Chris Calihan, Book Review
Mano Singham, God vs. Darwin: The War between Evolution and Creationism in the
Classroom (2009)
I. Overview. Ever wonder where the backwoods stereotypes of the public education systems in
places such as Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Texas are founded? The book was a
refreshingly pleasant & even-handed read for a study of 80 years of court precedent on
government-sanctioned religious curriculum in schools. Singham brought his first-hand
experience, from the advisory board which set the science standards for K-12 education in Ohio,
to bear on the specific issue of teaching creationism (in its various guises throughout the years)
in school. Starting with the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, the first case to address evolution in
school, the author sets the stage for the argument as it "evolves" through its many remanifestations up to 2005. Reminiscent of Brecht's Life of Galileo, Singham also shows how
popular conceptions of the trial and its issues were distorted by the more-artistic/dramatic-thanaccurate Broadway play and then successful 1960 film, Inherit the Wind. Singham also does a
thorough job of detangling the intricately complicated controversies of creation vs. evolution,
hype vs. fact, religion vs. other-religions vs. secularity and then setting them within their
historical contexts. The book then proceeds to analyze the subsequent trials in light of their
preceding manifestation, current and historical scientific standing, religious zealotry, and relation
to constitutionality. The author was impressively impartial when pointing out the folly of state
legislatures repeating, near verbatim, the mistakes of the past. Most impressively, God vs.
Darwin accounts for the strategic and tactical objectives, plans, and tactics of the persistent
creationists in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, court precedent, and hypocrisy.
1
II. Review. The book illustrates plainly the cyclical pattern of the radical religious element who,
like a squirrel, methodically attempts to solve a puzzle to get food by probing the device installed
to keep it from getting to the bird food. There is an equally radical atheist movement, but the
author did not address the confrontations between these, save for acknowledging its support for
the evolution argument in general and/or when present in a specific case.
Singham presents religions' attempted attacks on evolution in four phases: Phase 1 - "try to
ban the teaching of evolution in public schools altogether;" (1) Phase 2 - "balance the teaching of
evolution and biblical stories of creation by requiring that both viewpoints receive 'balanced
treatment' in the classroom;" (2) Phase 3 - "teaching of evolution. . . .accompanied by the
teaching of . . . . 'creation science;'" (2) and Phase 4 - "undermining the credibility of the theory
of evolution by natural selection." (2) [emphasis added] Although not listed as a phase, a fifth
approach was "intelligent design," a claimed "credible alternative . . . . which postulated that an
unnamed and unidentified agency was necessary to explain key steps in biological development."
(2)
Phase 1
Phase 1's attempt to ban evolution outright reminds me a little of scene 4 in Brecht's Life of
Galileo when Galileo could not convince the people to even look through the telescope because
they were too busy telling him how wrong he was. In reality, the Scopes trial could not have been
written as dramatically as it actually played out. To set the scene, Darwin must be put in proper
perspective. He published On the Origin of Species in 1860, and
"almost the entire scientific establishment coalesce[ed] around the basic assumption that
evolution had indeed occurred. By the end of the nineteenth century, the idea that all species were
descended with modification from common ancestors was widely accepted and had been taught
in schools for some time." (10)
This does not seem to hold the potential for climatic build up, but just as Galileo's propositions
were anticipated to have far-reaching implications, Darwin's theory implicated the "direction for
2
evolution" (10) and therefore, humanity's specialness/importance. Humans cannot be special if
we are random; it would be as if the earth was not the center of the universe! People could not
argue the mechanics of animals procreating but wanted to maintain a god(s)' influence over the
administration of those mechanics. Another parallel to Galileo existed; Darwin's theory had to
wait for further proofs.
The "perfect storm" of events which led to the Scopes trial included the location of the trial
(Dayton, TN), the recent forming of the ACLU, the involvement of dynamic representation by
zealous advocates for both sides (Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan), and an illconceived publicity stunt.
Right from the beginning, rather than being a bitter adversarial contest between science and
religion that tore apart a small town, the arrest and prosecution were staged by the civic leaders of
Dayton mainly as a public relations exercise to benefit the town by increasing its visibility
through publicity. (23)
All of this was taken to the next level by the infamous atheist newspaperman H.L. Mencken
reporting events in humorous, inflammatory articles.
It may seem fabulous, but it is a sober fact that a sound Episcopalian or even a Northern
Methodist would be regarded as virtually an atheist in Dayton. Here the only genuine conflict is
between true believers . . . . To call a man a doubter in these parts is equal to accusing him of
cannibalism . . . .
