Trial & Error: The American Controversy over Creation & Evolution

by Edward J. Larson

Trial and Error traces the coverage or lack thereof, of evolution in textbooks used in American public schools from the mid-1800s to the present. While the teaching of Darwinian evolution was common and not controversial in the late 19th century and into the early 20th century, the debates between evolutionists and creationists, those who argue that the Biblical theory of origins deserves equal treatment, have flared throughout the twentieth century--first in the 1920s, most famously in the Scopes trial; again in the 1960s, when the regional legislation banning the teaching of evolution was overturned, notably in Arkansas and Louisiana; and throughout the 1980s with various controversies over science textbooks, including California. Larson proposes to bring the subject up to the present through a discussion of recent trends, including the "intelligent design" movement, led by Phillip Johnson, a revised form of anti-evolutionism that gained popularity on college campuses; the
impact of Michael Behe's versions of evolution; and debates over what counts as evidence for and against evolution--all of which have influenced debates over science standards, particularly at state and local levels. This new chapter will chronicle anti-evolution actions in Kansas and elsewhere and counter-actions by the National Academy of Science and other anti-creationist groups. This updated classic work presents a balanced historical interpretation of legal and educational debates over evolutionism, and will appeal to those interested in the fields of history, religion, science, and law.

Genres: Science, Evolution, Religion, Law, History, Nonfiction

288 pages, Hardcover

First published September 9, 1985

About the author

Edward J. Larson is the author of many acclaimed works in American history, including the Pulitzer Prize–winning history of the Scopes Trial, Summer for the Gods. He is University Professor of History and Hugh and Hazel Darling Chair in Law at Pepperdine University, and lives with his family near Los Angeles.

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE EVOLUTION/CREATION CONTROVERSY THROUGH 1987

Historian and legal scholar Edward Larson (who wrote the Pulitzer Prize-winning book about the Scopes trial, ‘Summer for the Gods’) wrote in the Preface to the 1989 paperback edition of this 1985 book, “The paperback edition continues the saga of the American legal controversy over creation and evolution through the 1987 Supreme Court ruling against the Louisiana statue mandating balanced treatment for ‘creation science’ and ‘evolutionary science’ in public school instruction… the previous edition ended with the trial-court ruling against that law. Although the controversy will continue in some form, the Supreme Court ruling offers a convenient breaking point for this narrative because it necessarily concludes one phase of the creationist legal effort.”

He wrote in the Preface to the first edition, “What legal rights and restrictions have applied to the teaching of evolution and creation in American public schools since the advent of Darwinism? What do the granting of those rights and the imposing of those restrictions indicate about the place of science and religion in modern American society? How has the legal system coped with conflicting demands for such rights and restrictions? To address these questions, I have chronicled the American legal controversy over creation and evolution.”

He recounts in the Introduction, “The legal controversy heated up three decades later, when widespread demands for better science instruction led to the creation of the federally funded Biological Science Curriculum Study, which gave a prominent place to evolution in its popular tenth-grade textbooks… When these widely used evolutionary textbooks came into contact with the surviving laws against evolutionary teaching in the mid-sixties, the United States Supreme Court in Epperson v. Arkansas used newly expanded constitutional restrictions against the establishment of religion to void the old statutes. This ruling made much of the modern acceptance of evolution. Public support for evolutionary teaching proved a half-hearted patron, however… publication of the new evolutionary texts touched off widespread demands for both giving equal time to creationist instruction and presenting evolution as an unproven theory. These new demands … reflected the popular uncertainty about evolution.” (Pg. 4)

He continues, “Because … demands of equal time for the BIBLICAL account of creation ran up against the same constitutional barriers… creationists increasingly concentrated on securing equal time for ‘scientific’ evidence that purportedly supported their beliefs. The Arkansas and Louisiana legislatures complied in 1981 by mandating balanced treatment for ‘creation science’ and ‘evolutionary science’ in public schools, bringing the ACLU… to challenge both laws in court. The first statute fell a year later… and the second in 1985… Nonetheless, the creation-evolution legal controversy has remained at or near the boiling point… This study analyzes the legal controversy both as a central manifestation of the popular response to evolutionary thought in America and as an episode in the use of law to redress the relationship of science and society.” (Pg. 4)

