The Scopes Monkey Trail

[Sonic247]

I never knew to much about what this trial was about until I did some reading on it. I thought that it was actually about a guy who wanted to teach evolution when it was against the law. What it really was was an advertising campaign for the ACLU and local buisnessmen. Also atheists and polititians, namely Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan. The ACLU put out an add saying they would cover the cost of the trial for the teacher who would break the Butler act, which was approved by 99 out of 100 people in the district. (It almost sounds like they are paying someone to break the law.) Some local buisness people thought this would be a good case to bring publicity to the town. They asked the biology teacher to join them in there quest for fame and money but he refused so they got John Scopes who was sometimes a substitute for the biology teacher. Although he agreed with local buisness people, attornies before he taught on evolution, to the charge of teaching evolution he plead not guilty under oath. It was an open and shut case, but what the case was actually about was not the purpose of the defense, just a cover up for their real motivation. The defence gathered a team of expert witnesses to slur the Bible and promote evolution to the public. Clarence Darrow was frustrated that these testimonies which had absolutely nothing to do with the case were denied. They gave their testimonies but they were stricken from the record, the judge was actually being very patient to allow as much as he did considering they had nothing to do with the case and it is wrong to use the legal system as an advertising gimmick.

 

[Father Heathen]

Maybe, but science is still science and should still be taught in schools.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... it is wrong to use the legal system as an advertising gimmick.

That's precisely what the opponents of the Civil Rights Movement kept telling us. Some things never change ...

 

[Sonic247]

Evolution is a creation story like Genesis is. The reason it is taught is because everything people learn about the natural world never tells them where it comes from. So people want a frame work to hang their knowledge on. A creationist would say that from what they see that life couldn't come from nonlife and there must be someone who created it that they admit is far beyond human comprehension. An evolutionist has a materialistic framework. Matter is what is eternal and formed itself into everthing we see today. However neither of these things were directly observed so maybe neither should be taught in a science class.

Actually evolution should be taught to an extent, when Darwin shot I think 14 varieties of finches and noticed that they were each suited to their particular environment. Some had strong beaks for braking seed, some had long ones for catching bugs. So it is reasonable to assume that they had a common anscestor. Especially because we can observe new varities like that developing from other animals especially dogs. But to say a one-celled organism can form itself, or rather be formed by chance, isn't science, (one-celled organisms are actually very complicated.) Or that they can go on to become plants and animals isn't exactly scientific. It's something that explain origins, but can never be proven.

Just think about it, how many things are taught in biology class that can't be observed. Almost everything else is something we can see happening in our present world.

 

[rheff78]

Maybe, but science is still science and should still be taught in schools.

Wow, we agree. Evolution is still taught as a theory though, not scientific fact.

 

[Sonic247]

I think it depends on the teacher and what book he is using. Whatever the official legal position is I hear many people that say evolution is a proven fact and it's probably the way it was presented to them that makes them think that.

 

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

Wow, we agree. Evolution is still taught as a theory though, not scientific fact.

There is no such thing as a scientific fact. All we have are theories which are supported by masses of evidence. Gravity is one, evolution is another.

 

[McBell]

There is no such thing as a scientific fact. All we have are theories which are supported by masses of evidence. Gravity is one, evolution is another.

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer​

 

[Katzpur]

All I can say is that there was a play based on this trial. It was called "Inherit the Wind," and it was one of the best plays I've ever seen in my life.

 

[gnomon]

That was a good play.
Note my sig.

 

[Valjean]

Evolution is a creation story like Genesis is. The reason it is taught is because everything people learn about the natural world never tells them where it comes from. So people want a frame work to hang their knowledge on. A creationist would say that from what they see that life couldn't come from nonlife and there must be someone who created it that they admit is far beyond human comprehension. An evolutionist has a materialistic framework. Matter is what is eternal and formed itself into everthing we see today. However neither of these things were directly observed so maybe neither should be taught in a science class.

Evolution isn't a creation story, Sonic. Evolution is change over time. The various theories of evolution are explanations of how this change comes about.

Evolution has little to say about creation, but, then, neither does Genesis. Genisis isn't an explanation of the mechanism by which the world, life, &c came into being. It's more an assertion of Who did the deed and a bit of the order in which He did it.
Comparing an explanation of mechanism to an assertion of agency is like comparing apples to airlpanes. They're entirely different things.

If we taught only what could be directly observed we'd still be living in caves. The laws of chemistry or physics were not worked out by simple observation. Some of them are decidedly counter-intuitive. The mechanism behind atomic power is a great deal more ridiculous-sounding than the simple steps of evolution theory, but: "Yet it moves."

