Holley Horrell, "Expert traces history of evolution debates" (2006)

> <span class="caption"><font size="1">MICHAEL CHANGTHE CHRONICLE > University of Georgia Professor Edward Larson discussed three phases of the battle over evolution Thursday.<font>

A historic photograph featuring an Anti-Evolution League banner from the 1920s set the scene for Thursday’s third installment of the Provost’s Lecture Series on science, religion and evolution.

The speaker, Edward Larson, placed the American debate about teaching evolution in high schools into a historical context in his lecture, “From Dayton to Dover: A Brief History of the Controversy over Teaching Evolution.”

Larson—a professor of history and chair of law at the University of Georgia—separated the history of the conflict into three distinct phases based on the demands of the anti-evolution parties over time. The theory of evolution has sparked debate ever since its debut in Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, published in 1859.

During the first phase, Larson said, religious groups divided themselves into “modernists,” who adapted their beliefs to new scientific ideas, and “fundamentalists,” who turned even more toward the Bible—specifically, the myth of creation as described in the Book of Genesis—for answers. By the 1920s, the debate extended into high school biology classes around the nation.

Larson cited the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tenn.—during which the American Civil Liberties Union and biology teacher John Scopes fought a state law banning the teaching of evolution—as the primary event of the first phase. The statute was upheld, he explained, because the First Amendment protecting freedom of religion had never been applied against a state action.

“Clearly, Scopes remains the best-known misdemeanor trial in American history,” Larson joked.

The second phase, Larson said, commenced in the 1960s and reflected an upsurge of cases challenging religion in school after the creation of the Fourteenth Amendment. At this time, the focus of anti-evolution proponents shifted from trying to ban the teaching of the subject toward demanding balanced treatment of both sides.

The major event of the second era was the publication of Henry Morris’ 1961 book Genesis Flood, which used “scientific-sounding arguments” to support Genesis, Larson said. Morris, a leader of the Institute of Creation Research in California, and his book “gave the Bible new vibrancy and life to many Americans,” Larson said.

> <span class="caption"><font size="1">MICHAEL CHANGTHE CHRONICLE > Audience members packed Love Auditorium Thursday to hear Professor Edward Larson&rsquo;s speech.<font>

In the third phase of the history of the controversy, Larson continued, the anti-evolution groups adopted a new argument—that Darwinism is just one theory among many. Leading players Philip Johnson and Michael Behe argued for the legitimacy of intelligent design. Larson stressed that when questioned, Behe conceded that there is virtually no scientific content in their theories.

“So far, design theorists remain simply critics of the reigning theory,” Larson said. “They claim that gaps in [Darwin’s] theory are best filled by design.”

The more recent high school dramas have taken place on the stages of Cobb County, Ga., and Dover, Penn., where legislators mandated the placing of disclaimer stickers in biology textbooks stating the existence of other, competing theories.

Larson quoted the sticker placed in the Cobb County books: “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, critically considered.”

Larson concluded by stressing the importance of the evolution debates, pointing to the media attention lavished on the issues as early as the Scopes trial.

The debates, Larson said, are “a cultural divide that deeply troubles our national household.”

Audience members of the packed lecture hall responded to Larson’s even-handed treatment of the topic.

“I thought he gave a very objective view of the historical context,” senior Christy Scheller said. “He didn’t play to the audience.”

Some of the attendees compared the speech to the others in the lecture series.

“The first speaker was more Discovery Channel,” said David Bollinger, a first-year student in the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences. “This was more History Channel.”