Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-5xszh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T09:29:29.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Darwinism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2017

Ronald L. Numbers*
Affiliation:
Department of the History of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1300 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706-1532
Get access

Extract

The publication in 1859 of Charles Darwin's epoch-making book On the Origin of Species touched off a national debate that continues to divide American society. Scarcely a week passes without some evolution-related story appearing in the news: religious leaders declaring the scientific legitimacy of biological evolution, politicians expressing their belief in divine creation, local school boards wrangling over the teaching of origins, professors being ordered to refrain from questioning evolution in the classroom, state legislatures debating whether to fire teachers who present evolution as a fact, biology textbooks carrying disclaimers denying the factual basis of evolution, scientists claiming that they have discovered evidence of Intelligent Design in the natural world, and public-opinion polls showing that nearly half of all Americans believe in the recent special creation of the first humans.

Type
Creationism and Flood Geology
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

This essay was originally published in Numbers, Ronald L., Darwinism Comes to America (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), pp. 1–21, and appears here courtesy of Harvard University Press. I am especially grateful to Stephen C. Meyer for sharing sources about the intelligent-design movement and to Fisher, Michael G., Haas, Jack W. Jr., and Nelson, Paul A. for their critical reading of an earlier draft of this introductory essay. I am also indebted to the following persons for sharing information and documents related to the events discussed: Berlinski, David, Boyer, Paul, Cumming, Doug, Ellis, Jack D., Frederick, Mona, Hackler, Carolyn, Dennis Hamm, S.J., Lee, David, Rosenberg, Charles E., Scott, Carol, Scott, Eugenie C., Stiling, Rodney L., and Sullivan, Sean.Google Scholar

1 See, e.g, the essay “Darwinism and Dogma of Separate Creations: The Responses of American Naturalists to Evolution,” in Numbers, Darwinism Comes to America, pp. 24–48.Google Scholar

2 See Roberts, Jon H., Darwinism and the Divine in America: Protestant Intellectuals and Organic Evolution, 1859–1900 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988); and Numbers, Ronald L., The Creationists (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992).Google Scholar

3 Appleby, R. Scott, “Exposing Darwin's ‘Hidden Agenda’: Roman Catholic Responses to Evolution, 1875–1925,” in Disseminating Darwinism: The Role of Place, Race, Religion, and Gender, ed. Numbers, Ronald L. and Stenhouse, John (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 173–208; Swetlitz, Marc, “American Jewish Responses to Darwin and Evolutionary Theory, 1860–1890,” ibid., pp. 209–46.Google Scholar

4 Documentation for this and the following paragraph can be found in Numbers, The Creationists.Google Scholar

5 Mitman, Gregg A. and Numbers, Ronald L., “Evolutionary Theory,” in Encyclopedia of the United States in the Twentieth Century, ed. Kutler, Stanley I., 4 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1996), 2:859–76; Provine, William B., “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” in Julian Huxley: Biologist and Statesman of Science, ed. Kenneth, Waters C. and Van Helden, Albert (Houston: Rice University Press, 1992), pp. 165–80, quotation on p. 179.Google Scholar

6 Documentation for this and the next seven paragraphs can be found in Numbers, The Creationists.Google Scholar

7 The best source on this subject is Larson, Edward J., Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution, updated ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

8 Sonleitner, Frank J., “Creationists Embarrassed in Oklahoma,” Creation/Evolution (Spring, 1981): 22–27.Google Scholar

9 Scott, Eugenie C., “In the Trenches,” NCSE Reports 13 (Summer, 1993): 6; Scott, Eugenie C., “Creationist Cases Blooming,” ibid. 12 (Summer, 1992): 1, 3, 5. NCSE stands for National Center for Science Education.Google Scholar

10 Scott, Eugenie C., “Big Bang Glue-on in Kentucky,” NCSE Reports 16 (Summer, 1996): 1, 9; Schmidt, Karen, “The Battle of the Books,” Science 273 (1996): 421.Google Scholar

11 “Alabama School Board Votes to Put Evolution Message in Biology Texts,” Associated Press news release, November 10, 1995. See also Scott, Eugenie C., “State of Alabama Distorts Science, Evolution,” NCSE Reports 15 (Winter, 1995): 10–11.Google Scholar

