Controvery of Creation vs. Evolution in Inherit the Wind, by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee

Since the beginning of the human race there has been a lingering question as to the origins of man and how all living things acquired their characteristics. The two main theories that arose over time were Creationism and Evolution, both of which provided very distinct answers to this question. Creationism based its answer on the idea of a supernatural power or being that created the entire universe, man and the numerous other organisms that live within it. While, Evolution theorizes that all living things have the potential to change and grow over time into something new and different. So in other words, one theory suggests that humans and all the organisms on Earth are the result of divine design, while the other indicates that they

Society requires a justice system in order to maintain people’s rights, freedom, and equality. In the play, Edgar, Cordelia, and Kent are three characters who have been treated unfairly and were left with no opportunity to prove themselves innocent. Cordelia is fortunate to have her own freedom after leaving the kingdom and marrying the Duke of France. However, Edgar and Kent were left to fend for themselves

Stanley Kramer's film, Inherit the Wind, examines a trial based on the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee. Often referred to as "The Trial of the Century" (Scopes Trial Web Page), the Scopes trial illuminated the controversy between the Christian theory of creation and the more scientific theory of evolution. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, was arrested for illegally teaching evolutionism to his class. "The meaning of the trial emerged because it was seen as a conflict of social and intellectual values" (Scopes Trial Web Page). Kramer's film dramatizes this conflict between the Christian believers and the evolutionists in "Hillsboro, heavenly Hillsboro, the

sleepy, obscure country town…” (Lawrence and Lee 3), its inhabitants have been exposed to new technologies and new ideas to a certain degree, and they are open-minded enough to listen to differing viewpoints from their own. Brady, on the other hand, is very resolute in his mindset and doesn’t embrace any form of change, which disconnects him from the majority of Americans in the 1920s. In a conversation, Hornbeck, a writer for the Baltimore Herald, explains Brady’s disconnection with the “common man” to Rachel, who is the finacé of Bert, the defendant. Hornbeck mentions, “... The ordinary people/ Played a dirty trick on Colonel Brady./

Feste’s character in this scene. Feste breaks the stereotypes set for him as a fool and proves

	Meanwhile, Drummond took an entirely different approach to this specific aspect of the case, the pre-trial campaigning. He planned to save his massive assault for the trial itself, and took on a somewhat withdrawn social appearance. He knew that the ignorant people of Hillsboro had been turned against him and that it was a handicap he would be forced to accept. It was readily evident when a young child screamed Drummond was the Devil himself, and ran away in fright the moment he entered the town. But he didn’t care. He was fighting for what he wanted, for what he knew was right. As Drummond would most likely put it; he didn’t give a ‘hell’ about the masses’

Matthew Brady was able to change the actions of the society in Hillsboro by his leadership in the town’s shared religion. Matthew Brady is very important to the people of Hillsboro and they would do anything for him, even vote for him as the President of the United States. Bannister told Brady, in relation to Brady’s three

so he can disrespect the Bible, he was defending Cates so people can respect different ways of thinking. While in court, he never out right said people shouldn't believe in the Bible but rather tried to understand why they do, that's why when Brady was his witness, he was questioning Brady on what his belief of the Bible but not shaming him. The ending of the story, the reader got to see the best part of Drummond, when Brady died and Hornbeck was degrading him. The reader can see this through the conversation with Hornbeck and Drummond:

During the final act of the play after Drummond officially loses the case, he stays in the courtroom to talk to Cates and some others. During this time Brady dies and Hornbeck starts saying rude things, “Why should we weep for him? He cried enough for himself… A Barnum-bunkum Bible-beating bastard” (Lawrence & Lee 125)! Hornbeck’s statements anger Drummond to his core. Angrily, Drummond responds, “you smart-aleck! You have no more right to spit on his religion than you have a right to spit on my religion! Or my lack of it” (Lawrence & Lee 125)! Then while arguing with Hornbeck, Drummond says, “Why? Because I refuse to erase a man's lifetime? I tell you Brady had the same right as Cates: the right to be wrong” (Lawrence & Lee 127)! These statements show that Drummond not only tolerates, but he respects Brady when faced with his

As humans evolve, they will change. Through the years, humans will both change mentally and physically. Through research and reasoning, people can only predict what might be the next human evolution. Much of what is predicted is based on the world that humans live in today. Some day, humans might be even be able to change their own genetics as science and technology advances.

Within the second trimester of the novel it is evident that new experiences have further enhanced Tom’s movement past hardship and into a world happier than he had perviously subdued. Through acceptance of his new world forced upon him, Tom has improved physically. As Tom becomes physically active again he enriches his understanding of self, and his place in the world. “You know, Dan, they really enjoy playing. It’s not just about winning”. Burke uses dialogue to present that Tom has accepted the new word and in doing so, has grown not only physically but mentally as well. Through this Burke portrays yet another positive consequence of moving into the world.

If the question was posed as to what is the debate between creationism vs. evolution consist of, the thought that it is ‘“God did it” vs. “Natural processes did it,”’ (Scott, 2004) may arise. Science cannot absolutely prove or disprove Creation or Evolution. Yet scientist and the remainder of society use creationism and evolution to prove our existence. Creationist believe in the Christian account of the origin as recorded in Genesis. Creationism is the belief that statements such as “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (NIV) found in Genesis 1:1 and also “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (NIV) found in John 1:1. Evolution is the belief that everything just changed over

In the history of science vs. religion there have been no issues more intensely debated than evolution vs. creationism. The issue is passionately debated since the majority of evidence is in favor of evolution, but the creation point of view can never be proved wrong because of religious belief. Human creation breaks down into three simple beliefs; creation theory, naturalistic evolution theory, and theistic evolution theory. The complexities of all three sides create a dilemma for what theory to support among all people, religious and non-religious.

The debate between creation and evolution has been around for a long time. For much of it, it has presented a choice between the two. Some claim that you either believe in God or evolution, not both. Others, that you have to choose young earth creationism simply because theistic evolution is not a viable option. Still more present young earth creationism as a naive understanding of both the Bible and science. However, since each position has evidence in support of it and against it, it is in no way true that any of them present us with an undeniable position of definite accuracy. Furthermore, the idea that there is only a choice between creation and evolution is false. Indeed, there are more positions than even creationism and theistic

When thinking about the origin of life, there are two main points one can come to, Intelligent Design or Natural Process (Ken Ham, 2008). “According to the former view, supernatural intervention was essential for the creation of life; according to the latter, living organisms could form spontaneously—for example, from the mud of the Nile” (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006). Creation can be defined as the original bringing into existence of the universe by God (“Creation”, n.d.). Intelligent design can be defined as “certain features” (Ken Ham, 2008). Intelligent Design can also be explained by finding features of the earth and explaining them by an intelligent cause ("Intelligent Design", n.d.). Creationism usually starts with religious