Culture Darwinism News

The Instapundit gets it about the Scopes Trial

Spread the love

Here.

WITH PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE SCOPES TRIAL, let me just note that what you think you know about it is probably wrong — especially if what you think you know about it comes from watching Inherit The Wind.

Inherit the Wind used the Scopes trial to talk about censorship in 1950s America. It had nothing whatever to do with what really happened in Tennessee. But the play was successfully seized on by Darwin’s followers—because it so conveniently prevented a true discussion of the issues around human uniqueness.

And nothing much has changed.

6 Replies to “The Instapundit gets it about the Scopes Trial

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Alleged The Movie – Trailer (2010)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1b8g8rUA6k

    Charles Anderson (Nathan West), a talented young reporter, feels trapped working for his deceased father’s newspaper and living in a tiny town (Dayton, TN, 1925) in steep decline. Seeing the Scopes “Monkey Trial” as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to break into the journalistic big leagues, Charles manages to insert himself into the middle of the “Trial of the Century.” Once there, however, he is torn between his love for the more principled Rose (his fiancée, Ashley Johnson), and the allure of being able to “change the world” under the tutelage of his hero, the great H.L. Mencken (Colm Meaney) of the Baltimore Sun. When the truth is at stake, Charles discovers, some lies just have to be told. Clarence Darrow (Brian Dennehy) squares off against William Jennings Bryan (Sen. Fred Thompson) in this epic battle involving creation, evolution, biology and bias.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    podcast – Writer, Producer Fred Foote Sets the Record Straight with Alleged
    http://www.idthefuture.com/201....._fred.html

  3. 3
    Breckmin says:

    everything I’ve read from the scopes trial seems to fail to make a distinction between theistic implications in science and religious implications OF THOSE theistic implications.

    The “conclusion” of Intelligent Causation is a scientific conclusion…NOT a religious conclusion. Steve Meyer has also pointed this out. I have been arguing that scientific evidence first leads to “agnostic theism” (for many years now) once you set up a cumulative case argument for allowing theistic implications and remove the circular assumptions of materialism with the definition of science itself.

    There is an additional cumulative case argument which goes from agnostic theism to Orthodox Monotheism. I’ve often used 15 steps (6 to agnostic theism and the rest to the God of Abraham). A cumulative case argument from the God of Abraham to Jesus is clearly much more intricate and requires faith in alleged evidence at some point and is not just an argument based solely on evidence and reason like agnostic theism or the cumulative argument from A.T. to the God of the O.T.

    If anyone is interested in the CCA and the 15 steps I use I’ll post them at your request.

  4. 4
    Barb says:

    At the end of the last century, liberal theologians were changing their beliefs to accommodate higher criticism of the Bible and scientific theories, such as evolution. As a result, people’s confidence in the Bible was shaken.

    Conservative religious leaders in the United States reacted by fixing what they called the fundamentals of faith. Early in the 20th century, they published a discussion of these fundamentals in a series of volumes entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. From this title comes the term “fundamentalism.”

    In the first half of the 20th century, fundamentalism made news from time to time. For example, in 1925, religious fundamentalists took a schoolteacher named John Scopes of Tennessee, U.S.A., to court in what became known as the Scopes trial. His crime? He was teaching evolution, and that was against state law. In those days, some believed that fundamentalism would be short-lived. In 1926, Christian Century, a Protestant magazine, said that it was “hollow and artificial” and “wholly lacking in qualities of constructive achievement or survival.” How wrong that assessment was!

  5. 5
    Robert Byers says:

    Never seen the movie but it was an attack upon Christianity by left wing Hollywood.
    Censorship?
    Upon what principal do they say censorship is wrong?
    WHEN today creationism is censored by the state in its institutions!
    It was a liberal establishment that used the scopes thing for their agendas back in the day and ever since.
    It was not a true trial of what is true about origins.
    They were preaching to the people that they must not censor opinions by other Americans about origins but really they were struggling to control what is taught to the kids in order to strike at Christianity.
    Down with censorship but until creationism is free in science class then DOWN with the scopes trial as a lesson of correction to Christian America(and Canada).

  6. 6
    Breckmin says:

    @ 3
    o.k. how do I edit or delete my posts here..

    I am guilty of a rather large blunder.

    I was actually thinking of Kitzmiller/Dover not Scopes
    and how I ever got them mixed up in my mind I will never know.

    Hopefully it won’t happen in the future now…when I’m in my 50’s.

Leave a Reply