Thursday, October 22, 2009

Inherit the Myth

History is written by the winners and yes, that means your history book is not always an objective account of how we got here. The winners, not surprisingly, are sometimes portrayed in an overly sympathetic light. Such Whig histories can be dispassionately assessed when their subject is from centuries past. When the subject is no longer controversial, and the history is long gone, then it is safe to criticize. But what happens when the subject is still hot? How can we understand and respond to Whiggish accounts that are occurring before our very eyes? This week we have yet another evolutionary retelling of history that should tell us something about evolution.

Evolutionists have always relied on fictionalized accounts of how their theory in particular, and rational thought in general, have fought through anti intellectual resistance. Not long after Darwin published his book in 1859 evolutionists were constructing what would become known as the warfare thesis, where religion was cast as being at war with science. Everyone from Columbus to Copernicus was reinvented as intellectual heroes combatting the forces of resistance.

And Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace were cast as scientific investigators who presented a new and powerful finding that conflicted with religious sentiment. In fact, evolutionary thought arose from metaphysical interpretations of nature and theological mandates, in spite of the absence of a known mechanism. As one historian put it, both Wallace and Darwin believed in transmutation, and so they sought a suitable mechanism.

The Scopes Monkey Trial

A more recent but no less fictional example is Inherit the Wind, a fictionalized account of the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tennessee. Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee wrote the play to illustrate the threat to intellectual freedom posed by the anti-communist hysteria of the 1940s McCarthy era. And what better platform to use than religious fundamentalists opposing scientific truths—even if the story is fictionalized. The play was a Broadway hit, and movie and TV versions followed. It is now a classic, and is regularly restaged everywhere from the local theater to international venues.

But few people are aware of the story behind the story. This allegory is a fictionalized account, but for many it nonetheless reveals what they believe to be the core essentials of the origins debate: objective science versus religious dogma. Particular skirmishes may have their own nuances, but isn't this the underlying framework? How important are the details of the summer of 1925 in Dayton? Inherit the Wind, so the thinking goes, is an allegory that captures the reality of political and religious dogma opposed to heroic intellectualism.

But it doesn't. John Scopes was not a humble and tireless science teacher, and he was not hauled off to jail by an angry mob of fundamentalists led by a Reverend Jeremiah Brown for trying to enlighten his science students. And no he did not, in fear for his life, contact journalist Henry Louis Mencken for help in securing a lawyer.

This is the beginning of the myth of Inherit the Wind. The reality is that the ACLU (never mentioned in the script) placed an ad in the Chattanooga Times seeking a volunteer to test Tennessee law on the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Local boosters in Dayton saw this as a wonderful opportunity to put them on the map and recruited Scopes, a coach and part-time teacher, to break the law. Of course he was never incarcerated but rather spent most of his time hob knobbing with reporters. There was no angry mob and no vitriolic preacher.

What the play did get right is that the Monkey Trial was actually a referendum on the creationism and the Bible. Technically John Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution, but all of that was merely logistical. The reason why the Monkey Trial is important to evolution, and the enduring message from Dayton, was that the Bible and its creationism are passe. This was established in the showdown at Dayton when the two famous lawyers squared off. Clarence Darrow called William Jennings Bryan to the stand as a Bible expert and grilled him on its foolishness.

The exchange was entirely religious (can we really believe the story of Jonah? Surely god would never do such a thing) and the result was yet another proof of evolution. It was another great moment in evolution's long history of theological mandates for a strictly naturalistic origins.

While the opposition to evolution in Inherit the Wind is portrayed as an intrusion of religion into things scientific, in fact evolution itself is the better symbol of such an intrusion. The story behind the story is that Lawrence and Lee's cultural icon is itself now part of a new kind of anti intellectualism. The widespread popularity of Inherit the Wind and its cultural stereotypes is not a sign of healthy intellectual freedom triumphing over religious intolerance. Rather, it is an unfortunate sign of yet more ignorance and intolerance, as evolutionists are cast as benevolent and objective while skeptics are cast as narrow minded fundamentalists.

