Harper’s Bazaar, July 1871. I did not study Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution in a formal academic environment until I was in high school. When the topic of evolution did emerge in the curriculum, my teachers would preface the lecture with a caveat: studying evolution was not an attack on religion. In sum, when studying the undeniable historical importance of Darwin, my peers and I could personally choose to acknowledge Darwin’s actual conclusions as truth or not. In the conservative suburban neighborhood in which my high school was situated, the divide between science and religion was still a necessary one to make. Although I personally do not see religion and science as inherently contradictory, the way in which the subject was approached in my public high school curriculum reveals the controversy still present in twenty-first-century society. This week in the Ramonat Seminar, our class took a step back in time to the end of the nineteenth century: the period in which the impassioned controversy over teaching evolution in schools was at its height.
The class simulated a debate that would have taken place in the 1890s. Each student made his or her respective argument from the position of an individual who lived at the time. I became, a bishop and proponent of higher education who took a progressive position in regards to the incorporation of Darwin’s ideas into schools. Scott Appleby’s essay Exposing Darwin’s “hidden agenda”: Roman Catholic responses to evolution, 1875-1925 as reference, I argued as John Lancaster Spalding and my fellow progressives would have.
I made the case that communities should aim to integrate Catholicism with Darwinism by prudently incorporating evolution into school curriculum. Debating about what a school should or should not teach to its community caused me to reflect upon the general dispersal of information at turn of the century. Beyond schools, how did most individuals learn about and discuss Darwin’s ideas?
![Illustrated Illustrated](https://splits.s3.amazonaws.com/eec67acd111226ce3ecfea34585e44a374efbd38/splits/v9.imcq/split-114-page-15-html-bg.jpg?X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIAYW2E6VOLDTI35A%2F20181207%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20181207T171650Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=518400&X-Amz-Signature=5faaf6bbf8be3c583122c5ca1fb1e36e94acb66eefbd6b71ec9c58e2340a5682)
Scopes Trial Summary: The Scopes Trial, commonly referred to as the Scopes Evolution Trial or the Scopes Monkey trial, began on July 10th, 1925. The defendant, John Thomas Scopes, was a high school coach and substitute teacher who had been charged with violating the Butler Act by teaching. Quoted scripture during the Scopes Trial. Opened almost every proceeding with a prayer. Judge Raulston The Butler Act of 1925 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Clarence Darrow Causes of the Scopes Trial To most of the people in Tennessee, Creationism was the only thing to believe.
One major answer is simple: newspapers. In particular, I was interested to see how political cartoons added to the evolution conversation. So I did a little research and found a few political cartoons from both sides of the argument that peaked my interest. I have included them below. Nate Collier, 1925. This political cartoon by Nate Collier criticizes the conservative viewpoint on evolution, as progressives including John Lancaster Spalding would have. A nicely-dressed white male, labeled as a “fundamentalist” by his top hat, jumps at the sight of his ape-shaped shadow.
Exemplified here is the conception that conservatives were unnecessarily frightened by Darwin’s theories and therefore reacted in an unjustified manner, just as a man does when he is afraid of his own shadow. Urban Sereno Abell, March 1922. This political cartoon by Urban Sereno Abell perfectly encapsulates the conservative argument.
In the image, a man labeled as “Science Falsely So-Called” kneels down to worship an ape, identified as “Darwin’s Hypothesis of Evolution.” A Bible verse from Hosea in the upper left corner and a title in the bottom right corner reading “Ancestor Worship” summarizes the message of Abell’s image: science is an idol, or false god, that Catholics must avoid worshiping. As Appleby brings to attention in his essay, it was a veritable fear among conservatives that science and liberalism posed as a threat to the Catholic faith. The debate over if evolution should be taught in schools may seem extraneous to twenty-first century individuals who grew up in a more progressive schooling environment. It was indeed very difficult for us Ramonat Scholars to fully remove common, present-day arguments from our debate that was supposed to take place a century ago. An important event in American history that can give contemporary individuals an idea of the climate surrounding Darwinism is the 1925. Although later overturned on a technicality, a substitute teacher named John Scopes was initially found guilty and fined a hundred dollars for teaching evolution in a classroom.
This trial pitted fundamentalists and conservatives against progressives and resulted in the creation of many political cartoons, illustrating how heated and prominent the debate on teaching evolution was at the time. San Francisco Examiner, July 22, 1925. As was the case with my high school, remnants of both conservative and progressive thought are present in our contemporary education systems. However, no matter how divisive and ongoing this debate is, it has successfully allowed for more individualized and critical thought within the Catholic faith–room has been made for political critiques of the Church in art, activism, and policy.