I would like to put the Scopes trial in a broader perspective, in the world of 1926 and a century later. Let’s be clear: this was about the government’s attempt to restrict what is acceptable in science, but also in religious life. With Tennessee’s Butler Act the government squarely pronounced judgement on a scientific issue and a religious one, thereby asserting the authority to act as judge in both areas. As to the religious side, it is instructive to look at what was going on in the Presbyterian Church around that time, and what led up to the events in 1925-1927.
With the Adopting Act of 1729 North American Presbyterianism diverged from Scottish Presbyterians in specifically rejecting strict subscription for ordination, acknowledging that people’s faith cannot be regulated, that faith may be expressed in a variety of ways, to the enrichment of our understanding, and that our understanding may change. Candidates for office should not be required to subscribe to a specific set of articles of faith, because that amounts to their pledging allegiance not to scripture, but to a particular interpretation of it. The solution was to have the candidates affirm the essential tenets of the Reformed faith and permitting them to state their “scruples” on elements of doctrine deemed not essential.
So far so good. But it left people who are uneasy with insecurity longing for a precise definition of those essential tenets. This led General Assemblies of 1910, 1916, and 1923 to specify five essential tenets: biblical inerrancy, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, physical resurrection, and miracles. The enumeration of these five “fundamentals” shows that Presbyterians were not immune to the sweep toward fundamentalism that went through the country and that in Tennessee led to the Butler Act. But there was a problem for Presbyterians: this very specific definition effectively led to strict subscription, inconsistent with the foundations of North American Presbyterianism. And so, the General Assembly of 1925 appointed a commission, the “Special Commission of 1925” or the “Swearingen Commission,” to do a deep dive into these matters.
Its first report, to the General Assembly of 1926, presented a survey of the prevailing opinions and delivered an eloquent defense of tolerance and forbearance. The second report, to the General Assembly of 1927, scrupulously considered the matter of authority concerning essential and necessary articles of faith. Quoting the 1927 report:
One fact often overlooked is that by the Act of 1729, the decision as to essential and necessary articles was to be in specific cases. It was no general authority that might be stated in exact language and applied rigidly to every case without distinction. It was an authority somewhat undefined, to be invoked in each particular instance. …
[T]here is nothing in the Act of 1729 definitely and certainly inconsistent with the principle that the Presbytery’s right to determine the fitness of a candidate is paramount. …
To declare an article of faith “essential and necessary” to this system [of doctrine] is a serious undertaking. Undoubtedly there are articles, which all will agree fall within this classification, but there are others about which there will be differences of opinion. A doctrine may be entirely true and yet not to be an “essential and necessary article” in this system. The question is not as to its truth, primarily, but, rather, is it essential to the system? And the minds of individuals, certainly the mind of the Church itself, should be deeply humble and devoutly prayerful when attempting to decide an issue of such grave import as this.
As an aside, these kinds of issues were not limited to the US. In the Netherlands a case played out in the Dutch Reformed Churches (“Gereformeerde Kerken” not the “Nederlands Hervormde [NH] Kerk”) in 1926 when the Rev. Dr. Geelkerken was thrown out of the denomination because he had the temerity to doubt whether the snake in the Garden of Eden really spoke (in whatever language). Out of it came the Reformed Covenant church, which 20 years later merged with the NH Dutch Reformed church, playing a renewing role after WWII. I couldn’t resist adding this note, since that is where my personal roots are.
Anyway, in the United States the Presbyterians made clear, with the overwhelming approval of the 1926 and 1927 reports, that they had no appetite for something like the Butler Act. Although several states followed Tennessee’s example with similar laws, the interest in court cases dissipated and in the 1960s the last vestiges of these laws disappeared from the books. But, although the American public happily embraced the fruits of science and technology ever since WWII, and research flourished in the US, an anti-intellectual and anti-scientific streak remained in US society. Still, science, technology, and religion got along reasonably well with each other and the government — until recently.
The pendulum has swung hard to the right
The pendulum has swung hard to the right. People’s understanding of when (human) life begins, and up to what point abortion is to be allowed, is really based on religious convictions. The range runs from conception all the way to birth, depending on one’s beliefs. With state legislatures busily putting severe restrictions on abortion and trying to legislate fetus personhood, they are trying to impose the strictures of one specific religious group upon all of society. Government has no business instituting specific religious rules. I have made this argument before, as have others.
On the science side things are no better — a politician is overhauling the nation’s healthcare system to fit his warped ideas about vaccines, sidelining medical professionals and putting crackpots in their place; years of careful research are being jettisoned for no good reason; a president fires the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because he thinks statisticians came up with wrong figures; and a government that wants to tell universities what to teach, how to teach it, and whom to teach it to — all while respectable scientists are being demonized.
It feels like we are back where we were a hundred years ago: a country where big brother government wants to act as the gatekeeper for religious and scientific thought, where incompetent nincompoops judge what are correct religious convictions and what are accurate scientific findings. But, like a century ago, such authoritarian power grabs should be resisted with all our might.
My faith is my own and I am responsible for my moral decisions. I am not an expert in all scientific fields, but I can recognize good scientific practice when I see it.