The selection of a jury to try Scopes, which went on all yesterday afternoon . . . . showed to
what extreme lengths the salvation of the local primates has been pushed. (36)
This emphasis on the spectacle being more important than the substantive issue reminds me of
the way Galileo performed his arguments. Finally the trial commenced and lasted only eight,
scenes-from-a-play-like days starting with the entertaining argument that "evolution was as well
established as the Copernican theory." (35)
The trial had experts testifying to about the concrete issues, "[He] distinguished between the
fact of evolution having occurred, which he said scientists accepted, and the theory behind it,
about which he said there were still some unanswered questions." (38) But analogous to Galileo,
3
the real issue of individuals being responsible for their own interpretation of the circumstances
was concomitant. The trial concluded brilliantly with the defense questioning the prosecutor.
[] Darrow, canny and experienced trial lawyer that he was, knew exactly what he was doing.
He had zeroed in on his opponent's weakest point. He must have known that religion is at its
strongest when it is making grand, sweeping statements on the nature of life and the universe,
because those are vague and hard to pin down or contradict. It is at its weakest when trying to
explain concrete and specific details.
[] It is easy to proclaim faith in grand beliefs, but when it comes to specifics like Noah's flood
or the story of Jonah or a woman being created from Adam's rib, it becomes harder to explain
how such particulars could possibly be literally true and, if they are not, why you should believe
some things in the Bible and not others. As Darrow said later, his strategy was meant to force
Bryan to 'choose between crude beliefs and the common intelligence of modern times . . . or to
admit to ignorance.'" (47)
It revealed exactly why the Catholic church could not have let Galileo cross-examine it. The fact
that Bryan died a few days after this interrogation, and that Inherit the Wind portrayed him dying
of a heart attack in the courtroom, added to the mystique. H.L. Mencken glorified Darrow's
tactic, "Few Americans have ever done so much for their country in a whole lifetime as Darrow
did in two hours." (51) In fact, the case essentially stopped right there at the trial court since a
technicality in the sentencing allowed the Tennessee Supreme Court to overturn the verdict,
nullifying the plan to have the U.S. Supreme Court decide on the merits of creation vs. evolution.
That would be another 40 years away.
This first, rollercoaster ride episode laid the foundation for future iterations.
Phase 2
In the subsequent 40 years, the law in question in the Scopes trial (as well as comparable
ones in other states) remained on the books but not enforced. One such law in Arkansas rose to
the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in Epperson v. Arkansas1when the state teachers association
decided to fight the law which prohibited teaching "that mankind ascended or descended from a
lower order of animals." (79) In its unanimous 1968 ruling, the Supreme Court held that
1
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
4
Arkansas' law against the teaching of evolution was unconstitutional because the government
cannot prescribe curriculum based on religion2 - adding or omitting anything.
The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and
between religion and nonreligion. . . .
The State's undoubted right to prescribe the curriculum for its public schools does not carry
with it the right to prohibit, on pain of criminal penalty, the teaching of a scientific theory or
doctrine where that prohibition is based upon reasons that violate the First Amendment. . . . (81)
This appeared to be a victory for those originally hoping to get Scopes to the Supreme Court.
Also interesting is that the Supreme Court limits pure majoritarian reasoning. But, the justices
were divided on their bases for supporting the opinion, interpreted by creationists as
encouragement. Interestingly, Justice Black's elaborations was evocative of the message Cardinal
Bellarmino gave to Galileo, "Under this statute, as construed by the Arkansas Supreme Court, a
teacher cannot know whether he is forbidden to mention Darwin's theory at all or only free to
discuss it as long as he refrains from contending that it is true." (82) This failed first scheme to
unequivocally ban teaching evolution led to Phase 2's "balance" for creation in the classroom in
terms of time & emphasis. This would guarantee creation would be taught everywhere evolution
was.
So, again the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the creation/evolution issue and established the
three pronged "Lemon Test" in Lemon v. Kurtzman,3
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose (the purpose prong);
Second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion
(the effect prong);
Finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion' (the
entanglement prong). (88)
In response, and taking a lesson from the Galileo-era Catholic church, Tennessee passed a law
saying, in part,
Any biology textbook used for teaching in the public schools, which expresses an opinion of, or
relates a theory about origins or creation of man and his world shall be prohibited from being
2
Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" First Amend., U.S.
Constitution
3
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
5
used as a textbook in such system unless it specifically states that it is a theory as to the origin and
creation of man and his world and is not represented to be scientific fact. (89)
A poor effort to even meet the letter of the new law, Tennessee legislatures found their law
quickly struck down.
