Science and Religion Three-Way Blog

After reviewing my first journal entry, I find my previous comments almost humorous. I stated that I was “only sure that the Scopes trial somehow involved a monkey,” and was obviously mistaken. I’m sure that my relation of the event to a monkey came from the one seen on the front of our book about the Scopes trial. This monkey is placed there as a symbol for evolution, not to represent a literal monkey that was involved in the trial.
Having read the material concerning this landmark trial and also having discussed it thoroughly in class, I now understand it to be an important event in the history of science as well as a cultural phenomenon. It advanced the cause of science by allowing for the national discussion of the theory of evolution as well as captivating the nation in what is considered “the trial of the century.” I feel that this trial advanced the standing of scientific theory as opposed to religion more than any other event in modern history. Because of all the media coverage, the entire nation got to see evolution stand trial against creationism and come away with the upper hand. Thanks to the brilliant cross examination of William Jennings Bryan by Clarence Darrow, the weaknesses and limitations of creationism were exposed to all. Although firm Christian believers could obviously not be swayed from their beliefs, the millions of Americans that were not so sure of their beliefs were presented with evolution as a substantial and credible theory. Furthermore, evolution has since been taught as such in both public and private schools around the country and become the accepted scientific theory regarding creation.
The Dover Trial, which is being deliberated on now, reverses the roles of the Scopes Trial. Currently, intelligent design is on the stand defending its right to be taught alongside evolution. In the days of the Scopes Trial, creationism was the accepted supposition of the day, but now it is outlawed in schools because of the separation of church and state. The trial in Dover is centered on the right to teach intelligent design in schools as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Those who are against Intelligent design see it as a masked form of creationism, while it’s supporters are arguing that it is scientific theory. Michael Behe’s approach to defending the right to teach intelligent design is proving its worth against Darwinism. He points out irreducible complexity, the fact that life is too complex not to be designed, as his main point. I agree with his arguments because of the examples he provides including blood clotting and his metaphor with a mousetrap. I concur with Behe that, since each individual component of the mousetrap has to work together, simple natural selection cannot account for the complexity involved when all the parts work together. When one part evolves, it cannot improve the mechanism because the function of that mechanism is dependant on all of its parts. It is my opinion that intelligent design should indeed be taught in schools along side evolution but in the same manor. It should be taught as a theory and its creator should not be specifically defined. It is important here to recognize and understand the difference between teaching creationism and teaching the theory of intelligent design. If students are subjected to both theories and left to decide their beliefs for themselves, than the teaching of intelligent design allows for independent thinking instead of preaching religious thought. Nothing negative can come from teaching both theories, and it would allow for students to expand their understanding of science’s attempts to explain creation.
I see the Dover trial as similar, but different than the trial of John Scopes. Although the more recent trial is important scientifically, it doesn’t hold the same weight socially and culturally as its predecessor. The Scopes trial was more of a show than a normal court proceeding, as it attracted mass media attention along with the involvement of William Jennings Brian, who was a popular political figure. As if the country hadn’t already been interested enough in the court’s actions, the movie “Inherit the Wind” that came out a few decades later made it a popular culture phenomenon. The movie had a pro-evolution spin and helped to increase knowledge of the already publicized trial. In contrast, the Dover trial includes no public figure such as Bryan, garners no mass media attention, and has no movie to boost its popularity. Therefore, although just as important throughout the scientific world, I doubt that it will become as culturally important as the Scopes trial. People aren’t informed and don’t care enough about Intelligent Design to pay as much attention to it as they did the Scopes trial. Evolution was a threat to people’s engrained religious beliefs whereas intelligent design is just a new theory to be taught alongside evolution. While the Scopes trial was a clash of science and religion, the Dover trial is theory versus theory, and, therefore, attracts less attention and speculation.