Darwin Day

It is something of a coincidence that Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln was born on the same day. Since we now have a "Presidents' Day" to honor Washington and Lincoln (even if some other President has a birthday in February), today can be "Darwin Day." The day "is global celebration of science and reason."  So, it goes beyond evolution.

Edward Larson has written various things about evolution and the wider battles arising here and aboard from scientific conflicts.  This includes the award winning Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. There are also various court opinions on this subject from the Scopes trial to teaching evolution at all to a need for some "balanced treatment."  And, more cases on this subject and other questions of science and reason.  Religious debates often arise here, e.g., "Christianity" deemed threatened by certain education.

The link to the actual state court opinion from the 1920s is interesting reading beyond reference to "rhetoric exposition by iteration."  The opinion punted by finding the trial judge illegally applied the fine, the case ending on that point since John Scopes was no longer in employ of the state. He later wrote an interesting autobiography, Center of the Storm, where we find that this small town school teacher later studied geology then worked as a geologist with the United Gas Company until his retirement.  

The Scopes opinion did uphold the law itself, one that prohibited schools to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a  lower order of animals. The opinion gave little respect to in effect an academic freedom argument, Scopes merely being an employee of the state.  The law -- contra to a later Supreme Court opinion -- also didn't see it as furthering a certain religious belief -- lots of religions believe in divine creation. A concurrence even argued that evolution itself need not be a problem, since it could assume a divine creator! A judge dissented in a brief opinion, arguing that the law was unconstitutionally vague. 

It is somewhat dubious at best to say that a law that singles out one story of "the Divine Creation" isn't favoring some religious beliefs over others, even if it is doing so in a less blatant way as some other law. Still, it is notable that even in the 1920s a means to have religion and science living together without some "inherit the wind" situation was deemed possible. The part of the opinion that accepted constitutional provisions that required acceptance of the divine, even to hold public office (a sort of test oath) is trouble. All the same, as shown by the number of scientists who believe in God (a sizable number as noted by Larson in one of his books), science and religion can be live together, even if somewhat strange bedfellows.

See also, Darwin and his wife (strong believer in God).