabout one-third to one-half of Americans accepting a creationist-literalistreading of Genesis. However, this is not so much a failure of science as it isa triumph of politics. Though creationism is suspect science, it is a model ofpolitical activism, which took form at the Scopes trial.

Religious Objections

Those who have denounced Darwin have not always been theologically inspired.During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, some of thetoughest critics of Darwin and On the Origin of Species (1859) and Descentof Man (1871) were scientists. Many scientists still saw science as a means ofshedding light on God's workings in nature. Darwin set science on a newcourse by ignoring this traditional view of science's purpose and by discardingthe presumed distinction between humanity and the rest of the animalkingdom. In the twenty-first century, this remains an issue for many people.

A few decades after publication of Origin, a dedicated, conservative Christianitycoalesced around a defense of tradition, the threat of modernism,and a spirit of political reform. America's Social Gospel movement arose ata time of unregulated capitalism, abuses of labor, manipulations of markets,and the accumulation of huge fortunes by a few people. The Social Gospelwas a Protestant attempt to sacralize Godless cities and factories. The attemptto "save" the city was a restatement, perhaps even an affirmation inuniquely American terms, of the Old Testament Eden Myth. New ideas,new people, and new ways were slithering into the new-world garden. Thisnew manifestation of the serpent, some believed, should be cast out of thegarden in order to reclaim that sacred tradition. The emerging menace wascomplex and included modernists, who advocated new, critical approachesto art, literature, and history.

Modernism was an intellectual movement, imported from Europeanuniversities, and thus was of little interest to most Americans. But any reevaluationof sacred texts—the Bible, in this case—incensed many people.Evolution, another aspect of modernist thought, was fairly familiar to all,its implications easy to understand. Evolution's proponents said it appliedto everyone, whether one rejected or accepted it. Two aspects of evolutionrepelled conservative Christians for several reasons. First, evolution was animplicit assault on a literal reading of Genesis. Second, it substituted a materialisticexplanation of humanity's existence for a divine one. The objectionswere easy to understand, easy to communicate to others, and applied to themoment. Such immediacy and relevance to a large number of people meantevolution could be an issue with great political resonance.

The rapid growth of antievolutionism in the early twentieth century wasmore than a religious backlash to modern science. Since the early republic,evangelicals had seen themselves as having a mandate from God to transformsociety into a moral order. This idea ultimately collided with the socialdiscord of late-nineteenth-century America, including labor strikes and thefree-thought movement. Social order itself became an important part of amoral society. Universities were changing, less bound to religion and movingto empirical inquiry, particularly in the sciences. Eventually, this view ofthe morality of order, which was part of a religious mission, was confrontedwith the implicit disorder or seemingly random variation that was part ofDarwinism.

Organized antievolutionism arose from a larger stream of conservativetheology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A series oftwelve pamphlets, The Fundamentals, published from 1910–1915 and distributednationally, were defining documents for the movement. More thanthree million copies of each volume were distributed to pastors, professors,and theology students across the country. The Fundamentals launched thenamesake religious movement with essays that addressed a variety of Christiandoctrines, assailed modernist or "higher criticism" of the Bible, andpromoted evangelism. The series contributed to fundamentalism's growingantievolutionism by devoting about 20 percent of its space to the subject,which ranged from more conciliatory, "liberal" views to uncompromisingrejection of evolution. The lead essay of the seventh volume argued thatevolution had been made materialistic by later Darwinists, and that Darwinhimself did not exclude God's design as an explanation. The next generation,in other words, just went too far with the original idea. Essays in volume eight,however, rejected evolution, stated there was no universal law of development,and said transmutation of species was not possible. The Fundamentalsespoused biblical inerrancy, which was not necessarily literalism. Evolutiondid not accommodate a literal reading of the Bible, and it was at odds withthe fundamentalist vision of a planned and purposeful universe. At first, TheFundamentals did not provoke a lot of attention because they were not seenas particularly radical, though Christian fundamentalists later recognizedthem as the movement's beginning.