Phases 3 & 4
Unwavering anti-evolution proponents, not to be deterred, realized they would have to draft
their legislation more meticulously and with greater conscientiousness. Hence, we have "creation
science!" [emphasis added] (93) Arkansas legislated that "creation-science is an alternative
scientific model of origins and can be presented from a strictly scientific standpoint without any
religious doctrine." (93) Even without substantial mental exertion, the underlying intent is easy
to see – the same trouble Galileo got himself into with his thinly veiled Dialogue on the Two
Chief World Systems. In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education,4 the district court held that not
only did the law fail to meet all three prongs of the Lemon test, it failed to meet the criteria set to
define "science." Some critics argue that the judge's definition of science was weak and quite a
lot of wiggle-room people to find ways to fit their religious beliefs into it. Others argued that the
problem with creation science, "was that it was a really bad theory." (95) Regardless, the
important thing to keep in mind is that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution is not
concerned with the quality or absurdity of a theory.
It seems to me that, if not earlier, by this point, most people would have to realize that
religion and science are like apples and oranges. A system which begins with the conclusion and
works to interpret observations to fit that conclusion is utterly incompatible with a system that
has no allegiance to its conclusions but goes where its observations take it. Trying to use non-
4
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 (1982)
6
materialism5 to integrate the creation and evolution approaches contravenes both since, for
example, the whole point of miracles (i.e., divine intervention) is that they fly in the face of
science; that is their only significance.
[T]he baggage of the historical record of religion-based efforts to undermine the teaching of
evolution, starting with the Scopes trial, was too much to overcome. The Supreme Court had
clearly determined that attempts to teach anything along the lines of "creation science" or to
discredit evolution basically sprang from religious motivations; thus, any legislative attempts to
mandate teaching such subject matter ran into the immediate presumption of failing both the
purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test. (99)
According to Nietzsche, religion perpetuates the victimization of its followers. In light of the
uninterrupted series of failures, perhaps anti-evolutionists' resolve was strengthened?
"Intelligent Design"
That would, in part, seem to explain this final approach. In fact, one tactic they used was
producing a movie6 "which argues that 'big science' is deliberately suppressing evidence of
intelligent design and persecuting scientists who think there is something in it." (146)
The film seemingly aims to portray [intelligent design] advocates as victims oppressed by the
scientific and legal establishment. It advances the strange argument that scientists are secretly
aware of terrible weaknesses in evolutionary theory but fear that the revolutionary new arguments
of the courageous [intelligent design] advocates will result in the structure of science crumbling.
Scientists can only prevent this, in their view, by colluding to cover up the facts, suppressing all
dissent, and expelling pro-[intelligent design] people from the academy. (146-47)
The Discovery Institute was formed to "bring back. . . . a god-based view of creation" (101)
without ever actually mentioning "the bible or god or Christianity or creationism or creation
science, or even require the teaching of any alternative theories to evolution." (102) Intelligent
design was formulated to undermine the credibility of evolution.
"'Intelligent design' can best be understood as a carefully crafted theory designed to eliminate
those features that had led to the defeat (because of the Establishment Clause) of prior efforts to
combat the teaching of evolution in public schools." (101)
One Discovery Institute argument (applying to the apples & oranges I mentioned earlier), was
that the methodological naturalism7 governing science is wicked, unfair, and intentionally anti5
materialism is the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all
phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies. (dictionary.reference.com/browse/materialism)
6
Entitled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
7
religious because it relies on materialist explanations to account for observations rather than
rationalizing phenomenon as caused by "intelligent design." This idea seemed to appeal mostly
to those people who could only assimilate information in the form of sound bites, who Singham
compassionately refers to as "less sophisticated but more traditionally religious supporters."
(121) It did not hold up to close scrutiny; it showed a grave misunderstanding of how science
actually operates, and their research was subordinate to their goal of returning to an undefined
"golden age" in which prayer replaces evolution in schools. Unfortunately for them, all the
sneaking around caught up with them in their own Scopes-type trial.
The district court in the middle district of Pennsylvania would decide the Discovery
Institute's fate in Kitzmiller v. Dover.8 While not the perfect storm of Scopes, events quickly got
out of hand for the intelligent designers when Dover School Board members pursued the trial
contrary to Discovery Institute guidance to lay low and avoid all publicity and/or litigation. Once
intelligent design reached the court, it was the point of no return. This time around, a distant
grandson of Charles Darwin was the reporter covering the trial and providing the humorous
commentary,
People. . . . believe that Darwin marks a point in history from which materialism sprang, bringing
with it Hitler, Stalin. . . . pot, sex, prostitution, abortion. . . . and everything else nasty in the world.
