Merla Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Hi all,I just have some questions I would like some opinions of... I have just read the Scope Trial by Fay-Cooper Cole and if anyone else have read it, please feel free to reply: ;) - The defense at the Scopes trial claimed there to be no necessary conflict existing between evolution and Christianity. What do you believe of this claim?- Also. If we were to set a law against teaching evolution because "it is what the people decided", according to Bryan in his prosecution.. What risk does this viewpoint pose to a democracy? And what's your general opinion of the Scope Trial? By the way... Is a state votes to restrict the teaching of evolution, what right does the Federal government or any other jurisdiction have to intervene? Thanks in advance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 I have just read the Scope Trial by Fay-Cooper Cole and if anyone else have read it, please feel free to reply: ;)I haven't read it, but Scopes is so famous and your questions are general, so I thought I'd jump in (its a popular topic around here, as you can probably see).- The defense at the Scopes trial claimed there to be no necessary conflict existing between evolution and Christianity. What do you believe of this claim?Its pretty common, and its not just true of many Christian beliefs, but also its Judaism and Islam too. All you really need to do is interpret Genesis with "days" that are allegorical rather than literal. It is mostly the fundamentalist sects (of all the above faiths) that insist that they must be interpreted as 24-hour days, which other groups find a bit, uh unimaginative. You can be religious and believe Evolution to be a fact: they are not in conflict unless specific church teachings within a specific sect demand that they be in conflict.- Also. If we were to set a law against teaching evolution because "it is what the people decided", according to Bryan in his prosecution.. What risk does this viewpoint pose to a democracy?Its definitely a risk to science, because creationism/Intelligent Design are not science, as they do not produce testable hypotheses and rely either on the proposition that the Bible is the only source of truth or the odd notion that if we can't figure out how something works today it had to have been designed by a creator. But your question is what is the threat to democracy, and in that light, the biggest threat is that it begins to establish support of a specific religious belief by a government paid institiution, the public schools, and our founders saw fit to prohibit that in our Constitution. I always like to quote Jesus on this one: "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars, render unto God, that which is God's." If the state does establish that the fundamentalist view should be taught, then it opens the can of worms that every religious belief that is even slightly contradicted by science must be taught as well (How about the cycles of the universe in Hinduism? How about Charlie's aura powers the light of the Sun in the Church of Charlie?). The founding fathers were very smart to say, leave it for Sunday School if you want to learn about it.And what's your general opinion of the Scope Trial?An amazing circus of its time. It also shows how you can lose the battle but win the war.By the way... Is a state votes to restrict the teaching of evolution, what right does the Federal government or any other jurisdiction have to intervene?States-rights activists like Thomas Jefferson would say, "no way!" The Hamiltonians would say, sure. The Constitution says if it doesn't have something to do with interstate commerce, its pretty hard to argue that any such override would be constitutional, but I would not be surprised if we saw a movement to add an amendment ensuring that states have the right to do this. With the current power structure in Washington however, any state doing anything like this would be left unmolested (in fact probably encouraged) by both the Legislative and Executive branches of government. Cheers,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merla Posted February 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Amazing replies Buffy, thank you. Another question that crossed my mind was how the author writes that in 1959 few informed persons, if any, questions the theory of evolution. Surely, that stement is not too accurate today? Or what do you think?Are we not more "unsure" about Evolution today, or Darrow actually voiced a quite humoristic and exaggerating(according to me) opinion in one of his arguments: "If today you can make teaching of evolution in the public schools a crime, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools. At the next session of the Legislature you can ban books and newspapers. You can set Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant... Your honor, we will find ourselves marching backward to the glorious days of the 16th century when bigots lighted faggots to burn men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment to the human mind."- Surely that is an unrealistic scenario to happen? It is, of course, very wrong to not allow the teaching of evolution in public schools. hm.. Is there not a specific name for this chained-calamities reasoning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Another question that crossed my mind was how the author writes that in 1959 few informed persons, if any, questions the theory of evolution. Surely, that stement is not too accurate today? Or what do you think?Are we not more "unsure" about Evolution todayIt depends on what the author meant by "informed!" A lot of the shift came because in fact Scopes exposed the fact that many people in the 20s who belonged to and were active in mainstream religions did accept Evolution. Scopes' biggest effect at the time was to make it look like the people who had a problem with Evolution were "a bunch of uneducated hicks from the back woods," according to my grandmother who grew up then. My grandfather was inspired to become a lawyer because of Darrow. My grandmother, who was Episcopalian always told me that people of her generation were inspired by the great leaps in technology in the late 19th and early 20th century and as a group generally believed that science and technology would make the world a better place. These people and their off spring by 1959 of course had no problem with Evolution. What changed was that in the aftermath of the turmoil of the 60s and 70s, some devious and/or desperate folks in various sects (both fundamentalist and liberal by the way), found that by challenging this conventional wisdom, they could inspire their existing flock and win converts who were disturbed by the fact that science and technology had wrought so much pain and suffering. What really changed was when Jerry Falwell and the folks on the right that followed them started to channel this religious movement into a political movement, an