I don't understand how the assertion that an extremely powerful personage zapped it all into being by magic could be considred a more reasonable and intellectually satisfying explanation than the clear and supportable mechanism dscribed by science -- unless, of course, one is not really familiar with these methods and mechanisms.

Actually evolution should be taught to an extent, when Darwin shot I think 14 varieties of finches and noticed that they were each suited to their particular environment. Some had strong beaks for braking seed, some had long ones for catching bugs. So it is reasonable to assume that they had a common anscestor. Especially because we can observe new varities like that developing from other animals especially dogs. But to say a one-celled organism can form itself, or rather be formed by chance, isn't science, (one-celled organisms are actually very complicated.) Or that they can go on to become plants and animals isn't exactly scientific. It's something that explain origins, but can never be proven.

As has been mentioned countless times in these forums, evolution does not have a definitive explanation of how life came about originally. Science is still in the data-gathering and speculation stage.

Just think about it, how many things are taught in biology class that can't be observed. Almost everything else is something we can see happening in our present world.

I'm speechless. Where did you come up with such an idea?

 

[Valjean]

Wow, we agree. Evolution is still taught as a theory though, not scientific fact.

Rheff, I don't think you understand how these terms are used in science. "Theory," as a technical term, is not synonymous with "speculation," as it is in colloquial usage.
In Geology "plate" does not refer to the dinner china. In medicine an "insult" is not a disparaging word. In biology a "kingdom" is not a political entity, and, in any scientific discussion, "theory" is much more than speculation.

Moreover, the idea that organisms have changed over time is taught as a fact, as are many of the 'theoretical' mechanisms for these changes. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, as are the germ theory of disease or the Copernican theory of the solar system.

 

[rheff78]

Rheff, I don't think you understand how these terms are used in science. "Theory," as a technical term, is not synonymous with "speculation," as it is in colloquial usage.
In Geology "plate" does not refer to the dinner china. In medicine an "insult" is not a disparaging word. In biology a "kingdom" is not a political entity, and, in any scientific discussion, "theory" is much more than speculation.

Moreover, the idea that organisms have changed over time is taught as a fact, as are many of the 'theoretical' mechanisms for these changes. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, as are the germ theory of disease or the Copernican theory of the solar system.

I understand the difference in verbiage. My point is that gravity, in terms of junior high through high school, is taught as fact. Photosythesis is taught as fact. Avogadro's number is taight as fact. Evolution is taught as something that could have happened. There is some evidence that supports this claim. I am not a science teacher mind you.

 

[Valjean]

What else would they be taught as, if not facts?
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. :sorry1:

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually evolution should be taught to an extent, when Darwin shot I think 14 varieties of finches and noticed that they were each suited to their particular environment. Some had strong beaks for braking seed, some had long ones for catching bugs. So it is reasonable to assume that they had a common anscestor.

That really is the core concept of evolution. An organism changes and adapts to better suit it's environment, and a common ancestry is usually shared. That is also what supports evolution, especially since it is indeed frequently observed. It is also why it is also compatible with religion. It makes no claims of God's existence or lack thereof. Just that things change.

 

[Sonic247]

Right and I'm fine with that. But in the example we observe it's a rearranging of genes to better suit the enviroment, and that is scientific. I just don't think there is any evidence to support life coming from nonlife, even as good enough theory to be taught in a public school.

 

[rheff78]

What else would they be taught as, if not facts?
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. :sorry1:

You know what I'm getting at. In science you are taught certain things that DID happen. When evolution is brought up it is explained that this is a THeory, this had not been proven to have happened but there is evidence to support the fact that this could have happened. I think it is a way of protecting the school from angry Evangilist parents from coming down on them.

 

[Mr. Hair]

I just don't think there is any evidence to support life coming from nonlife,

Everything else aside, the ToE has nothing to do with the origins of life. You're confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

By the by, have you ever checked out TalkOrigins? They've got a goodly collection of articles on the science surrounding the origins of life...

 

[McBell]

You know what I'm getting at. In science you are taught certain things that DID happen. When evolution is brought up it is explained that this is a THeory, this had not been proven to have happened but there is evidence to support the fact that this could have happened. I think it is a way of protecting the school from angry Evangilist parents from coming down on them.

Here we go again....
round and round...
Will you ever catch your tail?

 

[Valjean]

You know what I'm getting at. In science you are taught certain things that DID happen. When evolution is brought up it is explained that this is a THeory, this had not been proven to have happened but there is evidence to support the fact that this could have happened. I think it is a way of protecting the school from angry Evangilist parents from coming down on them.

Alas, you may have a point about the rhetorical camouflage, rheff. I wonder if placating the peasants at the gate with verbal misdirection doesn't contribute to the misunderstandings that created them, though, along with the idea that science 'proves' things.