Darwin and America

1
Darwin and Americas Soul

• United Statesians Responses to Darwin and
  Darwinism, 1860-2009

2
Responses to Darwin in the U. S.

• Muted at first due to late unpleasantness
• Acceptancetheistic and naturalistic
• Rejectiontheistic and naturalistic (Louis
  Agassiz, 1807-1873) continued to affirm
  polygenesis)

Agassiz
3
Theistic Acceptance in the U. S.

• Francis Ellingwood Abbot (1836-1903)
  Scientific Theisismevolution is Gods method
  for creation.
• Asa Gray (1810-1888) Darwiniana (1876)
  evolution is the naturalistic understanding of
  Gods working out of divine purpose.
• John Augustus Zahn (1851-1921) Evolution and
  Dogma (1896) Evolution is Gods mechanism for
  creation.
• Kenneth Raymond Miller (1948- ) Finding
  Darwins God (2000) - Evolution does not
  contradict religious faith.

4
Professor Kenneth Miller
Father John Augustus Zahn
5
Scientist may accept Darwin, but real Americans
seem ambivalent.

• February 2009 BBC/Harris poll in the U. S.
• 45 say humans were created directly by God only
  29 say humans evolved from other earlier
  species.
• 53 say that humans, plants, and animals evolved.
• 79, however, say plants and animals evolved.
• 40 favor teaching Darwinism and Creationism, but
  only 17 say teach Creationism only.

6
Unambivalent Americans 4 Waves of Rejection

• Victorian (1870s)
• Fundamentalist (1910-1920s)
• Reactionists (1960s-1980s)
• Contemporary Conservative Culture Warriors
  (1990s-)

7
For many Americans . . . The theory of
evolution was more symptomatic of a deep unease
within our society over the nature of modern
science. For them, evolution is far more than a
mistaken scientific theory. It is the cutting
edge of a dangerous and destructive materialism
that threatens the heart and soul of our
civilization and culture, and it must be stopped
at all costs. K. Miller, Only a Theory, x.
Darwins theory of evolution contradicts not just
the Book of Genesis, but every world in the Bible
from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea
that we are here because a creator brought out
our existence for a purpose. . . . When I am
preaching from the Bible . . . I dont start with
Genesis. I start with John 112. In the
beginning was the word. In the beginning was
intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had
that right and the materialist scientists are
deluding themselves. --Phillip E. Johnson (1999)
8
Non novum sub solum est!!!
What is the question now placed before society?
The question is this Is man an ape or an angel?
I . . . Am on the side of the angels.

---Benjamin Disraeli (1864)
9
Ethos of Rejection

• Victorianindustrialization, urbanization, higher
  criticism of the scriptures.
• Fundamentalistinternational crisis, Bolshevism,
  new morality and Freud, Einstein, plus
  continuation of the factors above.
• ReactionistsCivil Rights movement, Cold War,
  Vietnam War, Sexual Revolution, Feminism, Roe v.
  Wade.
• Conservative Culture Warriorsanti-Government,
  anti-Gay, anti-Globalization, anti-Muslim.

10
Mythos of Rejection--Victorian

• Charles Hodge (1797-1879) What is Darwinism
  (1874) What is Darwinism ? It is Atheism. p.
  183.
• The conclusion of the whole matter is, that the
  denial of design in nature is virtually the
  denial of God. Mr. Darwin's theory does deny all
  design in nature, therefore, his theory is
  virtually atheistical his theory, not he
  himself. He believes in a Creator. But when that
  Creator, millions on millions of ages ago, did
  something, called matter and a. living germ
  into existence, --- and then abandoned the
  universe to itself to be controlled by chance and
  necessity, without any purpose on his part as to
  the result, or any intervention or guidance, then
  He is virtually consigned, so far as we are
  concerned, to non-existence. (177-78)

11
Fundamentalist1910s-1920s

• The Fundamentals (1910-1915)
• Tennessee v. Scopes (July 1925)
• H. L. Mencken views in the Baltimore Sun
• An important technicalityScopes v. Tennessee
  (1927)

12
Darrow has lost this case. It was lost long
before he came to Dayton. But it seems to me that
he has nevertheless performed a great public
service by fighting it to a finish and in a
perfectly serious way. Let no one mistake it for
comedy, farcical though it may be in all its
details. It serves notice on the country that
Neanderthal man is organizing in these forlorn
backwaters of the land, led by a fanatic, rid of
sense and devoid of conscience. Tennessee,
challenging him too timorously and too late, now
sees its courts converted into camp meetings and
its Bill of Rights made a mock of by its sworn
officers of the law. There are other States that
had better look to their arsenals before the Hun
is at their gates.--H. L. Mencken, July 19, 1925
13
We are not able to see how the prohibition of
teaching the theory that man has descended from a
lower order of animals gives preference to any
religious establishment or mode of worship. So
far as we know, there is no religious
establishment or organized body that has in its
creed or confession of faith any article denying
or affirming such a theory. Scopes v. State 289
S.W. 363, 367 (Tenn. 1927)
14
On the Books

• 1923Oklahoma and Florida
• 1925Tennessee
• 1926Mississippi
• 1928--Arkansas

15
Reactionists (1960s-1970s)

• Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
• Its only a theory1973 (Tennessee) 1976
  (Kentucky) 1981 (Arkansas) 1981 (Louisiana)
• Mel (1915-2004) and Norma (1923-2007) Gabler
• Creation Science and Equal Time
• Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

16
We do not imply that a legislature could never
require that scientific critiques of prevailing
scientific theories be taught. . . . Teaching a
variety of scientific theories about the origins
of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly
done with the clear secular intent of enhancing
the effectiveness of science instruction.
William J. Brennan in Edwards
17
(No Transcript)
18
Contemporary Conservative Culture Warriors

• A page from postmodernism
• Intelligent Design
• Discovery Institute
• Wedge StrategyPhillip E. Johnson teach the
  controversy
• State Science Standards
• Warning Stickers
• Of Pandas and People
• Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005)

19
(No Transcript)
20
Intelligent Design is theology, not science!
We don't need science to tell us that the
universe and life are designed, any more than
that we need science to tell us that they had a
beginning.... Through his personal revelation...
God has told us that he designed life. Michael
Behe
The conceptual soundness of a scientific theory
cannot be maintained apart from Christ. William
Dembski
I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what
drives me in this is that I think God's glory is
being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to
biological evolution, creation, the origin of the
world, the origin of biological complexity and
diversity. When you are attributing the wonders
of nature to these mindless material mechanisms,
God's glory is getting robbed. ... And so there
is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see
God get the credit for what hes done and he's
not getting it William Dembski
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
Nature of Science Science is a human activity of
systematically seeking natural explanations for
what we observe in the world around us.
Throughout history people from many cultures have
used the methods of science to contribute to
scientific knowledge and technological
innovations, making science a worldwide
enterprise. Scientists test explanations against
the natural world, logically integrating
observations and tested hypotheses with accepted
explanations to gradually build more reliable and
accurate understandings of nature. Scientific
explanations must be testable and repeatable, and
findings must be confirmed through additional
observation and experimentation. As it is
practiced in the late 20th and early 21st
century, science is restricted to explaining only
the natural world, using only natural cause. This
is because science currently has no tools to test
explanations using non-natural (such as
supernatural) causes. (Kansas k-12 Science
Standard)