This cultural stereotype is now baked in. News reporters instinctively report on the religion of anyone who would question evolutionary theories, while the naturalists are portrayed as mere scientists. With each new skirmish over the teaching of evolution in our public schools, we are treated to another round of Bible-vs-science headlines. No matter that the skeptics raise scientific concerns, they will be grilled about their religious habits and motives. Evolution, meanwhile, is assumed to be grounded in nothing but empirical observation.

The retelling of Dover

This week Celeste Biever, writing for the NewScientist, perpetuates the Inherit the Wind myth and adds a few twists of her own. In her review of the latest production of Inherit the Wind at the Old Vic in London, Biever tells us that the trial divided a tight-knit town and found the singing of gospel songs between scenes by the cast to be a great touch.

Biever happily concludes that the play properly reveals opposition to evolution as ignorant and fundamentalist but she remains concerned because the play so powerfully reminds us of the comfort provided by religion and why it is so hard for some people to accept Darwin's theory.

There you have it. For historians Inherit the Wind is a living example of the warfare myth, but for evolutionists it remains a cogent truth. And Biever adds some myth of her own in recounting the recent Dover trial. The play reminds her of the 2005 trial in Pennsylvania where the lawyer Eric Rothschild asked Michael Behe about the definition of science. Wasn't Behe's definition of science too broad? Biever erronously recounts that Behe had to agree that astrology would come under his definition of science, and the court erupted in laughter.

Had not Rothschild shown that design theory is unworkable just as Darrow had demolished the Bible? Is not Behe, along with Bryan, to be pitied as he doggedly defended his ridiculous theory?

Certainly that is the message for Biever and the evolutionists, but again reality is more complex. In fact there was no such response in the courtroom. Yes, laughter did erupt but only when Rothschild asked Behe if he thought the human body was a beautiful design. Behe hesitated and responded whimsically that he was "thinking of some examples."

The evolutionary narrative is that evolution is free of religious premises and there is no scientific basis for skepticism. The reality is precisely the opposite.

16 comments:

  1. This might be a little off topic:

    In the world of academia, I have found evolutionists starting to be more condescending than hostile these days. Years ago they would get angry if you pointed things like this post out to them. These days they just reply with remarks such as "I suppose you think the Earth is flat as well". I've noticed on this blog, it rings true as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. wow, commenting on press releases, statements by popular authors in interviews and now plays. way to keep it scientific, Cornelius.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Khan,

    Your Ad hominem attacks on Mr. Hunter are getting old.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Uh...what's Hunter's source of information?

    There were no recordings allowed of the trial, but I know for sure that I and several others laughed, or at least giggled, when the astrology thing from Behe's deposition (where Behe had said, flat out, that astrology qualified as a scientific theory under his definition of theory) came up. IIRC the astrology thing was included in the newspaper stories the reporters wrote that night for the next morning. It definitely made an impression on the audience, and the reporters sitting over in the jury box.

    PS: The right answer answer to the astrology question was "no, it's not science."

    Nick (Matzke)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excellent summary.

    Ironically, the roles today are the reversal of the "Inherit the Wind" fiction -- only now, they are for real. The Darwinists will do everything they can to end your career and assault your character if you dare to criticize their theory or advance reasons for ID. Dawkins, Hitchens et al insist that religion is evil and must be done away with.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, if you think astrology is science, then you're already so far gone that I can't help you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Matzke - a well known leader in the Darwin Cult makes a visit to the Darwin's God blog! What a treat!

    Talking astrology & Behe? I think you missed the point of the post Matzke. You probaley cant even see that your Religion is Darwin.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am simply pointing out that Cornelius constantly conflates pop culture images of "Darwinism" with the actual science of evolutionary biology. Dawkins and Inherit the Wind have as much to do with evolutionary biology as Mr. Wizard and Star Trek have to do with physics.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A bit of a lazy post, in my opinion...

    First we have a mostly-OK introduction. History, particularly pop history, has plenty of mostly or half-invented stories, brushed up with drama and with opponents vilified to seem like fictional bad guys. That much is true. Then we get this nugget:

    "But what happens when the subject is still hot?"

    Ah, I was starting to forget how ridiculous antievolutionists can be. Sure, the subject is still "hot" in that there's religious opposition and a few poorly-argued blog posts, but it sure isn't scientifically "hot" with respect to whether evolution happened or should be taught in schools.

