Creationism In Inherit The Wind

I. Acceptance of Creation is growing in spite of overwhelming evidence proving Evolution There is no easy resolution for whats true and evolution or creationism. It is a complex topic with profound scientific, religious, educational, and criticism. How can a student or parent come to grips with this issue? Evolution vs. Creationism provides a badly needed, comprehensive, and balanced introduction to the many facets of the current debates about what should be taught in a classroom or in reality itself. Evolution relies on scientific facts while creationism clings on biblical beliefs. But the legal and

The two-hour special documentary, Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, features the Kitzmiller v. Dover School District case in 2004. It captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in one of the latest battles over teaching evolution in public schools. Some members of the community believed that not only Darwinism, but also a so called theory, Intelligent Design, should be taught in their public high school. It was a battle between the two theories. It forced neighbor against neighbor and friend against friend. The community itself was broken half and half on the controversial issue.

Whether you are a believer in the Bible, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, or both. Inherit the Wind is a play that expands on the importance of being able to accept both in society. Bertram Cates was a teacher of Hillsboro, Tennessee, who was arrested for teaching Darwin’s Theory of Evolution to his biology class. Anything that is said against the creation of man and the Bible was considered a crime. The prosecutor of the case was Matthew Harrison Brady, a beloved politician and religion enthusiast. Mr. Brady had a variety of characteristics, positive and negative ones, which greatly influenced the outcome of the case. He can efficiently manipulate and influence the opinions of others, he was overconfident, and ignorant. Despite these inferior

Who made who? Did God create humans or did humans create god? At first thought one

Depending on your school of thought, the phrase “Creation Myths” may be threatening or provocative. Using it was a powerful mechanism for bringing in and holding any reader’s attention. Creationists and Evolutionists (along with everyone in the middle) are likely to be entertained by the essay, but they won’t realize it until they have absorbed multiple points in support of evolution. The mention of hoaxes opened the essay up to a variety of readers: those who are interested in baseball, scientists and nonscientists alike, those who love a good exposé, and even those who despise sports all together. The essay candidly tells the tale of George Hull’s gawky and outlandish creation as a preface to a much larger hoax. Gould is unabashedly critical of the hoax and those who perpetrated it, but his harsh tone slightly subsides when addressing the human “psychic need for an indigenous creation myth” (263 Gould).

The riddle of the origin of man has been subject to many ponderings and theories for thousands of years. In America, two theories concerning this timeless question have driven a spike through the general populace. These two beliefs, Evolution and Christianity, have driven a riff through the American populace and fueled several debates and conflicts over which is the truer theory. Incidents such as the decision of the Kansas school board to ban schools from including the Evolution Theory from their curriculum are becoming a tragically frequent and threaten to escalate if not checked soon. However, there is a growing belief in America today in the possibility of believing that evolution is an inescapable fact while still

Through the 1920s, conflicts regarding the teachings of religious values versus Evolution, along with the increasing fight for women’s independence, caused a great deal of tension within America. Prior to the ‘20s schools taught the Bible and Christianity’s principles were stressed. It was in 1925 when Clarence Darrow defended John Scopes, a biology teacher, who was put on trial in the court for teaching the theory of Evolution (Doc C). This document illustrates the dialogue of

Through the analysis of the major televised debate, held February this year, between the popular science communicator, Bill Nye, and the US-based Australian creationist, Ken Ham. It has come to light that through careful analysis and research it is my belief that scientists should not be involved within any debates “scientific” or otherwise regarding topics pertaining to creationism or any other religious perspective. The inappropriate use of the loose definitions of science and religion lead to the intertwining of the two subjects that are extremely different in methodology, leaving the audience up for misinterpretation. While the debate did bring about the topic to the forefront of the public, which in itself was a positive, I do not believe that the post debate result was a win for science. Bill Nye’s derogatory demeanour represented post debate towards Ken Ham was in turn a representation of institutional science. Leading to which the validity of the debate and post debate could be brought into question.

Robinson, in her essay, claims that while Creationism is owned by “Religious Right”, Darwinism is owned by “Irreligious Right”2. She writes that the differences between the two are meaningless and that the people who defend religion make religion seem foolish while the defenders of science attributed to objectivity. Many people believe that Creationism and Darwinism do not belong together and are about as similar as cats and dogs. Just as there are cat people and dog people, there are people who stick to one belief or the other in the creation versus evolution debate. Robinson disagrees, however, and says that Creationism is probably the best thing that has happened to Darwinism. Darwinism, she writes, is “the caricature of religion that has seemed to justify Darwinist contempt for the whole of religion”3.

Ever since science began to explain the previously unexplainable, it has caused conflicts with religion. The Scopes “Monkey” Trial of Dayton, Tennessee was one of the most talked about trials in history because it was one of the first and most publicized times that this conflict occurred. The trial showed the schism between the faithful fundamentalists and the newly formed group of evolutionists. Although the jury was reminded that they only had to decide if Scopes had broken the law, the verdict was seen as much more than that. For one of the first times in history, it seemed as if the jury had to choose either religion or evolution. For the time being, there could not be both. The Scopes “Monkey” Trial revealed the ongoing conflict with

For as long as mankind has had the curiosity to gaze at the stars, we have been constantly questioning our origin and place in the universe. From simple, yet elegant solutions (like our world being on the back of a large tortoise) to the more complex pantheons of gods and heavens, humanity’s dedication to classifying and comprehending our universe has enabled us to weave rich and complex mythologies and beliefs. However, in America today there are two prominent paradigms that are shaping how we see the world—Christian creationism and scientific evolution. These two schools of thought, like many other conflicting models of the universe and its creation, have fueled passions and incited spirited rivalries among its most ardent followers and fanatics, but, again like many other opposing beliefs, at the same time it is easy to see how they can be reconciled both within and without oneself. However, many scientists and theologians believe that one of the two is blasphemous and the other is gospel (or textbook) truth. For example, in Scott D Sampson’s essay Evoliteracy, (2006) Sampson denounces Christianity and pushes for everyone to learn the theory of Evolution instead of creationism. While he is correct in wanting a more educated populace, Christianity is not an inherently wrong construct. Similarly, many of those pushing for intelligent design have similarly decried the evolutionary theory as

The feud between creationist and scientist about the origins of the universe dates back to the 20’s during the Scopes trial. Scientist are against creationism because there is no evidence to support the theory. Scientist support Charles Darwin’s theory Darwinism, the theory that organisms evolve from simple to complex through minor adaptations over time, because it has held up for more than a century. Rowe’s article expresses how he believes that creationist created intelligent design to take the place of creationism in public schools after the Supreme Court ruled that

The subject of origins, or how we got here, is one of the most fundamental questions that can be asked. The important question of why we are here can’t be answered by science alone. How we answer these questions provides the basis for how we think about things, it defines our world-view. The Evolution vs. Creation debate is often referred to as the Great Debate. 20th century science has made the compelling discovery that, at some point, the universe began. Both sides of the debate Evolutionists and Creationists agree on one thing only, that the universe has not always existed. This is where their agreement ends. The why and how the universe began is where the division and dispute begins.

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

In Creation Science is not Science, Michael Ruse argues that Creation science is not science and in Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern, Larry Laudan opposes this view by arguing that Creation Science is science, but that it is false. In this paper, I argue that Michael Ruse had the better argument and that Creation Science is not science. First, I explain Ruse’s argument for why creation science does not meet the criteria for science. Second, I consider and explain Larry Laudan’s opposing view that creation science is false science. I then argue why I believe Ruse has the better argument.