People who take the Bible seriously are accustomed to disrespect. It comes from atheists on the one side and theologically sophisticated (i.e., liberal) co-religionists on the other. The barbs from people who would seem, at least on the face of it, to be on the same side in opposing Darwinism are, however, a little harder to take. Let me explain by getting a little historical.
In the late ’70s, young earth creationists (affectionately known as YECs) were pushing for “balanced treatment” in the science classroom. Laws mandating equal time for evolution and creation were eventually passed in several states. From the outset, this never struck me as a particularly good strategy. Legislation, if anything, should have encouraged critical thinking, which may or may not have involved a fifty-fifty time-sharing agreement. The courts were unimpressed as well but for entirely the wrong reasons. In the Arkansas case, Judge Overton settled on a definition of “science” that was designed explicitly to squelch critical thinking and promptly declared the statute unconstitutional (1982).
While ultimately unsuccessful, these legal maneuvers on the part of creationists capped a vigorous, consciousness-raising campaign that had been going on since the late 1950s. The key mover and shaker was Henry Morris—a card-carrying academic with legitimate science credentials. His book, The Genesis Flood (co-authored with John Whitcomb in 1961), became the unofficial manifesto of the new YEC movement. A booming generation of church-going college graduates found assurance in what Morris and a growing body of speakers and writers had to offer.
This vibrant movement did more than simply defend a straightforward reading of the Genesis narrative. Morris tapped into a grassroots resentment of the evolution establishment. Educated parents saw their kids being indoctrinated with a godless view of the world, but where could they turn for help? Leaders in the Catholic church and many “mainline” Protestant denominations had embraced Darwin and his theory. Evangelical leaders followed a similar trajectory, especially after World War II. The American Scientific Affiliation, which started out in 1941 as an organization of predominantly evangelical scientists, moved in rapid succession through various stages of compromise. Vigorous opposition to Darwinism in the early years of the ASA ended in 1959, with the adoption of theistic evolution as the only “respectable” position for Christian scientists.
There was no choice: help had to come from Morris and a small network of creation ministries. The situation began to change in the late 1980s. Books appeared from authors and publishers having no obvious ties to the existing YEC movement. These included The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen (1984); Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Denton (1986); and Of Pandas and People by Davis and Kenyon (1989).
By this time, YECs had been waving their anti-evolution banners for over thirty years. If you count the earlier and even lonelier figures of George McCready Price, Harry Rimmer, and Byron Nelson, that period can be extended to the 1930s. William Jennings Bryan offered forceful opposition in the 1920s, culminating in the Scopes “Monkey” trial of 1925. Even here, however, the major source of support had to come from conservative churchgoers. On any other issue, Bryan could have counted on likeminded reformers who shared his horror of social Darwinism. However, the anti-evolution law at the heart of the Scopes controversy was the brainchild of Tennessee’s burgeoning Fundamentalist churches. In the eyes of the northeastern elites, these Bible-toting conservatives were almost as bad as the Darwinists. And so their champion, “The Great Commoner,” was hung out to dry.
Like Bryan, the YEC leaders of a bygone era have become persona non grata to many members of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. The father of that movement, Phillip E. Johnson (Darwin on Trial, 1991), wanted to focus all of our attention on the materialistic agenda of the evolutionary establishment. At a YEC conference in 1994, Johnson asked his audience to put their concerns about the age of the earth on hold. Debates over the interpretation of Genesis were divisive, he thought, and distracted us from the really important issues. Johnson envisioned a “big tent” approach: anyone who opposed Darwinian evolution would be welcome to take up the ID cause, regardless of his religious views or where he stood on the age of the earth. He never wavered from that conviction. The same cannot be said for others in the ID community. After years of wandering in the anti-evolution wilderness, YECs have found the ID tent neither big nor welcoming.
We can see this dismissive approach in Michael Behe’s otherwise fabulous update of the design argument (Darwin’s Black Box, 1996). Under a section ironically titled “History Lesson,” Behe reduces decades of anti-evolution activity into a simple religious claim about the age of the earth (p. 236). It is almost as if no one had anything to say about natural selection, the fossil record, and evidence for design until ID burst on the scene. The earth was too young for evolution and that, on Behe’s account, is about all the creationists had to say on the matter.
Along these same lines, Jay Richards has denied that there was any effective opposition to evolution in public schools before 1996.[i] This revisionist view of history slights the longstanding efforts of parents, churches, and creation ministries to counter the evolutionary indoctrination of children within the science classroom and elsewhere. Testimony to their success can be seen in the widespread skepticism of human evolution, which has remained remarkably constant from the pre-ID period to the present. The Gallup organization has been keeping up with these statistics since 1982.[ii] In that year, 44% of Americans credited God with the creation of human beings. Only 9% gave the nod to an entirely God-free evolutionary process. In 2008, after a dozen years of intense ID activity, the proportion of “creationists” remains at 44%. In the meantime, belief in human evolution has risen to 14%. Most of that increase has come at the expense of the formerly undecided.
It is difficult to isolate the effect of the ID movement on these beliefs. The movement brought fresh perspectives and a renewed focus on the philosophical commitments of Darwinian science. A growing catalog of books, which deftly avoided any reference to God or the Bible, could be shared with skeptical friends and neighbors. However, in trying to distance themselves from an earlier generation of opponents to evolution, ID writers risked alienating a large and potentially supportive base.
The ID movement itself has reached something of a plateau. ID proponents, ID books, and ID curricula have been identified as a clear and present danger to the evolutionary establishment. IDers are being marginalized, not because they believe in a literal six-day creation, but because they reject materialism. The movement has also suffered legal setbacks, as in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005). This time, instead of legislation, the Dover school board in Pennsylvania required teachers to read out a statement on intelligent design. IDers may have wished for a different approach, but the trial and its outcome bore an uneasy resemblance to the Arkansas case. All of this makes their treatment of an earlier generation of Darwin dissenters somewhat puzzling. It makes no sense to adopt a patronizing attitude toward YECs when elites at an even higher level—the gatekeepers in law, media, and academia—treat IDers with precisely the same disdain.
Fortunately, there are ID advocates who still believe in Johnson’s “big tent.” Chief among them is William Dembski (The Design Inference, 1998). After the death of Henry Morris in 2006, Dembski reiterated his long-standing regard for the old warhorse: “Henry Morris was a great man, and all critics of Darwinian evolution are in his debt for maintaining pressure on this pseudoscience when so much of the Western world capitulated to it.”[iii]
As the debate moves on, even past the ID movement in its current form, it is clear that freedom of speech and religion are gaining even more significance on the political and rhetorical front (as shown so eloquently in the movie Expelled). Scientists, lawyers, philosophers, and others, whether associated with the ID movement or not, will play an increasingly vital role in defending the basic right of free speech within high school classrooms and on college campuses.
There is still a need, however, to make the case for design from the bottom up—at the level of individuals, families, and churches. ID is a valuable tool, but the burden of resisting materialism in our homes and pews continues to be carried on the backs of Bible-believing parents, teachers, and ministries, like Focus
[i] Jay W. Richards, “Reality and Reluctance in Science,” Touchstone, July/August, 2004, 17[6]:50.
[ii] Gallup, “Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx
[iii] William Dembski, “Henry Morris’s Death,” Uncommon Descent, February 26, 2006. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/henry-morriss-death/
