charles_darwin

80
CHARLES DARWIN AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES
The conviction of Scopes after eight days of high drama—
including the lead defense lawyer, Clarence Darrow (1857–1938),
making William Jennings Bryan take the stand—only stimulated the
fundamentalist attack on evolution. The most significant consequence
of the trial was the lobbying for the suppression of references
to evolution in textbooks, particularly in southern states. As scientists
moved toward a consensus about evolution ‘‘American schools
taught less evolution in 1960 than they had in 1920.’’ 4
Fundamentalists had also been ridiculed in the media during
the Scopes Trial. Labeled as backward and ignorant, fundamentalists
sought more appealing ways to oppose evolution. The most common
of these was to use scientific information to support the biblical
account of creation. Men such as George McCready Price (1870–
1963) and Dudley Joseph Whitney (1883–1964) argued that there
was scientific evidence to prove that a worldwide and catastrophic
flood had caused the fossil deposits geologists discovered and that
the height of the layers of rock formations proved that the Earth was
not very old, probably no more than 10,000 years.
Wanting to stand for something, the new group of opponents of
evolution called themselves creationists rather than antievolutionists.
Not all of them were fundamentalists: neither was their opposition
to evolution the same. Some argued that the Earth was about 6,000
years old, a ‘‘Young Earth.’’ Others argued that the days of creation
in Genesis were actually ages—how long was another point of
dispute—and that the Earth was ‘‘Old.’’ Some believed science and
modern ideas were dangerous and morally debilitating; others
thought science could be used for the good of humankind, provided
the scientists had a Christian frame of reference.
Scientific Creationism and Creation Science, while remaining a
significant fact of American life and culture, declined in national
prominence in the 1960s. As scientists found more evidence to substantiate
the theory of evolution, it became harder to win popular
support for antievolutionary ideas. In 1982, the District Court decision
in McLean v. Arkansas, which ruled out that state’s desire to
have equal treatment for the teaching of Creation Science and ‘‘Evolution
Science,’’ was critical. The presiding judge William R. Overton
deemed Creation Science a religious doctrine: public school teachers
could not teach it as an alternative to evolution.
Another attempt to link scientific evidence with a critique of
evolution, the Intelligent Design Movement, faced the same hurdle
as Scientific Creationism. Using an approach similar to William
Paley, proponents of Intelligent Design argued that the complexity of
organic life meant that it had to be the product of a designer. The