Here’s an interesting but admittedly entertaining video that should set the following context into discussion (note the association of evolution with atheism, and the persecution complex that follows):



If you’ll recall my last post, I discussed how the infamous Scopes Trial informed creationists’ views on the issue: refusal to reconcile science with contradictory beliefs and appeals concerning unrelated areas such as morality. Here I’d like to talk about another very important aspect of the creationist point of view—the persecution complex. A persecution complex is common among creationists, especially those who are proponents of intelligent design.

In addition to sincere belief in the veracity of their claims (whether or not they recognize them as scientific), creationists have a tendency to appeal to fairness and other such non-scientific arguments. ‘After all’, they say, ‘shouldn’t both sides of the debate be taught’? This has been brought up in a few comments, and my response has been that creationism can’t be elevated to the same scientific status as evolution. This is a belief shared by many proponents of evolution, and it is beliefs such as these that get reactions from creationists claiming persecution.

I can think of no better example of such a persecution complex than Ben Stein’s Expelled, a relatively recent documentary that advocates intelligent design while smearing evolution. A good portion of the movie deals with the “atheistic scientific establishment” and its supposed war against intelligent design. Take a quick look at the movie’s site, and you’ll see how it appeals to emotion and sets up an attitude of persecution. The movie tries to set up intelligent design as a legitimate scientific theory, and reasons that “Big Science” is just avoiding progressive debate concerning alternative scientific theories of origin. An enticing view, but it’s important to keep in mind what science is— falsifiability and the like. I recommend watching the movie if at all possible, and then checking out Expelled: Exposed, an excellent site that debunks Expelled’s various attacks on evolutionary theory.

This persecution complex that informs many creationists beliefs on what should be taught in schools. The empty rhetoric that results from ideas such as “Teach the Controversy” and the idea of fairness for non-scientific doctrines such as creationism is dangerous to the public mindset. It’s misleading and I’d go as far to say even treacherous. A strong statement, I know, but such appeals only serve to mislead Americans about the value of legitimate science in education. The sort of dishonesty that informs the creationism, especially the intelligent design movement, is staggering at times. It’s true that scientists and the scientific establishment do not want intelligent design taught as a viable alternative theory, yes. But it’s not because they’re afraid of the consequences of losing or because they desperately want to cling to some sort of “atheistic worldview”, but because intelligent design (and by proxy, creationism) is not a legitimate form of science at all. To debate that using non-scientific arguments is simply dishonest.

What we can learn from Scopes

The 1925 Scopes Trial, commonly known as the Scopes Monkey Trial, was a ubiquitous event in the history of the creation/evolution issue—it had a huge amount of coverage, and subsequently influenced major changes in the American public’s perception of the controversy. I think that an examination of the trial and its consequences is necessary in order to properly put into context current attitudes about this topic.

A quick summary of the case: It was set up by the American Civil Liberties Union in order to challenge the Tennessee’s then-new Butler Act, which forbade the teaching of any theory that denied the Genesis account of creation or that stated that man had evolved from lower species. John Scopes, the eponymous defendant, was a high school biology teacher who volunteered for the position at the urging of town locals. The prosecution was headed by William Jennings Bryan, a three-time presidential candidate noted for his oratory and a devout Presbyterian; the defense was headed by Clarence Darrow, a famous lawyer and self-identified agnostic.

The focus on the trial was hardly on Scopes’ alleged crime; instead, the focus was largely on the validity of evolution and creationism, and the interaction between science and religion. Darrow’s tactics changed from challenging the law based on the freedom it gave teachers to attacking the foundation of the law—that is, a literal interpretation of the Bible. Darrow’s strategy culminated in a cross-examination of Bryan’s personal beliefs; he attacked his views on creation, Adam and Eve, and other Bible-related topics.

Scopes was ultimately found guilty of teaching evolution and fined. But to the eyes of the public, that was hardly relevant. The massive publicity the trial received propagated new attitudes toward the debate; I think that we’re all familiar with the assumed dichotomy between science and religion that’s so often presented. Darrow and Bryan’s deeply contrasting views on religion and science shaped the public’s belief in such a dichotomy, a belief that persists even today.

I think that the most important thing we can glean from knowledge of this trial is the way that creationists tend to view this debate; Bryan considered the Bible to be inerrant and refused to reconcile a conflicting scientific fact with his beliefs, something that all creationists are guilty of. Bryan also made frequent appeals based on irrelevant statements, claiming that evolution is a bad theory because of the way it degrades humans. When you contrast Bryan’s behavior with Darrow’s explicit attacks on religion and biblical inerrancy, you can see how many can view science and religion as irreconcilable points of view.