Evolving Sequel to Bryan's Last Campaign

An Op-Ed Essay by Charles F. Austerberry, Ph.D.

March 7, 2005

Recent calls for "intelligent design" theory and evolution disclaimer stickers in biology textbooks are fueled by the same fears that led to John Scopes' prosecution in 1925 for teaching evolution in Dayton, Tennessee.

While spurious attacks on religion need to be answered, as a Christian biologist it saddens me to see fellow believers still defending religion with spurious attacks on science.

It's time to take another look at William Jennings Bryan, Scopes' famous prosecutor. We can avoid his anti-science error, yet also benefit from his wisdom.

Born March 19, 1860 in Illinois, Bryan moved to Lincoln, Nebraska, in 1887 as a young lawyer. At age 30 he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. He was the Democratic nominee for president in 1896, 1900, and 1908. He championed women’s suffrage, campaign finance reform, and consumer protection.

University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor Doug Linder writes: “Although his dream of the presidency was never realized, Bryan succeeded in transforming the Democratic Party from a conservative party of Civil War losers to a coalition more focused on the interests of blue-collar workers, farmers, and religious and ethnic minorities.”[1]

Why did this progressive “Great Commoner” make his final campaign an attack on evolution?

Bryan witnessed “Social Darwinism” being used to justify exploitation of the poor and weak, in America and abroad, through unregulated capitalism, imperialism, and racism. Bryan concluded that only Biblical morality countered the “might makes right” philosophy he felt inherent in evolution.

He also rejected the possibility that God creates through evolution. To Bryan, such a God seemed too distant and subtle to have sufficient moral authority. Similar objections to theistic evolution are heard today.

According to Tom DeRosa of the Creation Studies Institute, evolution "makes way for evils such as abortion, homosexual marriage, and racism.”[2]

Creationist Bert Thompson warns in Evolution as a Threat to the Christian Home: “Those who try to effect a compromise through theistic evolution . . . will watch the Bible’s authority come to mean less and less as the days pass. Children, convinced they are no more than ‘glorified apes,’ will turn to hedonism and utilitarianism by the untold thousands.”[3]

I believe such fears are misdirected, because attempts to justify racism and other dehumanizing selfishness as "natural" or "scientific" predate Darwin - consider slavery, for example. Being made “in the image of God” through evolution can give our species just as much moral responsibility as if God had used other means to create us.

One sense in which (as Albert Einstein put it) “science without religion is lame" is that science alone cannot safeguard human dignity. Religion can, at its best, help prevent dehumanizing misapplications of science.

But equally important is the rest of Einstein's observation: “religion without science is blind.”[4] We still expect scientists to seek natural explanations for the natural world, just as we expect historians to seek explanations for human history in human terms.

Simply acknowledging that some historical and scientific mysteries are as yet unsolved is good; rushing to fill those gaps with an "intelligent designer" is not. Discourse about how God works in the world should supplement and complement our secular knowledge, not short-circuit or compete with it.

This complementary approach does not ignore the religious faiths of historical figures (including many great scientists), nor does it undermine faith in a divine Creator and Author of history among today's scientists, historians, teachers, and students.

Recent genetic data have confirmed that humans and other primates share some now-extinct ancestors. The data have also disproved the racial assumptions of “Social Darwinism.” If Bryan had lived today, perhaps he would have come to accept evolution. In any case, we can do so now without abandoning religion.

Dr. Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian and Director of the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute, chooses to view his own work as a form of worship, what he calls an "uncovering of God’s grandeur.” Recently Collins lamented: “We seem to be engaged in contentious, destructive, and wholly unnecessary debate about evolution and creation. From my perspective as a scientist working on the genome, the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming . . . Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory.”[5]

Students should learn about evolution. Students should also learn about Bryan's passionate defense of human equality and dignity, which he based on his religion. This "deeper wisdom," which continues to motivate many of today's anti-evolutionists, still deserves respect - as does the integrity of science.

Scientific theories, including evolution, can be taught with neutrality towards religion if we remind students of two simple truths.

• Until scientific problems are actually solved in practice, it’s unknown whether they are solvable through natural science. New evidence and ideas may or may not become available in the future.

• Successful scientific theories, as well as unsolved scientific problems, are both compatible with diverse philosophical and religious perspectives. The results of scientific investigations do not establish any particular philosophy or religion.