Of the 1920-1925 era, he comments, “Just as abolitionism once served as an inspiration for the prohibition movement, so too the prohibition movement served as an inspiration for the anti-evolution crusade---but with each reflection, the image grew dimmer. Other pale reflections of the prohibition struggle appeared in Progressive Era efforts by evangelicals to enact blue laws and legally restrict such morally offensive conduct as gambling, dancing, smoking, and the showing of lewd movies… A further progressive element hallmarking the anti-evolution crusade appeared in the crusaders’ concern for adolescent development.” (Pg. 36)

Of 1925-1960, he notes, “In a society increasingly deferential to scientific opinion, some conservative evangelicals acted to keep creationism alive by seeking scientific evidence in the Genesis account. These evangelicals, who typically possessed some training in engineering and science, laid the foundation for modern scientific creationism during the lull in public anti-evolution activity… Henry M. Morris… emerged from this period of institution-building as the leading voice for scientific creationism when he jointly authored, with John C. Whitcomb, ‘The Genesis Flood’ in 1961. By presenting scientific evidence for a literal interpretation of the biblical creation account, this book bolstered creationists just as the BSCS textbooks resurrected the issue of evolutionary teaching.” (Pg. 92)

Of 1961-1970, he explains, “a Houston mother filed suit on behalf of her school-age daughter, Rita Wright, to enjoin her local public school [from] teaching evolution at all. Wright alleged that evolutionary teaching inhibited the free exercise of her creationist religion while establishing a ‘religion of secularism.’ These charges… represented a new tactic for creationists… [It] marked the first time creationists instituted a judicial action. Following a decade of legal triumph for evolutionary teaching, creationists began probing the perimeter.” (Pg. 124)

He recounts, “a top Yale Law School student and avowed creationist named Wendell Bird… was motivated by personal experience. Because of evolutionary teaching… ‘he came to believe in “theistic evolution,” because he did not realize that the Bible taught anything different or that any scientist held any other viewpoint.’ Once set straight, he longed to protect other students from a similar fate…” (Pg. 147) He continues, “Bird read [the court decisions] as prohibiting only the teaching of religious creationism… This, then, was the cornerstone of Bird’s argument---scientific creationism was science, not religion, and teaching it did not violate the constitutional restrictions against religious instruction, while not teaching it violated the free-exercise rights of creationist students… After finishing law school, Bird joined … the Institute for Creation Research, serving as legal adviser.” (Pg. 148-149)

After 1981, “The issue now passed to the courts, when the national ACLU stepped forward to challenge the new creationism laws … But the forum changed. No longer would an obscure county court, presided over by an elected judge applying state law, be the site of such a confrontation. In the thirty-odd years since the U.S. Supreme Court had assumed final authority for state-level disputes involving religious freedom, a comprehensive body of federal constitutional law had developed to deal with the subject. This change was widely accepted.” (Pg. 158)

He reports, “In a decision issued on January 5, 1982, Judge Overton [issued]… a resounding repudiation of the Arkansas statute…. Overton now found that the new equal-time statute had an unconstitutional religious purpose. In reaching this conclusion, Overton relied heavily on the proclaimed religious motivations of the creation-science movement and of the individuals involved in drafting, sponsoring, and promoting the legislation… a new requirement for equal time would have an effect… [that] would be purely religious.” (Pg. 163)

He concludes, “The deep split in opinion about evolutionary teaching persisted into the eighties, and a legal resolution appeared as elusive then as ever. For his part, Henry Morris attributed the creationists’ judicial setbacks not so much to ‘constitutional and scientific’ factors as to the evolutionary bias of national cultural leaders that must be overcome by education ‘if creationism is to prevail in the mind of the judge.’…. [This] simply underscored the dilemma: a lasting legal victory on the issue of evolutionary teaching awaited a verdict of popular opinion on evolution while that verdict was itself at least partially dependent on the content of public instruction… In the long run… the law reflects prevailing popular opinion. Otherwise, the law will be changed or ignored.” (Pg. 188)

This book will be of great interest to those studying the creation/evolution controversy.