Thursday, December 01, 2005
Journal 4
Reading a trustful source concerning the Scopes trial, Summer of the Gods by Edward Larson, and acting out the Dover trial have helped me in my search for Truth and also have shaped my view of Western culture’s portrayal of science and religion. I am also more aware of the “players,” or people, involved in the ongoing relationship between the two. Due to heightened awareness, I am frustrated with the past and current situations, although I see beacons of light such as Michael Behe who are trying to split the “log” of modern and natural “science.”
Studying the Scopes trial enriched my understanding of it. Thus, the proceedings from both the defense and counsel of the Scopes trial are irksome to me. The defense was and is especially foolish in “protecting rights.” This trial represented a conflict in the fight for rights. According to Professor Macosko, Bryan joined the prosecution because he wanted to give people the rights to decide what theories are taught in school. This represents the rights of the people. Darrow was also fighting for the rights of people, but for the people of minority who wanted to hear about what the majority wanted. This represents the ACLU in general. The ACLU turns the majority into a minority. Minority rules and this is the true deviance from the Democracy of the USA and the American Constitution. There is separation of Church and State, but the interpretation of the ACLU is not what that separation means. Why would the founders have included “Under God” in the Constitution if people should have to separate their faith and their life completely?
The prosecution also bothered me. Local lawyers were foolish and fought as if this were a case for Christianity. They did not allow Jews or others who believe in God to use their wisdom in the matter (Larson 132). This type of religious fighting is destructive as seen throughout history. Pushed to the extreme for example, the Crusades involved a group of people who thought they were God’s people and fighters. This premise caused destruction, death, and hate across the lands. In a similar fashion, many “Christians” did not demonstrate love in the Scopes trial. Even though the prosecution bothered me, I respect Bryan more than I respect the other prosecutors. The fact that Bryan had intentions to discuss science is interesting. He actually wanted to use it to the advantage. He was not as ignorant as some believe him to be (129). Bryan took the case seriously and was not prideful in going about it as he sought wise counsel to use all possible assets.
This year, when I first thought about the Scopes, I referred back to viewing Inherit the Wind. As seen in an earlier journal entry, I was deceived into thinking that fact and fiction are “basically the same.” The film/play focused my attention on the “rigidness of western religions.” I believed that the real Bryan was a complete ignoramus who did not care about science. In fact, he did look like an ignoramus after Darrow’s interrogation of him, but the author of Inherit the Wind took liberties that he did not have. The movie director did not try to present the truth; instead, he presented his opinion. He inserted acting directions and lines that made Bryan look like a complete buffoon. This perversion of history reminds me of George Orwell’s 1984. In this dystopia, the media is controlled and the past is changed to whatever tyrants want the public to believe. Inherit the Wind did the same to the pubic on behalf of the scientific natural tyrants.
I agree with Ronald Numbers when he says in Summer of the Gods,
“Inherit the Wind dramatically illustrates why so many Americans continue to believe in the mythical war between science and religion. But in doing so, it sacrifices the far more complex historical reality” (242). I do slightly disagree with the quote as the character that represents Clarence Darrow combines Origin of Species and the Holy Bible at the end of the film: but this clip is fictional as Darrow was an agnostic/atheist. This distortion of the Scopes Trial perverts history in the mind of many people.
Fast-forwarding to the Dover trial, it was also a truly frustrating event. Not only was the defense unorganized, it was divisive. A historical figure that has great weight in many faiths of the Intelligent Design proponents once said that a house divided against itself will not stand, and his words rung true in this case. In my opinion, the defense lawyers were foolish to disallow the Discovery Institute to function as it desired. This was a prideful and detrimental decision. In addition, the fact that most of the research done for Intelligent Design was not shown in court is also very upsetting. If the trial is to determine if Intelligent Design is religious in nature, why was not the nature of Intelligent Design taken into account by in depth study of written things rather than orally transmitted information. The judge was limited in his decision due to the lack of solid data from the Intelligent Design theory. If an evolutionist would like to say that the lack of evidence is a cause for dismissal, I would expect evolution to leave the schools as well as Intelligent Design. This limitation of information and division between the defenses was frustrating to me.
