The Controversy Of The Arkansas Trial

The 8th amendment states, “ Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Which brings me to the case of Thompson vs. Oklahoma. The debate is on whether or not capital punishment should be given to minors. On one hand, some may argue that Thompson should have been charged with capital punishment because “his acts were heinous and cruel” (Pearson Prentice Hall: n.d.). On the other hand, others such as Oklahoma argue that it is a violation of the 8th amendment under “cruel and unusual punishment.” This creates the argument of Thompson vs. Oklahoma.

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.

The Scottsboro trials happened in the 1931 and dragged on for years. These cases were solely based on the prejudice surrounding blacks and gender. The cases presented in the Scottsboro Film represented the fight for justice. Nine boys were wrongfully arrested and imprisoned for years while society used these young black mens oppression to further its own agenda.These cases ruined the life of nine young men but they also helped make dramatic, vital changes in the criminal justice system and the constitution. The misfortune of the nine men tried and convicted during this time opened the eyes of so many blind to the injustice that african americans suffer from still to this day. The Scottsboro trials greatly defined the future of the criminal

Darrow, an atheistic man, believed that science should rule America and didn’t like that people who weren’t scientists were trying to control science and dictate what could and could not be done. His former friend, and opponent, on the side of religion was Bryan. Bryan believed that creation was the way humans came to be and was appalled by evolution and people’s desire to learn it. This conflict cut Americans to their souls and in July of 1925, it was given to the courts to decide once and for all which side was right, Darwin and his evolution, or the bible and creation. However, the courts could not decide which side was right, and instead stuck to its decision of whether or not Scopes broke the law, which he was indeed guilty of. This trial definitively proved that the tension between faith and reason might never be resolved by a jury’s verdict. The Scopes trial also galvanized fundamentalists and scientists alike, changed children’s education, and revealed a deep division within our nation. After Bryan’s wishes,

To accurately determine wether creationists should be involved with scientists in public debate, or in scientific debate at all, one must accurately define the institution that scientists represent. The issue present is the ability to provide an accurate definition of science. As Ruse stated “it is simply not possible to give a neat definition” (Ruse, 1982), however Ken Ham attempts to define science through the linguistics route. Using the origin of the latin word

The 1920’s was a time of prosperity and change in the United States, but with change comes disagreements. One of the largest debates during this time period, and still today, was the debate between science and religion. Many people were Christians in America during this time and they believed that the story of how God created the Earth should be taught in public schools. These people were called “fundamentalists.” They believed nothing could compare to or be as powerful as God’s word. The other side to this debate were the Modernists, or the ones who believed in science rather than religion. Modernists wanted to teach the theory of evolution in public schools instead of the Creation story the Fundamentalists believed in (“United States in History”). All of these different opinions led to one of the most famous trials known as the Scopes v. State of Tennessee trial. John Scopes was a substitute teacher in Tennessee who decided to teach the theory of evolution to a science class. Scopes was accused of violating the Butler Act, which states that teaching anything that

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

The 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard requires any religiously-related instruction to have ?a clear secular purpose? [482 U.S. 578]. The legislation addressed in this case?the Creationism

The Scopes Trial, formally known as The State of Tennessee vs. Scopes but given the nickname “The Monkey Trial”, has been credited as starting the popular legal dispute between evolution and creationism in the court, and its impact in the 20’s was immeasurable.

Starting with the Scopes Trial, many more cases have occurred concerning the teaching of evolution. “By 1928 every southern state except Virginia had debated or was considering legislation banning the teaching of evolution in the

The Scopes trial, writes Edward Larson, to most Americans embodies “the timeless debate over science and religion.” (265) Written by historians, judges, and playwrights, the history of the Scopes trial has caused Americans to perceive “the relationship between science and religion in . . . simple terms: either Darwin or the Bible was true.” (265) The road to the trial began when Tennessee passed the Butler Act in 1925 banning the teaching of evolution in secondary schools. It was only a matter of time before a young biology teacher, John T. Scopes, prompted by the ACLU tested the law. Spectators and newspapermen came from allover to witness

For the public, a shocking judgement has arised from the Supreme Court of Canada on Hart’s trial—a man accused of drowning his three-year-old twin daughters. The Court ruled that videotaped confessions were inadmissible and the murder charges against Nelson Hart would be withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. For such a heartbreaking loss, the conclusion of this case seems confusing at best. However, with examination into the tactics used by undercover officers in an attempt to secure Hart’s confession, the Court uncovers injustice and emotional manipulation which disputes the legitimacy of the operation.

Morris, John D. “Does Science Conflict with the Bible?” The Institute for Creation Research, 1 Nov. 1997, www.icr.org/article/1173/. Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution. Arkansas: Master Books,

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.

Public schools are a place to learn proven facts and some very well—known and accepted theories. These schools have been led this way for a long time and show no signs of changing. Many states around the country have rejected the teaching of creationism in public schools, since the subject is so controversial among teachers and parents. In Ohio, a bill to develop new science content standards was not successfully passed. Many creationists were upset when they discovered that the first drafts of the standards were filled with evolutionary content, without any allowance for alternative explanations of life’s origins. In the uproar, the state board held a special meeting to investigate the process that the writing team and advisory committee used to draft the science standards (Matthews, Answering Genesis). This is why learning the facts about evolution should be taught at school. By doing this, there would be much less confrontation between teachers, students, and parents. If one has the desire to learn about creationism or any other beliefs of how the world came to be, one should learn it at a place outside of school, such as church or at home.