It occurred to me how lucky we are that Darwin lived such a dull monogamous life. Had he
been an adulterer, his theory would be dead and buried. Or maybe not. Joseph Smith, a
contemporary of Darwin's and the polygamous founder of the Mormons, simply stated that his
"truth" was handed to him on a set of golden plates that then mysteriously disappeared. Perhaps if
Darwin had done the same he'd have avoided all this controversy. (122)
And the trial itself, though not as dramatic, was arguably more damning because just as before,
the courtroom is the wrong format for their arguments. An intelligent design leader admitted that
the expanded definition of science he advocated would have to include astrology as a hard
7
8
p. 107
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (2005)
8
science. Many considered this the coup de grâce for intelligent design. Worse yet, they exposed
their hypocrisy to gain nothing.
During the trial, this and other falsehoods were revealed in open court and clearly angered the
judge, who said in his ruling, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and
proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks
and disguise the real purpose behind the [intelligent design] policy." (127)
One reason the Discovery Institute wanted to avoid a trial was their understanding that their
tentative relation to science would be exposed. They feared an actual court's holding that
intelligent design was not a science as a matter of law. When the judge ruled that intelligent
design was a religion and not science, he made a point to add that the court's having to rule on
this issue was a waste of resources because of its flagrancy.
What the Future Holds
Now that religion is a loser in both legal and scientific battles, Singham suggests that
although the final decision is still pending in god vs. Darwin, the winner will not be god.
Religion is obviously precluded based on long-standing, consistent precedent, but the question of
who decides what will be in school curricula and how to impose changes that do not violate the
constitution is still open. Apparently, Texas seems to think that means they can teach creationism
as evidenced by forcing their state curriculum director to resign for giving the appearance of
criticizing intelligent design.
III. Galileo Dilemma. A. Conflict between truth & power. The conflict between truth and
power did not exist in this book. Those with the power were on the side of the truth. What was
fascinating to me was the role reversal of the position of the church as compared to our in-class
discussions. The Catholic church in Galileo's time had tremendous influence and power. In God
vs. Darwin, "the church" was on an even playing field with individuals. "The church" did not
have exclusive control over the truth. And, more importantly, because they also no longer
controlled the manner in which truth is determined, they had to resort to bullying. The side of
9
truth does not have to use bullying/terrorist tactics. Along these lines, some of "the church's"
tactics were definitely reminiscent of terrorist/insurgent techniques.
B. Author's most important positions regarding the significance of the conflict. The
significance of the conflict from Singham's position came from the absolute separation of
philosophies of the two groups. As I stated earlier, ignoring the facts because of devotion to a
predetermined conclusion is incompatible sacrificing the conclusion for the sake of commitment
to observations. Religion is stagnant, and science is ambulatory, growing.
C. Whether the author was convincing/successful in achieving his purpose. I found the
author quite convincing in the relatively narrow scope of his purpose. He made it quite clear that
the question of teaching/favoring religion in schools is well-settled. As described above, he listed
precedent and explained the repercussions for the various religious groups' policies. Of course,
this does not address the pragmatic issue of enforcing the judgment. Most interesting to me is the
way he left another question open-ended, a question which he postulated at different points.
But is the teaching of even manifestly absurd ideas a sufficient reason for the courts to
intervene? If a school district decides that it should teach something absurd or even flatout wrong, for instance, that the moon is made of cheese, is it allowed to do so? Can a
parent complain and have the courts overturn such a policy? What would be the
constitutional basis for such an action? (148)
I would paraphrase it as, what can one do if schools are teaching preposterous things, which do
not violate the Establishment Clause? Less interesting, but more predictable is how Texas will
try to slink past the rulings, what will become of their intelligent design aspirations, and how
they will react to the court's ruling.
D. What the work adds to the Galileo discussions. As included in the body of the review, the
parallels between Galileo and the church are replayed – with roles reversed – between "the
church" and science. The biggest difference was the State's involvement to keep either side from
oppressing the other; the issue was resolved on the merits.
10
IV. Critique. In toto, the book treated the topic professionally and without bias...or it simply
complimented my own biases. I think if there was a slant to it, the book's perspective was that of
an Establishment Clause adherent. I was anticipating an exciting debate about the nuances of
which groups could influence the final decision of what is taught in schools, "The book reveals a
palpable tension regarding setting the parameters around the broader issue of control over school
curricula."(viii) but was instead presented with a matter-of-fact practicality on one side and lack
of resolution on the other. There was no sense of judgment for or against religion or atheism.
Really, I was surprised at some of the stipulations Singham presented, since if I was going to
write persuasively, I would not have been so forthcoming about the flaws in my own perspective.
Singham impressed me with the clear logic of his argument, but I think he avoided capitalizing
on much of the humor in the whole 80 year debate out of consideration for the position religion
held. Perhaps my favorite line, which capsulates the issue for me is by Herbert Spencer, "Those
who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution as not being adequately supported by facts, seem
to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." (157)
11