Science and Religion Three-Way Blog

In my first journal entry, I wrote that my knowledge regarding the Scopes Trial was limited. After many class discussions and readings, however, the extent of my knowledge has greatly increased. I know feel I have a much better understand of the trial.

The Scopes Trial tested a law passed on March 13, 1925 prohibiting the teaching in any state funded educational establishment in Tennessee of the teaching of “any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.” This test trial, which was formulated by Rappleyea, was seen as a chance to gain publicity for Dayton. Scopes, the substitute of the biology teacher, when asked if he had used Civic Biology to teach his students responded “Yes.” This was in violation of the law.

The trial focused the country’s attention towards the freedom of speech and the separation of church and state. This trial brought issues to the surface that are still debated to this day. The most prominent conflict was the fact that evolutionary teaching undermined the authority of the Bible. Conservative Christians attacked evolution as not being scientifically supported. They believed that since the Bible had supported itself in various aspects, then there was no reason to question the truth of Genesis’ account of the origin of human beings. Whereas, growing evidence in fossil records and Darwin’s Origins, was beginning to make people question the validity of the Bible. The Scopes Trial presented the contrasting views of a religious town and an evolving country. It was not so much the verdict the media cared about as much as the opposing views. It was from learning all this that I realized how publicized the whole trial was. Prior to learning about the Scopes trial in class, I never realized that this trial was simply a test. I never understood the underlying reasons of this trial, which were to expose the country to the growing rift between people’s beliefs regarding creation.

In regards to the Dover trial, the ACLU is suing the Dover school board for adopting a policy that requires students to be informed about the theory of intelligent design. The ACLU claims this policy violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause. Intelligent design is an alternative to the theory of evolution. The proponents of intelligent design argue that life is too complex to have evolved by natural selection, such as Charles Darwin suggest, and some intelligent driving-force must have had intervened. The ruling of the Dover trial will have an impact on what happens to the public school system in our country.

I personally feel that intelligent design should not be required to be taught in schools. I do feel, however, intelligent design should not be completely excluded from education. If teachers choose to teach intelligent design to their students, I believe that evolution, creationism, and other theories should also be taught. I see intelligent design as a newer version of creationism. I do not feel that intelligent design really has any solid background to support it. To enforce, however, that students be taught intelligent design, I do not agree with. At the current time, I do not feel that there is enough evidence to support intelligent design. In comparison to the evidence there is supporting evolution, intelligent design is lacking. I do not feel, however, that just become there is not as much evidence to support intelligent design though that people should shun the idea. At the given time, though, the supporting evidence is on evolution’s side.

I currently view the Dover trial and the Scopes trial on similar levels. Both the Dover trial and the Scopes trial have attracted a great deal of media to their small rural towns. While in Dayton, the trial was more so a publicity act, the Dover trial is not a test trial.

The issue of teaching creationism and evolution in the classroom, which was what the Scopes trial was about, is an issue that is still under debate to this day. Intelligent design is the idea that the complexity of life requires designer. This is merely a re-embodiment of the Scopes trial 80 years ago. People argued then that evolution did not have strong enough supporting evidence, whereas people today in the Dover trial claim that intelligent design too does not have enough supporting evidence. In both trials religion has a significant role. In the Scopes trial, people thought religion and the Bible was trying to be shunned from the classroom. Today in the Dover trial, people are fighting because they believe religion is being brought into the classroom. It seems as though there really can never be a happy medium. Either religion should be completely kept out of the public school system, or if religion is going to be brought in then the school system must encompass a large range of religions.

# posted by sarah matthews @ 9:02 PM