Scopes Trial Analysis

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

Creationism has long been ruled out of public education and science. Creationists reject most of modern science in favor of a literal reading of the Bible. They believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and God created everything fully formed (including humans). People in opposition against Intelligent Design think that in the eyes of creationists, the so called “intelligent designer” is God. Meanwhile, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. Once Darwin had proposed that the natural processes could have produced every species on this planet, including humans, the creationists felt that this theory took God out of the picture. Centuries later, like many people in Dover, many people in the US agree. Somewhere between a third and half the US population doesn’t accept

How would you argue the Scopes Trial was a defeat for both sides? How did the personal agendas of those involved influence this trial?

I believe that the state should not tell people what to believe. Everyone has their own mind and they have the right to believe what they want to believe. I see nothing wrong with teachers teaching about Darwinism or Creationism. I think that everyone should be educated on both matters. There is nothing wrong with knowing information about both subjects, and believing or not believing in them. It is the job of teachers to educate the students on people’s ideas and findings from their research. Once a teacher is telling students what they should or shouldn't do then it is a problem. In the movie, Inherit the Wind, there are many instances where I believe that Bert Cates should not have been found guilty for educating his students on the

The question as to whether or not creationism should be taught in public schools is a very emotional and complex question. It can be looked at from several different angles, its validity being one of them. Despite the lack of evidence to support the fundamentalist idea of creationism, that in itself is not enough to warrant its exclusion from the curriculum of public schools in the United States. The question is far more involved and complex.

The debate over teaching evolution in public schools is not new at all but the debate has been elevated through the media over the past few years. Conservative Christians and other conservatives serving on school boards (particularly in the South) have been insisting that if schools are going to buy textbooks that have evolution chapters then they should also have a place in that textbook near the evolution chapter for creationism. Progressives and scholars that understand the scientific basis for evolution argue that there's nothing wrong with putting creationism or "intelligent design" in textbooks but that subject is not science-based and therefore should be published in the "religion" chapter (if there is one). Should evolution be taught in public schools? The answer is yes, most certainly; to ignore evolution is to deprive public school students of some of the most important knowledge relating to our planet and our society. Scientific ignorance is unacceptable in a country that calls itself the "greatest nation on earth."

The Scopes Trial is one of the best in American history because it symbolizes the conflict between science and theology, faith and reason, individual liberty, and majority rule. This trial was to decide not only the fate of an evolution-teacher, but also to decide if traditionalists or modernists would rule American culture. An object of intense publicity, the trial was seen as a clash between urban sophistication and rural fundamentalism.

The argument has been going on for years and years. Should schools be allowed to teach evolution without teaching creationism? The courts have ruled, the answer is no, the theory of creationism cannot be included in a public school’s academic curriculum. With the court’s decision, it has been made clear there is no place for faith based theories to be taught in our public schools. What if there was a different approach that took God out of the equation? Public high schools should allow a course in intelligent design to be included in the curriculum as a way of teaching both evolution and creationism without violating the separation of church and state. This is certainly easier said than done.

The Scopes Trial induced a pivotal point in American history because it symbolizes the conflict between science and theology, faith and reason, individual liberty, and majority rule. This trial was to decide not only the fate of an evolution-teacher, but also to decide if traditionalists or modernists would rule American culture. An object of intense publicity, the trial was seen as a clash between urban sophistication and rural fundamentalism.

There were two sides to the debate of the Scopes trial when it took place in the year of 1925 which defined freedom differently. Times were changing and things weren’t the same anymore causing indifferences between individuals. John Scopes, was a teacher

The Scopes Trial, frequently known as the Scopes Evolution Trial or the Scopes Monkey trial, began on July 10th, 1925. The Scopes Trial was the hot topic that interested countless reporters,and it was the first trial to be broadcasted on live radio.The 'Scopes Monkey Trial,' as history would come to know it, also included a personal dimension, becoming a hard-fought contest not just between rival ideas, but between Bryan and Darrow, former allies whose political differences had turned them into fierce adversaries.Less than a week later, William Jennings Bryan accepted an invitation from the World's Christian Fundamentals Association to assist in Scopes' prosecution. Bryan's role elevated the Scopes trial from a backwoods event into a national

With advancements in intellect and social boundaries changing, political inconsistencies swept the nation creating widespread conflict concerning specific beliefs based in religion. The most exemplary and remembered scenario in which politics and religious beliefs wove together was a court case regarding the teaching of evolution as opposed to creation. Because religion, specifically Christianity, remained the prominent faith in America, the teaching of evolution became shocking and simply disgraceful. This court case, the Scopes trial, displays an instance in which the debate of legality in teaching evolution in a public school turned into an attack on a man’s faith as Clarence Darrow pestered W.J. Bryan about his religious beliefs and practices.

In my opinion Evolution should be taught in school but so should Creationism. I think students should be able to choose which theory to learn in school. None of either theory should be forced on students. The argument between teaching each one is that Evolution is a proven historically fact according to the National Academy of Sciences. The majority of those people who desire for creationism to be taught in the public schools cite that it is scientific. They push for the teaching of creation science which is defined as "scientific evidence for creation and the inferences from that evidence" (Tatina 275). The inferences from that evidence are "sudden creation of the universe from nothing, recent formulation of the earth, creation of man and other biological kinds, a worldwide flood", and

With evolution being taught, it is easy to know that children are being taught factual and proven information. In relation to the issue of quality of education Pennock brings up the idea of accreditation in school systems. As Pennock states, “Given that accreditation implies that a school meets professional standards in the appropriate subject matter, a school that teaches creationism in science classes does not meet the standard, since evolution is at the core basic of scientific knowledge” (579). If a school cannot be accredited for teaching creationism in place of evolution, then the quality of education being gained from creationism is clearly not factual enough to be used. Moreover, not all creationists even hold the same ideals to what creationism entails. There are different views of creationism, including the Young Earth Creationists. The fact that there are different types of creationist theories suggests that if creationists cannot agree on one theory, how is it going to be implemented into school systems? Along with this, the Young Earth Creationists not only reject evolution, but they also reject”scientific conclusions of anthropology, archeology, astronomy, chemistry, geology, linguistics, physics, psychology, optics, and so on” (581). If creationism was taught in public schools, not only would the children being taught lose their education of evolution, but they would also lose the knowledge of all of the aforementioned subjects that are rejected by creationists. Thus, if creationism were to be taught in public schools in place of evolution, the quality of education would decrease

In an article published in the New York times, by Laurie Goodstein, she revealed that a poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, revealed that 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism. It is important to note by this poll that the idea of teaching our children other theories of how this world was created was supported by more than half of the polled population. It needs to be understood that when these teachings are given the opportunity to be introduced in the public school settings, teachers must maintain a very bias approach as to not sway their students into believing one side or the other but, rather let them decide for themselves through research and study what they will believe in.