    "Evolutionists have always relied on fictionalized accounts of how their theory in particular, and rational thought in general, have fought through anti intellectual resistance."

    Perhaps in overdramatizations and pop history (a lot of scientists don't know and don't need to know the history, as they respect evidence), but in general, no. There has been anti-intellectual resistance to rationalism, science, and scientific explanations for a very long time with varying degrees of severity. Evolution in particular also fought against rational, intellectual resistance, a trial by fire (although as formulated by Darwin, it also had a nice, neat package of evidence supporting it as well). What about this short narrative is false, precisely? Was Lord Kelvin's opposition not religious? Was it anti-intellectual if he made criticisms based on just the suppositions that would result in the failure of an idea he did not like? It doesn't really matter: if the history is important, note the opposition and its intellectual failure or success.

    "In fact, evolutionary thought arose from metaphysical interpretations of nature and theological mandates, in spite of the absence of a known mechanism."

    Demonstrate it, Dr. Hunter.


    Moving on to the actual post, Inherit the Wind is indeed rife with inaccuracies as is the pop history account of the Scopes Trial. I would venture that it is indeed so popular because it's a convenient dramatization of many things we've come to like about American society: scientific progress, the separation between church and state, battles between rationalism and dogmatism, rooting for the underdog, and opposing cartoonish reactionaries. Dr. Hunter got that mostly right.

    "What the play did get right is that the Monkey Trial was actually a referendum on the creationism and the Bible."

    With respect to their place in public schools. An important fact...

    "The reason why the Monkey Trial is important to evolution, and the enduring message from Dayton, was that the Bible and its creationism are passe."

    The Monkey Trial isn't important to evolution, it's merely a handy and inaccurate tale which appeals to our (people in general's) melodramatic instincts. When it's brought up, it's typically by laymen or to highlight the legality of creationist nonsense in public schools.

    "The exchange was entirely religious (can we really believe the story of Jonah? Surely god would never do such a thing) and the result was yet another proof of evolution. It was another great moment in evolution's long history of theological mandates for a strictly naturalistic origins."

    Petty, inaccurate, and undemonstrated. I wonder if these blog posts could be reduced to a formula: 1) present somewhat accurate backstory, 2) make sure it's full of inaccurate implications, 3) claim how inaccurate/religious evolution is, 4) guilt by association/undemonstrated implication.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The widespread popularity of Inherit the Wind and its cultural stereotypes is not a sign of healthy intellectual freedom triumphing over religious intolerance. Rather, it is an unfortunate sign of yet more ignorance and intolerance, as evolutionists are cast as benevolent and objective while skeptics are cast as narrow minded fundamentalists."

    This is true, but again it's not a fault of evolution by any means. It's a fault of cardboard history. Furthermore, the skeptics are denialists, they have terrible argumentation and must avoid the evidence at all costs (hence your rationalizations of phylogenies).

    "This cultural stereotype is now baked in. News reporters instinctively report on the religion of anyone who would question evolutionary theories, while the naturalists are portrayed as mere scientists. "

    For some reason, evolution "skeptics" are almost universally religious (and evangelical), in the U.S. Furthermore, when they're mentioned in an article about evolution, it's because the reporter was stupid/sensationalist enough to think that it's fair to quote a "skeptic", and where do you find "skeptics"? The religious...

    "With each new skirmish over the teaching of evolution in our public schools, we are treated to another round of Bible-vs-science headlines."

    A very good thing, as it provides meaningful context to the events. Antievolution in the school system of Darby, MT draws on the same inaccuracies and unconstitutional nonsense of other attempts to shove creationist-backed antievolution into science classes.

    "No matter that the skeptics raise scientific concerns, they will be grilled about their religious habits and motives."

    Which they inevitably have. And let's not kid ourselves, the "skeptics" do not have scientific concerns. They typically have, at best, a short list of complete nonsense that would be dispelled with the slightest familiarity with evolutionary theory. Even the "stars" of ID embarass themselves frequently, and they're supposed to have nuance (read: obfuscation).