that's where we started getting real conflict. This also got more people who in 1959 might have indifferently said "Evolution? Sure!" to now, equally indifferently say, "Creationism? Sure!" In both cases, polls were not so much registering strong belief but the prevailing feeling that that is what most people believed and you don't want to sound like a freak to a pollster do you?Darrow actually voiced a quite humoristic and exaggerating(according to me) opinion <snip /> - Surely that is an unrealistic scenario to happen? The pendulum is always swinging. It always gravitates back toward the center. We might burn a few "Evolutionists" but just a few martyrs before it swings back....It is, of course, very wrong to not allow the teaching of evolution in public schools.Right, because its science, its not a "religious belief."hm.. Is there not a specific name for this chained-calamities reasoning?I've never heard of "chained-calamities reasoning" and it produced nothing on Google. What is it? I'd love to hear more... Cheers,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 hm.. Is there not a specific name for this chained-calamities reasoning? Are you thinking of slippery slope? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargazer Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 - The defense at the Scopes trial claimed there to be no necessary conflict existing between evolution and Christianity. What do you believe of this claim?There are so many various flavours of christianity, ranging from hardcore type who believe that the Bible is the absolute word of god, and reality better move out of its way, to the kind who believe that some parts of the Bible are symbolic and others might be true etc. Depending on what type of christianity one believe in, it could be at odds with science or it doesn't have to be. Not that it matters what a religion has to say... - Also. If we were to set a law against teaching evolution because "it is what the people decided", according to Bryan in his prosecution.. What risk does this viewpoint pose to a democracy?Well, it seems to me like the first step towards a new dark age, where religion and superstition rules instead of science and reason. You can't use democracy to decide what scientific theories should be allowed and which one shouldn't. And why do the creationists attack only evolution? Surely if the universe and the Earth are only 6000 years, they should have serious problems about the teaching of geology, palaeontology and cosmology, and other fields of science, and not only the most important part of biology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merla Posted February 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 Hm. One thing that crossed my mind, which was not explained in the article I read about the Scope Trial... How were the members of the jury choosen? Were they educated enough on both sides of the debate or? Diverse enough? Was it a "fair" choice of the Jury and how did it affect the trial? Little off topic(or maybe not).. But are there any modern day examples of other forms of enlightenment that have been banned, or received great opposition in Congress or the Senate? What's the film Inherit the Wind like? Anyone seen it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 Is a state votes to restrict the teaching of evolution, what right does the Federal government or any other jurisdiction have to intervene? This would not violate any current laws. State school boards set their own curriculum so they would be free to do this. Any such state would likely suffer a blow to the ranking of it's curriculum compared to that of other states. Many colleges use rankings like this as part of their admissions programs to decide who gets seats there and who does not. At the very least students from a state with such a curriculum would likely lose all access to medical schools and other bioscience programs since they would not meet the prerequisites for these studies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 How were the members of the jury choosen? Were they educated enough on both sides of the debate or? Diverse enough? Was it a "fair" choice of the Jury and how did it affect the trial?I've never seen anything specific about the Scopes jury either, but looking at the standard operating procedure in those days, they were local, and the pool was probably limited based on race and sex (prolly all white males, this was true in the south until the 1960s), as they all had to be fine, upstanding citizens of the community. But I don't think there was any questioning of the jurors at all: the notion of "picking" a jury as you see today is a pretty modern concept....are there any modern day examples of other forms of enlightenment that have been banned, or received great opposition in Congress or the Senate?Well, congress has been so liberal since FDR with the exception of the last few years that examples are hard to find. Pre-Scopes of course you had that little bit of controversy called the Civil War, and the subsequent passage of Jim Crow laws during Reconstruction... Cheers,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merla Posted February 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 I did hear something about the jury being picked in the court... Individuals who were questioned regarding their beliefs, local people as you say. They had to be neutral, of course, to be considered for the jury - Henry Drummond and Matthew Brady were able to question the people to "accept" them. Not sure about this though? Sorry if I'm not "clear" or understandable, I'm foreign :( Civil War was a good example. Thank you, Buffy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 Inherit the Wind is one of my favorite plays, and a wonderful movie. I'm not certain how accurate it is, but I believe that it is based off of actual court transcripts. The movie is old, but worth watching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 As for the jury being picked, that is a normal process, in which both sides try to get an unbiased jury, or biased to their side. The problem that Scopes had was that nearly all the townsmen believed in creationism, so he never really had a chance of winning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merla Posted February 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 So the jury was unfair, biased? What should they have done instead.. Picked people who were more neutral, from out of town? The reason for why Scopes lost was because the jury was so biased I suppose.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zadojla Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 There's no rule that juries have to be unbiased, justed fairly selected. There are cases where juries have acquitted people who confessed guilt. That's the purpose of juries, that regular people decide the defendant's fate, not professional jurists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.