US_Ch7_webquest-2-scopes

=**Did the Scopes Monkey Trial prove Darwinism to be correct?**=

Millions tuned their radios to hear the first trial ever broadcasted. Fundamentalists were part of a religious revival that was taking place in the 1920s. Some historians claim that the outcome of this trial put an end to the Fundamentalist movement and proved that Darwin's theory on evolution was valid and more mainstream than the creation account of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Reporters on the case showed bias as they ridiculed Fundamentalists by calling them "hillbillies" and "yokels."


 * 11. What information tells you this was a major trial, not just a local argument (did a lot of people tune in or a few)?**
 * 12. How did the press show bias against the Christianity point of view?**

The little bit that Americans know today about the trial comes from brief textbook descriptions or the famous book, then movie, //Inherit the Wind// in which lawyer Henry Drummond (suppose to be Clarence Darrow) represents the teacher, Bertram Cates (suppose to be John T. Scopes) who was "unjustly" accused of teaching evolution. Drummond cross-examines Matthew Harrison Brady (suppose to be William Jennings Bryan) and exposes him as an ignorant bumpkin. Textbooks, films, and playwrites portray Bryan as misinformed about science, but the trial record (if progressive historians would take the time to look up the record) shows the opposite - that Bryan knew more about archaeology and anthropology than Darrow.

The significance of the Scopes trial is that it addressed two central questions: the origins of man and the idea of teaching evolution (specifically teaching evolution from a biology textbook that presented the theory as a fact instead of a theory). The error in teaching evolution as a fact (in today's schools it's taught as a theory) is because no one was around when the world was created and therefore don't know for sure - must use observational science to aim to determine historical science.


 * 13. Why is evolution properly taught as a theory, not as a fact?**

Tennessee law prohibited teaching evolution (specifically the teaching of evolution from biology textbooks that presented it as fact instead of theory). Again, the law was against teaching it as a fact, not against teaching it as a theory. Clarence Darrow, the defense attorney for Scopes, cross-examined William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor. This cross-examination was the last major event at the trial. Therefore, writers made this exchange the big topic in their stories. What gets missed is why it was necessary. Darrow was losing since the judge already ruled that evolution was a theory, and that scientists' opinions were just that - opinions. Darrow tried to make the case about Bryan, rather than Scopes. Bryan's skill was in speeches - Darrow's skill was in debate. Bryan knew this and knew Darrow's strategy - Darrow was going to try to get Bryan to contradict himself. Modern sources report that Darrow got Bryan to make a fool out of himself and got Bryan to contradict his beliefs with what the Bible says. However, the actual trial transcripts tell a different story - that Bryan was able to answer Darrow's questions and proved that he knew more about Christianity and science than Darrow knew.

Scopes was found guilty and fined $100. On appeal, the case was thrown out of court due to a technicality (the judge gave Scopes the fine, but it should've been the jury giving the punishment). Some sources say the case ended Fundamentalism as a Christian movement and evolution was accepted. However, this is not the case. After WWII, religious revivals gained steam in America with Billy Graham going on his religious crusades around the nation. By the 1970s, scientists were less eager to cite evolution as "fact" and began to accept Creation taught along with evolution. In reality, there's evidence of Creation as well. Just one example would be the creation of universe. Secularists say it was the Big Bang Theory. This theory says that there was an explosion that began the world. What exploded? A natural substance (gases that exist in nature). How did those natural substances that exploded get there? Something beyond nature, or supernatural had to create whatever was natural. Logic should tell a believer of the Big Bang Theory that the evidence provided on how that substance got there had to be created by a supernatural force - God. In his famous debate with creationist Ken Ham, Bill Nye (the science guy) when asked how the matter that exploded got there for the big bang his response was "we don't know yet." Ken Ham of course had the answer! Secular Progressives today (those who do not want religion to be part of America) work to keep Creation from being taught in schools. Also, there are two key points left out when teaching in modern schools about the theory of evolution. One, we cannot observe anywhere in nature in which life comes from non living things. For evolution to be true, non-life had to produce life. This doesn't happen. Second, in order for evolution to have happened, organisms would have to gain genetic information. This also does not happen in any organism known to man today. Those two gaps in evolution that are left out of modern textbooks. In addition, the fossil record actually backs up Creation in that fossils show living things suddenly appearing into existence, not everything coming from a single molecule as evolution teaches. Furthermore, there has never been a change in kind (species yes, but not in kind) - in other words dogs have always been dogs, cats have always been cats, birds have always been birds, fish have always been fish and the fossil record proves this. For evolution to be correct all organisms living and non living would have started from one molecule...again non life can't produce life, but also no where in the fossil record do we see a fish becoming a bird. Differences in species exists and can be explained by both evolution and Creation. Again, we weren't there and have to rely on observations today. But certainly the information given shows why both evolution and Creation should be taught as theories, not just evolution, which is how it is in most schools today. Most Creationists don't object to teaching evolution but object to the gaps of evolution being left out of the teaching.


 * 14. Why is it important for BOTH Creation to also be taught at least as a theory along side evolution being taught as a theory (at least based on the evidence/logic above)?**

Click here to continue