    "This week Celeste Biever, writing for the NewScientist, perpetuates the Inherit the Wind myth and adds a few twists of her own. In her review of the latest production of Inherit the Wind at the Old Vic in London, Biever tells us that the trial divided a tight-knit town and found the singing of gospel songs between scenes by the cast to be a great touch."

    And now this post makes a lot more sense. The jumps into history and the Scopes trial mirror those of the article linked in the above quote.

    Personally, I think the article should have included historical criticism of Inherit the Wind. As it stands, it implies that it's somewhat accurate by never mentioning the huge inaccuracies. However, it also isn't used "for evolution" as Dr. Hunter would surely like to imply, this is (I believe) a review of a new performance of the play, one with big names like Kevin Spacey, and when comparisons are made it's from the Dover, PA trial to Inherit the Wind (not the Scopes trial).

    "Biever happily concludes that the play properly reveals opposition to evolution as ignorant and fundamentalist but she remains concerned because the play so powerfully reminds us of the comfort provided by religion and why it is so hard for some people to accept Darwin's theory."

    Funny, that's hardly mentioned anywhere. You'd have to piece it together from disparate and minor parts of the article and even then stretch a bit. In fact, she says this bit right here:

    "I found similar contradictions in Dover: for a start, it wasn't a simple case of religion versus science. The parents suing the school board were every bit as devout as the board members themselves, as were many of the eminent scientists chosen to testify that ID could not be science."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Back to Dr. Hunter:
    "The play reminds her of the 2005 trial in Pennsylvania where the lawyer Eric Rothschild asked Michael Behe about the definition of science. Wasn't Behe's definition of science too broad? Biever erronously recounts that Behe had to agree that astrology would come under his definition of science, and the court erupted in laughter."

    Yet again you simply declare something wrong without demonstrating it. Here's Judge Jones' summary: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

    See the part where it mentions astrology? I suppose I should've mentioned earlier that most "skeptics" can be addressed by a simple googling of talkorigins, for which Dr. Hunter surely holds serious contempt. However.... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

    If there's any doubt that Behe held/holds a very wide definition of science, one where astrology was scientific (and by extension teachable in a public school as science) at any point, just read the transcript...

    "Had not Rothschild shown that design theory is unworkable just as Darrow had demolished the Bible? Is not Behe, along with Bryan, to be pitied as he doggedly defended his ridiculous theory?"

    No, Behe is to be ridiculed and contemptuously addressed. However, at least he showed up...

    "Certainly that is the message for Biever and the evolutionists, but again reality is more complex."

    No, just Biever so far. I've occasionally seen people claim that they think Behe is an OK guy with some bad ideas, the 'best of the worst' when it comes to antievolution, but it's hardly a well-made or unified argument.

    "In fact there was no such response in the courtroom. Yes, laughter did erupt but only when Rothschild asked Behe if he thought the human body was a beautiful design. Behe hesitated and responded whimsically that he was "thinking of some examples.""

    Oh, great. The big important error she made was the bit about laughter. I haven't a clue whether she's right, it doesn't matter enough for me to care. How horrible for her to misremember/invent a situation where Behe is pitiable rather than the more reasonable status of intellectually brankrupt.

    "The evolutionary narrative is that evolution is free of religious premises and there is no scientific basis for skepticism. The reality is precisely the opposite."

    I'll add step 6) to the formula: repeat vague assertions of accuracy to finish, be sure to add in the word 'religious' or 'skeptic'.

    ReplyDelete
  12. NickM:

    "Well, if you think astrology is science, then you're already so far gone that I can't help you."

    I think that was possibly not the meaning of the other Anonymous' question. I know why I think astrology is not science; I think I know why Behe thinks astrology is not science; what we are interested to hear is why you think astrology is not science - or more precisely, what you think the sound reason is to believe that astrology is not science.

    ReplyDelete
  13. NickM:

    "Uh...what's Hunter's source of information?"

    I have responded here:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/10/inherit-myth-part-ii.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Scopes trial is surrounded by misconceptions, and their exposure provides as good a way as any for recounting the basic story. In the heroic version, John Scopes was persecuted, Darrow rose to Scope's defense and smote the antediluvian Bryan, and the antievolution movement then dwindled or ground to at least a temporary halt. All three parts of this story are false. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

    ReplyDelete