12 Nelson, Jill, “Creationism: The Debate Is Still Evolving,” USA Weekend, April 18–20, 1997, p. 12; Matsumura, Molleen, “Textbook Evolution Disclaimer in Fairfax County, VA,” NCSE Reports 16 (Fall, 1996): 16; Matsumura, Molleen, “Georgia: Creationism Pushed at State and Local Levels,” ibid. 15 (Winter, 1995): 8–9; Matsumura, Molleen and Petto, Andrew J., “New Anti-Evolution Strategy Rejected by New Hampshire Legislature,” ibid. 16 (Spring, 1996): 20; Matsumura, Molleen, “New Mexico: State Legislature Joins the Fray,” Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17 (January/February, 1997): 4; “Update,” ibid., pp. 5–6; Matsumura, Molleen, “Tennessee Upset: ‘Monkey Bill’ Law Defeated,” NCSE Reports 15 (Winter, 1995): 6–7; Cheek, Duren, “Bill May Evolve into Law,” Nashville Tennessean, February 27, 1996, pp. 1A-2A, quotation on p. 1A (rocket); Scott, Eugenie C., “Close Ohio Vote Scuttles ‘Evidence Against Evolution’ Bill,” NCSE Reports 16 (Spring, 1996): 18 (vampire).Google Scholar

13 Numbers, The Creationists, p. 300 (Reagan); “Pat Buchanan Takes on Darwin,” NCSE Reports 15 (Winter, 1995): 3–4 (apes); Lemonick, Michael D., “Dumping on Darwin,” Time, March 18, 1996, p. 81 (Godless evolution); Molleen, Matsumura, “Evolution in an Election Year,” NCSE Reports 14 (Fall, 1994): 3, 10.Google Scholar

14 Scott, Eugenie C., “Gallup Reports High Level of Belief in Creationism,” NCSE Reports 13 (Fall, 1993): 9; Cole, John, “Gallup Poll Again Shows Confusion,” ibid. 16 (Spring, 1966): 9; “God Is Alive,” Maclean's, April 12, 1993, p. 53.Google Scholar

15 “Creationism in NZ ‘Unlikely,”’ New Zealand Herald, July 3, 1986, p. 14 (quoting Gould); Lewontin, Richard C., Introduction to Scientists Confront Creationism, ed. Godfrey, Laurie R. (New York: Norton W. W., 1983), p. xxv; Numbers, The Creationists, pp. 323–35. See also Numbers, Ronald L. and Stenhouse, John, “Antievolutionism in the Antipodes: From Protesting Evolution to Promoting Creationism in New Zealand,” British Journal for the History of Science, in press; and Numbers, Ronald L., “Creationists and Their Critics in Australia: An Autonomous Culture or ‘the USA with Kangaroos’?” unpublished paper presented in a session on “The Cultures of Creationism” at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco, November 24, 1996.Google Scholar

16 Edis, Taner, “Islamic Creationism in Turkey,” Creation/Evolution 14 (summer, 1994): 3–12Google Scholar

17 Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton W. W., 1986), pp. 5–6, 316; Dawkins, Richard, Review of Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution, by Edey, Maitland A. and Johanson, Donald C., New York Times, April 9, 1989, Section 7, p. 34 (ignorant); Downey, Roger, “Darwin's Watchdog,” Eastsideweek, December 11, 1996. In this free newspaper distributed in the Seattle area, Downey describes Dawkins as “a point man for evolution.” See also Dawkins, Richard, Climbing Mount Improbable (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996).Google Scholar

18 Dennett, Daniel C., Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995), pp. 515–16, 519–21. See also Dennett, Daniel C., “Appraising Grace: What Evolutionary Good is God?” The Sciences 37 (January/February, 1997): 39–44.Google Scholar

19 Gould, Stephen Jay, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” Natural History 106 (March, 1997): 16–22, 60–62; Gould, Stephen Jay, “Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge,” Scientific American (July, 1992): 118–20; Numbers, The Creationists, p. 281 (regarding Wise).Google Scholar

20 Numbers, The Creationists, pp. 178–79.Google Scholar

21 Van Till, Howard J., The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us about the Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 223, 252–53; Ratzsch, Del, The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p. 180 (theistic evolution confused); Belz, Joel, “Witness for the Prosecution,” World, November 30-December 7, 1996, p. 18 (backwater positions). Like semantically sensitive evangelicals who used to say that they were promoting “progressive creation” rather than “theistic evolution,” Van, Till prefers to talk about advocating “the creationomic perspective,” not “theistic evolution”; see Van, Till, The Fourth Day, p. 265. See also Numbers, The Creationists, pp. 177–78.Google Scholar

22 Morris, Henry M., “ICR and Progressive Creationism,” Acts & Facts 24 (February, 1995): 2–4; Numbers, The Creationists, p. 308 (Swaggart). See also Ross, Hugh, Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1994).Google Scholar

23 Thaxton, Charles B., Bradley, Walter L., and Olsen, Roger L., The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984), pp. vii, 186. Berlinski, David, in “The Deniable Darwin,” Commentary (June, 1996): 19–29, identifies Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. Moorhead, Paul S. and Kaplan, Martin (Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press, 1967), as “the first significant criticism of evolutionary doctrine in recent decades” (p. 24).Google Scholar

