Science and Religion Three-Way Blog

Before this class began, I had spent some time studying the Scopes Trial in other classes, so I had some preliminary views on it. The classes where I had learned about the trial were all history classes so these gave me a very straightforward view on it, and I mostly just learned the basic facts about the trial. Looking back at my first journal entry, it is interesting to see what my initial thoughts about the trial were. I was originally interested in the trial because I was fascinated with the collision between science and religion and the effects of it. I believed that the debate had come about primarily because the two sides were extremely stubborn and were unwilling to compromise with each other on the issue of whether or not evolution should be taught in schools. In my mind, I thought that it was unfair to rule one theory to be right over another and that students should be exposed to both theories and be allowed to make up their own minds as to what they choose to believe in. I also expressed my personal beliefs on the theories and said that I believe that evolution is correct, but I also believe in creation. Since I believe that it is possible for both of these beliefs to exist together, I believe that God used evolution as his mechanism for creating the world and bringing the creatures of the world into existence.

Now, after studying the Scopes trial much more in depth than I ever had before, my view of it has changed in some ways. Before this class, I had no idea that there were such huge political ramifications that went along with the trial and that it was so manufactured. Everything from the location to the lawyers to the defendant was completely contrived. George Rappleyea did not agree with the law that was passed against teaching evolution, and decided that he wanted to bring the trial to Dayton to give the small town some publicity and hopefully help make it bigger and help it make a name for itself. In addition to this, the two lawyers were two of the biggest political figures of the time, and because they would be going head to head on opposite sides of the debate, this made the trial even more of a publicity stunt. People became interested if for no other reason than to be witness to one of the greatest political debates of the time. The lawyers also were not getting involved simply to fight for or against evolution. For William Jennings Bryan, the debate was more about protecting his religion against modern society and education which he believed were causing people to lose their faith. I was also shocked to learn that Scopes was not actually a biology teacher in the Dayton schools. He was picked out to be the defendant in the case based on his lack of establishment in the town. The actual biology teacher was also the principal of the high school and was well established with a family and everything to lose by being involved in the trial. Scopes did not have anything to lose by participating in the debate, and he was also judged to “fit the part” of a young, unassuming teacher who would not be threatening.

Now that I know much more about the facts having to do with the Scopes trial, I feel that my opinions on it have changed slightly. I feel that it is definitely a much more complex issue than I realized it was before. I had no idea how artificial and manufactured the trial was, I simply thought that it was a legitimate case that came about naturally. In some ways, now that I know this, the trial is not quite as significant in my mind as it was before, simply because I do not agree with all of the political game-playing that went into producing the trial. I think that the trial should have been focused more on the issue at hand, whether or not to teach evolution, than on the celebrities who were involved. The lack of scientific debate that went into the trial also took away from the significance of the trial in my mind. For an issue that is so critical to the future of the academic world, there was a severe lack of academic evidence present at the trial.

However, I must say that in many ways, I also think that the politics that played into the trial helped it to make a significant impression on the country. An issue such as evolution, no matter how intriguing it might be to scientists and other members of the academic field, is not always the most exciting thing to the general public. By including big-name politicians as lawyers, pitting them against each other, and turning the trial into a publicity stunt, they successfully caught the attention of the country. Reporters flocked to Dayton, Tennessee to get the latest updates on the status of the trial, and people packed the court room in order to witness this historical event for themselves. It is extremely likely that if the trial had not involved high profile politicians and had not been so highly publicized by the media, then it would not have had nearly the same effect on the country as it did.

I was very interested in our study on the Dover trial in this class because I think that otherwise, I would not have heard very much at all about this extremely controversial issue that is so crucial to the future of how science is taught in American schools. So I am grateful to have been enlightened about such an important event in American politics and current events which also provides a nice sequel to the ever-present debate centered around evolution, and depending on the verdict of the trial, could also provide the conclusion.

I think that in some ways, the Dover trial was a little bit contrived. The entire debate centered around the inclusion of four paragraphs that was read at the beginning of class, warning students that they did not have to believe everything that they were taught regarding the theory of evolution. Many parents believed that this was threatening their beliefs and their own values that they were trying to teach their children. In my opinion, it seems like the community has used this as an excuse to bring an ongoing debate to the courtroom and resolve it. Even some of the students that were interviewed for the articles that we read in class seemed a bit confused over what exactly this trial was about. It seems that a much bigger deal was made about this one, simple statement than was warranted.

However, at the same time, I think that it was necessary to have this trial so that the country could begin to resolve this debate over evolution versus intelligent design. If it is decided that intelligent design violates the separation between church and state that is outlined in the constitution, then the debate could be permanently resolved. That is at least until a new theory is created to challenge evolution. The trial gave the intelligent design advocates an extremely good platform to show the country and the world what their beliefs are all about. There are not a whole lot of people who are very familiar with what intelligent design is, so this was the perfect opportunity for people like Michael Behe to present the facts and educate the public on their theory. Even if they do not win the trial, they really have not lost much because they have only gained publicity and more media exposure, which can only serve to help them in the long run. If more people know what intelligent design is and what it is all about, then they might consider adopting it as their own belief system and the theory will gain a greater following.

In my opinion, there are many similarities between the Scopes trial and the Dover trial, and also some differences. Both of these trials seemed to me to be rather manufactured, more so in the case of the Scopes trial, but I felt that there were still some indications of this in the Dover trial. The parents who were suing the school district seemed to be searching for any excuse to make this argument in court, and the inclusion of this statement happened to be the first thing that came along. Also, both trials served as a platform for people to make their beliefs and theories known. In the case of the Scopes trial, William Jennings Bryan was able to use the opportunity as a chance to vocalize his religious beliefs and to try to “save” people from losing their faith. In the case of the Dover trial, Intelligent Design activists were able to use the opportunity as an occasion to vocalize their own beliefs and to publicize the facts on their theory. People who had never heard of intelligent design were hearing about it on the news and were learning all about what it is and what it stands for. Also both trials served as very definitive decisions in the struggle between science and religion. Certainly in the case of the Scopes trial this is true, and in my opinion, regardless of the verdict, the Dover trial promises to have a great impact on the conflict between science and religion as well. The Scopes trial set the standard for what could and could not be taught in the classroom, and its verdict has yet to be overturned. If the Dover trial rules in favor of the parents who are suing the district, then this will just be one more affirmation of the original Scopes verdict. If the verdict comes out in favor of the intelligent design advocates, this will have just as much of an impact on society in that it will change how science is taught in this country and how we view theories such as intelligent design.

One major difference between the two is the level of publicity that they received. The Scopes trial received a great deal more publicity than the Dover trial did. However, this was due to the fact that in the Scopes trial, two of the biggest politicians of the day were heavily involved, and this in and of itself was a major attraction. The Dover trial has not received very much publicity for today’s standards perhaps because it does not have such high profile participants, and also because it is not the most urgent thing in the news today.

# posted by demondeacon05 @ 4:39 PM