Christian fundamentalism

===== Evolution =====
In the 1920s, Christian fundamentalists "differed on how to understand the account of creation in Genesis" but they "agreed that God was the author of creation and that humans were distinct creatures, separate from animals, and made in the image of God."<ref name="Sutton2019" /> While some of them advocated the belief in [[Old Earth creationism]] and a few of them even advocated the belief in [[evolutionary creation]], other "strident fundamentalists" advocated [[Young Earth Creationism]] and "associated evolution with last-days atheism."<ref name="Sutton2019">{{cite news |last1=Sutton |first1=Matthew Avery |title=The Day Christian Fundamentalism Was Born |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/25/opinion/the-day-christian-fundamentalism-was-born.html |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=26 May 2019 |language=en |date=25 May 2019|quote=Although fundamentalists differed on how to understand the account of creation in Genesis, they agreed that God was the author of creation and that humans were distinct creatures, separate from animals, and made in the image of God. Some believed than an [[Old Earth creationism|old earth]] could be reconciled with the Bible, and others were comfortable teaching some forms of God-directed evolution. Riley and the more strident fundamentalists, however, associated evolution with last-days atheism, and they made it their mission to purge it from the schoolroom.}}</ref> These "strident fundamentalists" in the 1920s devoted themselves to fighting against the [[teaching of evolution]] in the nation's schools and colleges, especially by passing state laws that affected public schools. [[William Bell Riley]] took the initiative in the 1925 [[Scopes Trial]] by bringing in famed politician [[William Jennings Bryan]] and hiring him to serve as an assistant to the local prosecutor, who helped draw national media attention to the trial. In the half century after the Scopes Trial, fundamentalists had little success in shaping government policy, and they were generally defeated in their efforts to reshape the [[Mainline Protestant|mainline denominations]], which refused to join fundamentalist attacks on evolution.<ref name="Kee 1998 484" /> Particularly after the Scopes Trial, liberals saw a division between Christians in favor of the teaching of evolution, whom they viewed as educated and tolerant, and Christians against evolution, whom they viewed as narrow-minded, tribal, and obscurantist.<ref>David Goetz, "The Monkey Trial". ''[[Christian History]]'' 1997 16(3): 10–18. 0891–9666; Burton W. Folsom, Jr. "The Scopes Trial Reconsidered." ''Continuity'' 1988 (12): 103–127. 0277–1446, by a leading conservative scholar</ref>

Edwards (2000), however, challenges the consensus view among scholars that in the wake of the Scopes trial, fundamentalism retreated into the political and cultural background, a viewpoint which is evidenced in the movie [[Inherit the Wind (1960 film)|''Inherit the Wind'']] and the majority of contemporary historical accounts. Rather, he argues, the cause of fundamentalism's retreat was the death of its leader, Bryan. Most fundamentalists saw the trial as a victory rather than a defeat, but Bryan's death soon afterward created a leadership void that no other fundamentalist leader could fill. Unlike the other fundamentalist leaders, Bryan brought name recognition, respectability, and the ability to forge a broad-based coalition of fundamentalist religious groups to argue in favor of the anti-evolutionist position.<ref>Mark Edwards, "Rethinking the Failure of Fundamentalist Political Antievolutionism after 1925". ''[[Fides Et Historia]]'' 2000 32(2): 89–106. 0884–5379</ref>

Gatewood (1969) analyzes the transition from the anti-evolution crusade of the 1920s to the [[creation science]] movement of the 1960s. Despite some similarities between these two causes, the creation science movement represented a shift from religious to [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] objections to Darwin's theory. Creation science also differed in terms of popular leadership, rhetorical tone, and sectional focus. It lacked a prestigious leader like Bryan, utilized pseudoscientific argument rather than religious rhetoric, and was a product of California and Michigan rather than the South.<ref>Willard B. Gatewood, Jr., ed. ''Controversy in the Twenties: Fundamentalism, Modernism, & Evolution'' (1969)</ref>

Webb (1991) traces the political and legal struggles between strict creationists and Darwinists to influence the extent to which evolution would be taught as science in Arizona and California schools. After Scopes was convicted, creationists throughout the United States sought similar anti-evolution laws for their states. These included Reverends R. S. Beal and Aubrey L. Moore in Arizona and members of the Creation Research Society in California, all supported by distinguished laymen. They sought to ban evolution as a topic for study, or at least relegate it to the status of unproven theory perhaps taught alongside the biblical version of creation. Educators, scientists, and other distinguished laymen favored evolution. This struggle occurred later in the Southwest than in other US areas and persisted through the Sputnik era.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Webb | first1 = George E. | year = 1991 | title = The Evolution Controversy in Arizona and California: From the 1920s to the 1980s | journal = Journal of the Southwest | volume = 33 | issue = 2| pages = 133–150 }} See also {{cite journal | last1 = Curtis | first1 = Christopher K. | year = 1986 | title = Mississippi's Anti-Evolution Law of 1926 | journal = Journal of Mississippi History | volume = 48 | issue = 1| pages = 15–29 }}</ref>

In recent times, the courts have heard cases on whether or not the Book of Genesis's creation account should be taught in science classrooms alongside evolution, most notably in the 2005 federal court case ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]''.<ref name="ncse.com">{{cite web | title = Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial | url = http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover | publisher = [[National Center for Science Education]] | date =17 October 2008 | access-date = 21 June 2011 }}</ref> Creationism was presented under the banner of [[intelligent design]], with the book ''[[Of Pandas and People]]'' being its textbook. The trial ended with the judge deciding that teaching intelligent design in a science class was unconstitutional as it was a religious belief and not science.<ref>[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al.]], [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#H. Conclusion|H. Conclusion]]</ref>

The original fundamentalist movement divided along clearly defined lines within conservative evangelical Protestantism as issues progressed. Many groupings, large and small, were produced by this schism. [[Neo-evangelicalism]], the [[David Barton (author)|Heritage movement]], and [[Paleo-Orthodoxy]] have all developed distinct identities, but none of them acknowledge any more than an historical overlap with the fundamentalist movement, and the term is seldom used of them. The broader term "[[evangelical]]" includes fundamentalists as well as people with similar or identical religious beliefs who do not engage the outside challenge to the Bible as actively.<ref>Harris, Harriet A. ''Fundamentalism and Evangelicals'' (2008), pp. 39, 313.</ref>

Writing in 2023, conservative Christian journalist [[David French (political commentator)|David French]] quotes a former president of the [[Southern Baptist Convention]]'s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, [[Richard Land]], as identifying fundamentalism as "far more a psychology than a theology," with characteristics shared by competing competing Christian theologies and competing religions. According French, that psychology is one that shares "three key traits": certainty (of a mind unclouded by doubt), ferocity (against perceived enemies of their religion) and solidarity (of "comrades in the foxhole", a virtue surpassing even piety in importance).<ref name="French-love-7-12-2023">{{cite news |last1=French |first1=David |title=Why Fundamentalists Love Trump |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/07/opinion/donald-trump-fundamentalists-evangelical.html |access-date=14 December 2023 |work=New York Times |date=7 December 2023}}</ref>