Over the next decade, antievolutionists organized themselves, found leaders,and worked their way into the cultural mainstream with savvy mediacampaigns, appealing to religious tradition and national values. In a 1918meeting in Philadelphia of what was later called the World Christian FundamentalistAssociation (WCFA), fundamentalists saw in World War I thethreat of modern industrialism realized, the culmination of amoral "survivalof the fittest." In this maelstrom of ideas and events, fundamentalists becamemore militant, and any earlier tolerance for evolution began to disappear.Established in Philadelphia in 1919 and organized by William Bell Riley, anauthor of The Fundamentals, the WCFA was the movement's first formalorganization. In spite of the name, the organization's efforts were national.

The WCFA was not the only ingredient of a national political movement.The Fundamentals were, in effect, a policy platform published for mass consumption,and William Jennings Bryan was the party leadership. The pamphletsreached the grassroots level of the campaign by going out not just tochurch leaders but also to members. The publisher began offering the pamphletsfor only 15 cents each, $1 for eight copies, and $10 for one hundred,encouraging their distribution in communities as well as churches. In thebeginning of the third volume, the editors wrote that they found encouragingthe receipt of more than 10,000 letters, from around the world, in supportof the series. At the same time, public education was growing, and manyschools used textbooks that were favorable toward evolution. This meantevolution confronted an unprecedented number of people, usually as a matterof children being taught the idea in schools. It was a dual shock for manyparents, whose children may have been the first generation to benefit from ahigher level of public education. This accompanied a growing fundamentalistpresence in politics, with thirty-seven states introducing antievolution legislation,which became law in Tennessee (1925), Mississippi (1926), Arkansas(1928), and Texas (1929). In 1922, the U.S. Senate went so far as to debate, buteventually reject, legislation to outlaw proevolution radio broadcasts.

Religious conservatives found in evolution a subject that would drive amass political movement, transforming the issue from a theological argumentto a moral war in which the very soul of democracy was at stake. Publicdebates pitted notables from each side in dramatic, well-attended publicityevents. The fundamentalists were good campaigners. For example, Bryanand other fundamentalist leaders knew the difference between Darwinismand social Darwinism, but did not differentiate. Such intellectual precisionwould have distracted from their message and been of little interest to anaudience that generally was uninterested in such professorial fine points. Soantievolutionists cast guilt upon the whole theory, and by extension uponmaterialism and modernism, for the decline of civilization. They also seizedupon debates among scientists about the nature of evolution, whether it reallywas Darwin's natural selection or another mechanism, and cited the lackof perfect agreement among scientists as proof of the uncertainty about thewhole idea of evolution. Any scientists expressing reservation about any aspectof evolutionary theory was further evidence. This belied some ignoranceabout the very nature of science, especially the role of doubt and the necessityof a method that would provide a way to disprove a theory—i.e., if an ideacannot be subjected to empirical testing, it is not science. The indictment forscientific disagreement also revealed some hypocrisy in that fundamentalistsignored the fact that disagreement existed among theologians.

When Bryan emerged as the national leader of antievolutionism, he gavethe movement its celebrity and its voice. He was widely known, and liked,and he knew how to lead a national movement—just as he knew how toconduct a national campaign. He had found an issue to put himself back innational politics, and antievolutionists had found a spokesman. His antievolutioncampaign took definitive shape in 1921, with a nationwide lecture tourthat included "The Menace of Darwinism," in which he argued that evolutionwas un-Christian and unscientific. His evidence included the complexityof the eye, which he said was proof of God's design. The popularity of thepamphlets, the growth of schools, and Bryan's injection of himself into thecontroversy made the issue appealing to the press because more people thanever were engaged in the topic, which Bryan simplified for easy consumption.

Reformers and Newsmakers

Bryan and Clarence Darrow are the historical personifications of the thesisand anti-thesis of the modern culture war, which explodes dramatically whenit comes to teaching evolution in public schools. As the lead actors in theScopes trial, Bryan and Darrow defined the subsequent place of antievolutionismfor fundamentalists. The Scopes trial was not just a reaction againstDarwin and evolution, but against science in general. Leading the chargeagainst teaching evolution in public schools was an opportunity for Bryanto combine his political experience, populist impulses, and pulpit principles.Though they became adversaries, both Bryan and Darrow were among thereform-minded Democrats of the late nineteenth century who looked forreal change and acted on their own versions of profoundly moral principlesto further the cause of humanity.

