Creationism - National Center for Science Education

Historical and cultural conditions led to a greatly increased popularity of
fundamentalism in the first decades of this century, especially with the loss of faith in
progress and in secular science following World War One, which was attributed by
fundamentalists to abandonment of traditional Christian morality (especially by
Germany) as a result of wholesale acceptance of Darwinism. The concern over moral
conditions and the moral basis of society has always been, and still is, of paramount
concern for fundamentalists. Especially following the Great War, evolution became the
focus of fundamentalist concern, as it was perceived as denying the very basis of
Christian and biblical authority, and thus of morality.
Fundamentalism is characterized by an abhorrence of compromise and a sharply
dichotomizing outlook, resulting in rejection of all compromising theories, and insistence
on more narrowly literalist interpretations. Strict fundamentalists generally condemn
Day-Age creationism and other harmonizing schemes as dangerous compromises which
lead inevitably to further apostasy. Many continue to endorse the Gap Theory, but the
strictist fundamentalists now tend to insist upon young-earth creationism as the only
biblical interpretation. A notable example of the evolution and dialectic of creationist
theory is the position of George Frederick Wright, who (depending on one’s
interpretation) either remained stationary while fundamentalism changed around him or
himself evolved in a fundamentalist direction in response to these conditions. Considered
an influential Christian Darwinist at first, he became known as a fundamentalist antievolutionist,
contributing to The Fundamentals and cited as such by Bryan during the
Scopes Trial.
Since the high point of fundamentalist political influence and activity in the
1920s, there has been a changing strategy of fundamentalist lobbying and political efforts
against evolution. The initial strategy was simply to enforce an outright ban on the
teaching of evolution as anti-biblical and directly and irredeemably opposed to Christian
belief and morality. When this strategy did not prevail, the next stage was an attempt to
enforce the granting of equal time to the biblical account of creation alongside evolution.
When this too was declared unconstitutional, the strategy shifted to attempts to enforce
equal time for “creation-science”—supposedly a scientific, non-religious theory endorsed
as a valid alternative to the evolutionist theory of origins. This approach too has met with
continued legal setbacks, though there has been a renewal of creationist activity aimed at
local teachers, parents, students and school boards, aimed not at enforcing creationism
from above, but in educating and influencing people to demand it and teach it at the local
level.
But in addition to this evolution of strategy, there have been further schisms
within creationism regarding these approaches. Some fundamentalist creationists reject
the appeal for teaching of “creation-science” as itself surrender to anti-Christian and
evolutionist secularism. These fundamentalist opponents of creation-science insist on
openly proclaiming the essential biblical basis of creationism. Americans, as citizens of a
Christian nation with constitutional protection of religious beliefs, should not feel
compelled to pretend to deny the undeniable biblical and religious basis of creationism,
and should not be subjected to exclusive teaching of evolution, which itself denies the
very basis of true Christianity. Christian students should be offered biblical creationism
as a balance to Bible-denying evolution. The Christian Reconstructionists go even
further. Their avowed aim, which reflects the influence of their post-millennialist