1,410
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20:
Line 20: + + + + + + + + + + +
→Creation/evolution controversy in the age of Darwin
Creationists during this period were largely [[Premillennialism|premillennialists]], whose belief in Christ's return depended on a quasi-literal reading of the Bible.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14}}</ref> However, they were not as concerned about geology, freely granting scientists any time they needed before the [[garden of eden|Edenic creation]] to account for scientific observations, such as fossils and geological findings.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14-15}}</ref> In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or [[cleric]]s rejected the antiquity of the earth, the progressive nature of the [[fossil|fossil record]].<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=17}}</ref> Likewise, few attached geological significance to the Bibilical flood, unlike subsequent creationists.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=17}}</ref> Evolutionary skeptics, creationist leaders and skeptical scientists were usually either willing to adopt a figurative reading of the first chapter of Genesis, or allowed that the six days of creation were not necessarily 24-hour days.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=18}}, Noting that this applies to published or public skeptics. Many or most christians may have held on to a literal six days of creation, but these views were rarely expressed in books and journals. Exceptions are also noted, such as literal interpretations published by Eleazar Lord (1788-1871) and David Nevins Lord (1792-1880). However, the observation that evolutionary critics had a relaxed interpretation of Genesis is supported by specifically enumerating: Louis Agassiz (1807-1873); Arnold Henry Guyot (1807-1884); John William Dawson (1820-1899); Enoch Fitch Burr (1818-1907); George D. Armstrong (1813-1899); Charles Hodge, theologian (1797-1878); James Dwight Dana (1813-1895); Edward Hitchcock, clergyman and respected Amherst College geologist, (1793-1864); Reverend Herbert W. Morris (1818-1897); H. L. Hastings (1833?-1899); Luther T. Townsend (1838-1922); Alexander Patterson, Presbyterian evangelist who published ''The Other Side of Evolution Its Effects and Fallacy''</ref>
Creationists during this period were largely [[Premillennialism|premillennialists]], whose belief in Christ's return depended on a quasi-literal reading of the Bible.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14}}</ref> However, they were not as concerned about geology, freely granting scientists any time they needed before the [[garden of eden|Edenic creation]] to account for scientific observations, such as fossils and geological findings.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14-15}}</ref> In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or [[cleric]]s rejected the antiquity of the earth, the progressive nature of the [[fossil|fossil record]].<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=17}}</ref> Likewise, few attached geological significance to the Bibilical flood, unlike subsequent creationists.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=17}}</ref> Evolutionary skeptics, creationist leaders and skeptical scientists were usually either willing to adopt a figurative reading of the first chapter of Genesis, or allowed that the six days of creation were not necessarily 24-hour days.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=18}}, Noting that this applies to published or public skeptics. Many or most christians may have held on to a literal six days of creation, but these views were rarely expressed in books and journals. Exceptions are also noted, such as literal interpretations published by Eleazar Lord (1788-1871) and David Nevins Lord (1792-1880). However, the observation that evolutionary critics had a relaxed interpretation of Genesis is supported by specifically enumerating: Louis Agassiz (1807-1873); Arnold Henry Guyot (1807-1884); John William Dawson (1820-1899); Enoch Fitch Burr (1818-1907); George D. Armstrong (1813-1899); Charles Hodge, theologian (1797-1878); James Dwight Dana (1813-1895); Edward Hitchcock, clergyman and respected Amherst College geologist, (1793-1864); Reverend Herbert W. Morris (1818-1897); H. L. Hastings (1833?-1899); Luther T. Townsend (1838-1922); Alexander Patterson, Presbyterian evangelist who published ''The Other Side of Evolution Its Effects and Fallacy''</ref>
=== Scopes trial ===
Initial reactions in the [[United States of America]] matched the developments in Britain, and when [[Alfred Russel Wallace|Wallace]] went there for a lecture tour in 1886–1887 his explanations of "[[Darwinism]]" were welcomed without any problems, but attitudes changed after the [[First World War]].<ref name=moore06>{{hnb|Moore|2006}}</ref> The controversy became political when [[public schools]] began teaching that man evolved from monkeys in accordance with [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s theory of [[Natural Selection]]. In response, the State of [[Tennessee]] passed a law (the [[Butler Act]] of 1925) prohibiting the teaching of any theory of the origins of humans that contradicted the teachings of the Bible. This law was tested in the highly publicized [[Scopes Trial]] of 1925. The law was upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court, and remained on the books until 1967 when it was repealed. However, the next year, 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in ''Epperson v. Arkansas'' 393 U.S. 97 (1968) that such bans contravened the Constitution's Establishment Clause.
=== Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) textbooks ===
By the mid-twentieth century, most neo-Darwinists either repudiated or dismissed earlier [[Lamarckism|Lamarckian]] and theistic theories of evolution.<ref name=Larson253>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=253}}</ref> Neo-darwinists including paleontologist [[George Simpson]] and Julian Huxley evangelized for Darwinism<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=250}}, describing the religious zeal of Simpson and Huxley.</ref> and urged that the public schools teach the "fact of evolution".<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=248,250}}</ref> Their desires were fulfilled in the 1960s, with the introduction of federally supported Biological Sciences Curriculum Study ([http://www.bscs.org/ BSCS]) biology text books that promoted evolution as an organizing principle.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=246,252}}</ref>
Meanwhile, public opinion polls suggested that most Americans either believed that God specially created human beings or guided evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=251}}</ref> Membership in churches favoring increasingly literal interpretations of Scripture continued to rise, with the Southern Baptist Convention and Luthern Church–Missouri Synod outpacing all other denominations.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=251}}</ref> With growth, these churches became better equipped to carry a creationist message, with their own colleges, schools, publishing houses, and broadcast media.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=252}}</ref>
With decreasing church membership among evolutionary scientists, the role of opposing the anti-BSCS textbook movement passed from prominent scientists in liberal churches to secular scientists less equipped to reach Christian audiences.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=252}}</ref> Anti-evolutionary forces were able to reduce the number of school districts utilizing BSCS biology text books, but courts continued to prevent religious instruction in public schools.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=252}}</ref>
==References==
==References==