Thursday, December 01, 2005
Journal 4: Scopes trial
In my first journal entry, I did not really know what the Scopes trial was about, however I guessed correctly. While I did not comment on the Scopes trial itself, I did comment on the issues it faced. I did not see a problem with teaching evolution as a theory in science class. As long as the teacher prefaced the lesson with a statement mentioning that the theory of evolution is controversial and not yet proven, then the teachers are able to present the different ideas and let the students decide which they believe.
Now I know what the Scopes trial is about, however I do not think my viewpoint has changed much. Basically, John Scopes was sued for teaching evolution to his biology class. To teach evolution in a science class in Tennessee was against the law. I still agree with my thoughts at the beginning of this class, that all legitimate theories should be taught to students and that the students should be the ones to choose what they believe and what they don’t believe. Legitimate theories should be theories that have significant backing and recognition. However it should be made clear that these ideas are theories and not yet proven. Even evolution has its holes and those should be taught as well as the evidence that supports it. Regarding the trial as a whole, I think it was too much of a publicity stunt and a public show. Everything was publicized and it was not run the way a usual trial was run. I do not agree with the way the judge ran his courtroom. He let the questioning of Bryan get out of hand. He was not able to control the emotions traveling through the courtroom and he allowed the feel of a carnival to travel from the outside inwards. However, I do believe that in the end he came to the correct conclusion. The allowance of evolution into the classroom gave the students of America the chance to learn a different point of view about the creation of life. This is important because it allows students the freedom to choose their own beliefs and know the other options available. By not allowing the mention of evolution in the classroom, teachers make their students ignorant to the subject as a whole because they do not know all of the options available. The first step towards making a decision begins with being familiar with all of your options.
The Dover trial is very similar to the Scopes trial. Obviously it includes the same dilemma of what to teach in science class about creation. The main difference is the sides are flipped. Instead of arguing for the teaching of a non-religious theory in the classroom, it is arguing for the teaching of a supernatural theory in the classroom. Evolution is already taught in the classrooms but now some people want to teach Intelligent Design also. I think the whole trial started out on the wrong foot. The parents should not have gotten as offended as they did from the reading of the statement. With freedom of speech comes the necessity of listening to other’s points of view. If everyone says what they believe it does not benefit the society in any way until others listen to what you have to say. Expanding someone’s knowledge by providing them with the viewpoints of others or reading this statement about Intelligent Design in class should not violate anyone’s rights. It is part of growing up and being a good citizen by learning what other people believe and why they believe it. However I also think there is fault with the school board. The statement they chose to read did not explain what Intelligent Design is. If the school board’s intent was to broaden the minds of its students, it needs to include an explanation of Intelligent Design and facts that support it. Another fault was the prohibition of discussion. Students will not be able to learn all the facts if the teacher is not allowed to discuss the issue. Both sides are at fault and I think the students are entitled to know about all the ideas out there, be they accepted or not.
Both the Scopes trial and the Dover trial deal with the same issue: which theories are appropriate for the classroom. In order to have a learning environment I think that all the issues need to be presented. Both evolution and Intelligent Design should be presented in the classroom with the controversy that exists between them. When students are presented with the whole story they can learn all the facts and draw their own conclusions. On another note I find it interesting how the levels of prominence differ between the two trials. The Scopes trial was a huge ordeal with lots of fanfare. However the Dover trial has not gotten as much press, yet people are still calling it “the trial of the century”. Maybe it’s because I’m in college and I don’t watch the news or read the newspaper as much as I did at home, but I have not heard anything about the Dover trial outside of this class. From the descriptions of the Scopes trial, had it happened today, I’m sure I would have heard of it and everyone would be talking about it. This is not the case for the Dover trial today. I do like studying both of the trials together because it is interesting to see their similarities and differences. These trials show us how hard it is for us to look outside of our own viewpoints and see things from another perspective. Even during the years after the Scopes trial we still have the Dover trial and are still having trouble accepting different points of view.
Now I know what the Scopes trial is about, however I do not think my viewpoint has changed much. Basically, John Scopes was sued for teaching evolution to his biology class. To teach evolution in a science class in Tennessee was against the law. I still agree with my thoughts at the beginning of this class, that all legitimate theories should be taught to students and that the students should be the ones to choose what they believe and what they don’t believe. Legitimate theories should be theories that have significant backing and recognition. However it should be made clear that these ideas are theories and not yet proven. Even evolution has its holes and those should be taught as well as the evidence that supports it. Regarding the trial as a whole, I think it was too much of a publicity stunt and a public show. Everything was publicized and it was not run the way a usual trial was run. I do not agree with the way the judge ran his courtroom. He let the questioning of Bryan get out of hand. He was not able to control the emotions traveling through the courtroom and he allowed the feel of a carnival to travel from the outside inwards. However, I do believe that in the end he came to the correct conclusion. The allowance of evolution into the classroom gave the students of America the chance to learn a different point of view about the creation of life. This is important because it allows students the freedom to choose their own beliefs and know the other options available. By not allowing the mention of evolution in the classroom, teachers make their students ignorant to the subject as a whole because they do not know all of the options available. The first step towards making a decision begins with being familiar with all of your options.
The Dover trial is very similar to the Scopes trial. Obviously it includes the same dilemma of what to teach in science class about creation. The main difference is the sides are flipped. Instead of arguing for the teaching of a non-religious theory in the classroom, it is arguing for the teaching of a supernatural theory in the classroom. Evolution is already taught in the classrooms but now some people want to teach Intelligent Design also. I think the whole trial started out on the wrong foot. The parents should not have gotten as offended as they did from the reading of the statement. With freedom of speech comes the necessity of listening to other’s points of view. If everyone says what they believe it does not benefit the society in any way until others listen to what you have to say. Expanding someone’s knowledge by providing them with the viewpoints of others or reading this statement about Intelligent Design in class should not violate anyone’s rights. It is part of growing up and being a good citizen by learning what other people believe and why they believe it. However I also think there is fault with the school board. The statement they chose to read did not explain what Intelligent Design is. If the school board’s intent was to broaden the minds of its students, it needs to include an explanation of Intelligent Design and facts that support it. Another fault was the prohibition of discussion. Students will not be able to learn all the facts if the teacher is not allowed to discuss the issue. Both sides are at fault and I think the students are entitled to know about all the ideas out there, be they accepted or not.
Both the Scopes trial and the Dover trial deal with the same issue: which theories are appropriate for the classroom. In order to have a learning environment I think that all the issues need to be presented. Both evolution and Intelligent Design should be presented in the classroom with the controversy that exists between them. When students are presented with the whole story they can learn all the facts and draw their own conclusions. On another note I find it interesting how the levels of prominence differ between the two trials. The Scopes trial was a huge ordeal with lots of fanfare. However the Dover trial has not gotten as much press, yet people are still calling it “the trial of the century”. Maybe it’s because I’m in college and I don’t watch the news or read the newspaper as much as I did at home, but I have not heard anything about the Dover trial outside of this class. From the descriptions of the Scopes trial, had it happened today, I’m sure I would have heard of it and everyone would be talking about it. This is not the case for the Dover trial today. I do like studying both of the trials together because it is interesting to see their similarities and differences. These trials show us how hard it is for us to look outside of our own viewpoints and see things from another perspective. Even during the years after the Scopes trial we still have the Dover trial and are still having trouble accepting different points of view.