24 Denton, Michael, Evolution: Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986). See also Denton, Michael, Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe (New York: Free Press, 1998).Google Scholar

25 Davis, Percival and Kenyon, Dean H., Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, 2nd ed. (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), pp. 14, 160–61; Scott, Eugenie C., “Monkey Business,” The Sciences 36 (January/February, 1996): 20–25. The “Note to Teachers” in Of Pandas and People was written by Hartwig, Mark D. and Mayer, Stephen C. Google Scholar

26 Johnson, Phillip E., Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991); Johnson, Phillip E., Reason in the Balance: The Case Against NATURALISM in Science, Law & Education (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), especially pp. 15, 26. See also Johnson, Phillip E., Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997).Google Scholar

27 Denton, Michael, blurb on the dust jacket of Johnson, Darwin on Trial; Gould, “Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge,” pp. 118–20; Piel, Jonathan to Johnson, Phillip E., June 25, 1992, mimeographed copy; Meyer, Stephen C., “A Scopes Trial for the ‘90s,” Wall Street Journal, December 6, 1993; Scott, Eugenie C., “Dean Kenyon and Intelligent Design Theory’ at San Franacisco State U,” NCSE Reports 13 (Winter, 1993): 1, 5, 13. For Johnson's reaction to the treatment of Kenyon, see Reason in the Balance, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

28 Behe, Michael J., Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996), pp. 15, 33, 193, 232–33; “The Evolution of a Skeptic: An Interview with Dr.Behe, Michael, Biochemist and Author of Recent Best-Seller, Darwin's Black Box,” The Real Issue 15 (November/December, 1996): 1, 6–8. See also Dembski's, William A. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).Google Scholar

29 “CT 97 Book Awards,” Christianity Today, April 28, 1997, p. 12; Wheeler, David L., “A Biochemist Urges Darwinists to Acknowledge the Role Played by an Intelligent Designer,”' Chronicle of Higher Education, November 1, 1996, p. A13; “The Evolution of a Skeptic,” pp. 7–8. See also Woodward, Tom, “Meeting Darwin's Wager,” Christianity Today, April 28, 1997, pp. 14–21.Google Scholar

30 Dembski, William A., “What Every Theologian Should Know about Creation, Evolution, and Design,” Transactions 3 (May-June, 1995): 1–8, published by the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Princeton, NJ; Scott, Eugenie C., “Old-Earth Moderates Posed to Spread Design Theory,” Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17 (January/February, 1997): 25–26; Belz, “Witness for the Prosecution,” p. 18 (Goliath). See also the debate between Meyer, Stephen C. (“Open the Debate on Life's Origins”) and Scott, Eugenie C. (“Keep Science Free from Creationism”), Insight, February 21, 1994, pp. 26–31. Dembski, Nelson, and Meyer are also collaborating on a forthcoming book tentatively titled Uncommon Descent.Google Scholar

31 Dembski, “What Every Theologian Should Know,” p. 4; Lewontin, Richard, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, pp. 28–32, quotation on p. 31.Google Scholar

32 Swanson, Scott, “Debunking Darwin? Intelligent-Design' Movement Gathers Strength,” Christianity Today, January 6, 1997, pp. 64–65; Morris Henry M., “Defending the Faith,” Back to Genesis, No. 97 (January, 1997), pp. a-c, an insert in Acts & Facts 26 (January, 1997). See, however, Wayne Frair's positive review of Darwin's Black Box in the Creation Research Society Quarterly 34 (1997): 113.Google Scholar

33 Haas, J. W. Jr., “On Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, and Theistic Science,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (March, 1997): 1. Despite his personal reservations about ID theory, Haas ran two reviews of Darwin's Black Box, pro and con, in the June, 1997, issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith and devoted much of the September, 1997, issue to papers sympathetic to ID theory.Google Scholar

34 Webb, David K., Letter to the Editor, Origins & Design 17 (Spring, 1996): 5; Berlinski, “The Deniable Darwin,” pp. 19–29; “Denying Darwin: David, Berlinski and Critics,” Commentary (September, 1996): 4–39, quotations on pp. 6 (Dennett) and 11 (Wessel, Karl F.). See also Berlinski, David, “The End of Materialist Science,” Forbes ASAP, December 2, 1996, pp. 147–60.Google Scholar

35 Gallup, George H. Jr., Religion in America 1990 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Religion Research Center, 1990), p. 49; Wills, Garry, Under God: Religion and American Politics (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990), p. 124. A survey conducted in 1996 showed that 39.3 percent of American scientists believed in a personal God, down only 2.5 percent from eighty years earlier; see Larson Edward J. and Witham Larry, “Scientists Are Still Keeping the Faith,” Nature 386 (1997): 435–36.Google Scholar