Like Bryan, Darrow identified with the common man, the underdog. LikeDarrow, Bryan often associated with fringe political causes, such as socialism.Darrow first met Bryan at the 1896 Democratic National Convention.In The Story of My Life, Darrow praised Bryan's political ability and oration,especially the "Cross of Gold" speech, a response to Republican nomineeWilliam McKinley's gold-standard platform. Bryan electrified the conventionwith his delivery, eloquence, and words, including his famous closing:"You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns.You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!" Bryan went on to benominated for president, with Darrow on down the ticket as a candidatefor Congress. Darrow later wrote that he was relieved to lose. Bryan againwon the nomination in 1900, and Darrow campaigned for him, motivatedby Bryan's advocacy for Philippine independence. Bryan lost again. In 1908,their parting of ways started when Darrow refused Bryan's request for help ina third run for presidency. Darrow explained it as simply a matter of Bryanignoring "dangerous problems." Bryan's alliance with a growing prohibitionmovement also irked Darrow.

Bryan and Darrow both were experienced benders of public opinion wellbefore the Scopes trial. Each was an accomplished politician and publicist.Darrow sought and nurtured publicity for himself and his causes from theearliest days of his legal career. He reveled in the headlines about his clients,which over the years included labor radicals, murderers, and socialists. Hisfriendship with journalists was more than mere convenience or the sort ofsymbiosis so common in the news business between reporter and source. Hehad the journalistic impulse of the muckrake era to right wrongs, challengeauthority, and defend the aggrieved. His relationship with two journalistsin particular, H. L. Mencken of the Baltimore Sun and muckraker extraordinaireLincoln Steffens, were philosophic kinships. Darrow and Menckenwere fellow pessimists about the future of learning and enlightenment, andthey held a mutual contempt for religion. At times, Darrow's writing evenassumed a Menckenesque tone, as in "The Pessimistic versus the OptimisticView of Life": "What is a pessimist, anyway? It is a man or a woman wholooks at life as life is. If you could, you might take your choice, perhaps, as tobeing a pessimist or a pipe dreamer. But you can't have it, because you lookat the world according to the way you are made."

Darrow and Steffens were fellow crusaders for labor and the commonman, at least once in the same court case. They were longtime friends by thetime of the trials of John and James McNamara for the bombing of the LosAngeles Times building in 1910. John McNamara was secretary-treasurer ofthe Structural Iron Workers Union, and James McNamara was a union sympathizerand activist. The bomb destroyed the building, killed twenty people,and wounded many others. Both Darrow and Steffens had doubts about thebrothers' innocence, but they saw a larger truth at issue. When Steffens visitedthe brothers in jail—a privilege Darrow had granted him—Steffens toldthem he came not so much for the trial itself but to expose abuses of labor.The sentiment paralleled Darrow's. Steffens had a hand in engineering aplea bargain for the brothers, helping them avoid the death penalty. Darrownegotiated plea bargains, which were unusual in labor cases.

A few years later, in July 1912, Steffens was the star witness for the defensein Darrow's bribery trial in which he was accused of bribing a juror in theMcNamaras' trial. Asked if he were an anarchist, Steffens retorted was thathe was "worse than an anarchist." He was a Christian: "It is more radical."In further testimony, Steffens's ideas about crime mirrored Darrow's: "I amtrying to make a distinction between the crime that is merely done by an individualand the crime that is committed by an individual for a group whichgrows out of social conditions, and I think that those two lines of crime mustbe handled differently." As for the McNamaras' trial, Steffens said Darrowpleaded the two brothers guilty because there was no other defense—not toavoid charges himself.

Darrow's relationship with journalists reflected not just a shared philosophybut an appreciation for exposé as a tool for reform. His success as anewsmaker was among a plethora of traits that are common to successfulpublic figures, but uncommon among scientists. He enjoyed the attention,shared values with his journalist friends, and was a talented communicatorwith a mass audience.