Studying this trial helps me understand my annoyance with the scientific community at large. If the science community were actually searching for the truth, it would view the Intelligent Design theory with respect and spend some time and money into its research. Instead, it limits itself to the natural world. This truly is a mixture of philosophy and evidence as Michael Behe suggests.
One of my biggest perplexions deals with those that call themselves Catholics and Christians that were witnesses for the prosecution. I do not understand what their motivation is in trying to keep the idea that there is a metaphysical world out of science. I would like to ask them some questions: “Why should there be such a strong separation of science and religion to a point of war? What are you trying to do?” I do not understand how their separation of science and religion coincides with their beliefs.
The Scopes and Dover trial are nearly identical yet also different to the degree of opposites. They both focus on the scientific teaching in a classroom, but the driving mechanisms between them are antithesis. The fact that the “religious” side was divisive against itself is almost exact from the past and the present. In contrast, the fact that the “religious” group was in defense in the Dover trial, rather than on the offense, is different. This represents the shift over time in the separation of Church and State. The ACLU had a heavy hand in switching the tune of the American dance. I find it ironic that the Intelligent Design proponents were trying to agree that their theory is not religious when, whether they admit it or not, the whole purpose of introducing Intelligent Design into schools is to expose youth to the possibility of a metaphysical world. I think Intelligent Design proponents should have argued in court that science can include more than what one can see. As I am sure that Michael Behe and Bill Dembski would agree, proving this would allow Intelligent Design to be taught in schools.
Overall, my general attitude towards the Scopes trial, its representation, and the Dover trial is frustration. I do not understand the need for the antagonist separation of science and religion. I think I do not understand because there is no good explanation, or else I am yet to find it. I hope that more knowledgeable scientists can help me in my, and everyone’s, search for Truth.
Works Cited
Larson, Edward J. Summer of the Gods. Harvard Univ. Press. 1998. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pages 132-242.
Studying the Scopes trial enriched my understanding of it. Thus, the proceedings from both the defense and counsel of the Scopes trial are irksome to me. The defense was and is especially foolish in “protecting rights.” This trial represented a conflict in the fight for rights. According to Professor Macosko, Bryan joined the prosecution because he wanted to give people the rights to decide what theories are taught in school. This represents the rights of the people. Darrow was also fighting for the rights of people, but for the people of minority who wanted to hear about what the majority wanted. This represents the ACLU in general. The ACLU turns the majority into a minority. Minority rules and this is the true deviance from the Democracy of the USA and the American Constitution. There is separation of Church and State, but the interpretation of the ACLU is not what that separation means. Why would the founders have included “Under God” in the Constitution if people should have to separate their faith and their life completely?
The prosecution also bothered me. Local lawyers were foolish and fought as if this were a case for Christianity. They did not allow Jews or others who believe in God to use their wisdom in the matter (Larson 132). This type of religious fighting is destructive as seen throughout history. Pushed to the extreme for example, the Crusades involved a group of people who thought they were God’s people and fighters. This premise caused destruction, death, and hate across the lands. In a similar fashion, many “Christians” did not demonstrate love in the Scopes trial. Even though the prosecution bothered me, I respect Bryan more than I respect the other prosecutors. The fact that Bryan had intentions to discuss science is interesting. He actually wanted to use it to the advantage. He was not as ignorant as some believe him to be (129). Bryan took the case seriously and was not prideful in going about it as he sought wise counsel to use all possible assets.
This year, when I first thought about the Scopes, I referred back to viewing Inherit the Wind. As seen in an earlier journal entry, I was deceived into thinking that fact and fiction are “basically the same.” The film/play focused my attention on the “rigidness of western religions.” I believed that the real Bryan was a complete ignoramus who did not care about science. In fact, he did look like an ignoramus after Darrow’s interrogation of him, but the author of Inherit the Wind took liberties that he did not have. The movie director did not try to present the truth; instead, he presented his opinion. He inserted acting directions and lines that made Bryan look like a complete buffoon. This perversion of history reminds me of George Orwell’s 1984. In this dystopia, the media is controlled and the past is changed to whatever tyrants want the public to believe. Inherit the Wind did the same to the pubic on behalf of the scientific natural tyrants.
I agree with Ronald Numbers when he says in Summer of the Gods,
“Inherit the Wind dramatically illustrates why so many Americans continue to believe in the mythical war between science and religion. But in doing so, it sacrifices the far more complex historical reality” (242). I do slightly disagree with the quote as the character that represents Clarence Darrow combines Origin of Species and the Holy Bible at the end of the film: but this clip is fictional as Darrow was an agnostic/atheist. This distortion of the Scopes Trial perverts history in the mind of many people.
Fast-forwarding to the Dover trial, it was also a truly frustrating event. Not only was the defense unorganized, it was divisive. A historical figure that has great weight in many faiths of the Intelligent Design proponents once said that a house divided against itself will not stand, and his words rung true in this case. In my opinion, the defense lawyers were foolish to disallow the Discovery Institute to function as it desired. This was a prideful and detrimental decision. In addition, the fact that most of the research done for Intelligent Design was not shown in court is also very upsetting. If the trial is to determine if Intelligent Design is religious in nature, why was not the nature of Intelligent Design taken into account by in depth study of written things rather than orally transmitted information. The judge was limited in his decision due to the lack of solid data from the Intelligent Design theory. If an evolutionist would like to say that the lack of evidence is a cause for dismissal, I would expect evolution to leave the schools as well as Intelligent Design. This limitation of information and division between the defenses was frustrating to me.
Studying this trial helps me understand my annoyance with the scientific community at large. If the science community were actually searching for the truth, it would view the Intelligent Design theory with respect and spend some time and money into its research. Instead, it limits itself to the natural world. This truly is a mixture of philosophy and evidence as Michael Behe suggests.
One of my biggest perplexions deals with those that call themselves Catholics and Christians that were witnesses for the prosecution. I do not understand what their motivation is in trying to keep the idea that there is a metaphysical world out of science. I would like to ask them some questions: “Why should there be such a strong separation of science and religion to a point of war? What are you trying to do?” I do not understand how their separation of science and religion coincides with their beliefs.
The Scopes and Dover trial are nearly identical yet also different to the degree of opposites. They both focus on the scientific teaching in a classroom, but the driving mechanisms between them are antithesis. The fact that the “religious” side was divisive against itself is almost exact from the past and the present. In contrast, the fact that the “religious” group was in defense in the Dover trial, rather than on the offense, is different. This represents the shift over time in the separation of Church and State. The ACLU had a heavy hand in switching the tune of the American dance. I find it ironic that the Intelligent Design proponents were trying to agree that their theory is not religious when, whether they admit it or not, the whole purpose of introducing Intelligent Design into schools is to expose youth to the possibility of a metaphysical world. I think Intelligent Design proponents should have argued in court that science can include more than what one can see. As I am sure that Michael Behe and Bill Dembski would agree, proving this would allow Intelligent Design to be taught in schools.
Overall, my general attitude towards the Scopes trial, its representation, and the Dover trial is frustration. I do not understand the need for the antagonist separation of science and religion. I think I do not understand because there is no good explanation, or else I am yet to find it. I hope that more knowledgeable scientists can help me in my, and everyone’s, search for Truth.
Works Cited
Larson, Edward J. Summer of the Gods. Harvard Univ. Press. 1998. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pages 132-242.
Comments:
<< Home
In answer to your annoyance with the scientific community, you should look at it from a scientist's point of view. In their eyes the truth should not be answered with a higher being. A scientist's job is to find physical explanations for ocurrences in the world. They are still searching for the truth, but in the scientific community an answer involving a higher being is not accepted. This is why scientists have to find explanations that only involve the physical, not the metaphysical.
This is no answer to any annoyance of mine. This only frusterates me further. Number one, I consider myself a young scientist. I love biology, and am beginning to love Chemistry, and I admire very much the physical world. Thus, I already am "looking at it from a scientist's point of view." Second, where are all these "should's" and "should not's" coming from? Who wrote these "Should Commandmants" of Science? According to Yankee, Oppenheimer said that a scientist is NOT limited by anything, except truth of course. Third, these "scientists" are completely torn apart if the Truth is not answered by the High Being, but IS the Higher Being. Jesus actually said "I am the truth." And four (if we are still counting) I believe in the Higher Being, but I still look for physical explanations for the world around us. The difference is that these are the MECHANISMS of God's work. Otherwise, who created the explanations?
i write too emotionally, i know, but this is a very emotional topic.
Post a Comment
i write too emotionally, i know, but this is a very emotional topic.
<< Home
