An article that I enjoyed

[theotherguy]

This article was not written by me, but I saw it, and enjoyed the article very much. I know that some of you would disagree with it, and it might start a flamewar, but I thought I would just post it because I liked it.

The State of Tennessee vs. John Scopes

The reader should be forewarned that due to some of the religious opinions of the author, if the reader is very sensitive about religion they may and most likely will take offense to some of the opinions presented.

It was the summer of 1925. Tension had been brewing across the country between modernists and traditionalists, and the media was waiting for a showdown. This showdown came in the town of Dayton, Tennessee where a jury was to decide the fate of John Scopes who had been charged with illegally teaching the theory of evolution. The constitutionality of laws preventing the teaching of the theory mattered little, what the trial truly boiled down to was a brawl between the intellectual values of modernists and the social and religious values of traditionalists.

William Jennings Bryan, who would be a member of the defense team, led a fundamentalist crusade across 15 states to ban the teaching of evolution. These laws happened to affect the state of Tennessee in which John Scopes taught. George Rappalyea, a Methodist who disagreed with the provisions presented by this law, asked Mr. Scopes if he would be willing to stand trial. Scopes agreed.

The defense consisted of Clarence Darrow, a near 70 year old agnostic, Arthur Garfield Hays, a free speech advocate, and Dudley Field Malone, an international divorce attorney. The prosecution was made up of Bryan and his son, and a former and present attorney generals for Tennessee, A. T. Stewart and Ben B. McKenzie. The trial was a media field day, with nearly 1,000 people present at the trial. The Judge was a conservative Christian, and the jury consisted of 12 men, 10 of which were middle aged farmers, and 11 regular church-goers. The trial began, to the detest of Darrow, with a prayer. It would seem the odds were stacked against Mr. Scopes from the beginning.

The main argument that the defense presented was that the law was unconstitutional, and they hoped to bring the trial to a higher court. Darrow said that Bryan was opening the doors to bigotry similar to that of the middle ages, and drew several gasps from the crowd with his comments. Darrow also pointed out that this was using the bible as a tool to measure every man’s intellect, no matter what their religion. The media, leaning towards the side of the defense, loved it.

The prosecution’s argument simply stated that these teachings were wicked, and went against the bible. If the jury and judge hadn’t been such conservative fundamentalist bigots, this argument would’ve had absolutely no chance in court. However, the judge and jury did happen to be conservative fundamentalist bigots, and so this argument seemed perfectly reasonable. Seemingly every worthless and mindless argument that the prosecution presented was accepted, and every argument of the defense shot down.

After concerns of the courtroom floor collapsing under the weight of so many spectators, the trial moved outside, where a sign that read "Read your Bible" was hanging. Darrow demanded that the sign either be removed, or to hang another sign reading "Read your Evolution" next to it. Judge Raulston quickly removed the sign. It was at this point at which Darrow revealed Bryan for the mindless bastard that he was. The dialogue between the two was as follows:

"You have given considerable study to the Bible, haven't you, Mr. Bryan?"
"Yes I have, I have studied the Bible for about fifty years."
"Do you claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?"
"I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there ..."
"Do you believe Joshua made the sun stand still?"
"I believe what the Bible says."
"I suppose you mean that the earth stood still?"
"I don't know. I am talking about the Bible now. I accept the Bible absolutely."
More questions show that Bryan barely understands the workings of the solar system, then Darrow asks:
(Darrow)You believe the story of the flood to be a literal interpretation?
(Bryan)Yes sir.
(Darrow)When was that flood?
(Bryan)I would not attempt to fix the day.
(Darrow)But what do you think the Bible itself says? Don't you know how it was arrived at?
(Bryan)I never made a calculation.
(Darrow)What do you think?
(Bryan)I do not think about things I don't think about.
(Darrow)Do you think about the things you do think about?
(Bryan)Well sometimes.

Now, the crowd in the courtyard was laughing at Bryan instead of Darrow.
(Darrow) How long ago was the flood, Mr. Bryan?
(Bryan)Two-thousand three hundred and forty-eight years B.C.
(Darrow)You believe that all the living things that were not contained in the ark were destroyed?
(Bryan)I think the fish may have lived.
(Darrow)Don't you know there are any number of civilizations that are traced back to more than five thousand years?
(Bryan)I am not satisfied with any evidence I have seen.
(Darrow)You believe that every civilization on the earth and every living thing, except possibly the fishes, were wiped out by the flood?
(Bryan)At that time.
(Darrow)You have never had any interest in the age of the various races and peoples and civilizations and animals that exist upon the earth today?
(Bryan)I have never felt a great deal of interest in the effort that has been made to dispute the Bible by the speculations of men or the investigations of men.
(Darrow)And you never have investigated how long man has been on the earth?
(Bryan)I have never found it necessary.
(Darrow)Don't you know that the ancient civilizations of China are six thousand or seven thousand years old, at the very least?
(Bryan)No, but they would not run back beyond the creation, according to the Bible, six thousand years.
(Darrow)You don't know how old they are; is that right? (Bryan)I don't know how old they are, but probably you do. I think you would give preference to anybody who opposed the Bible.

More questions show Bryan's lack of knowledge of world culture, history and people.
(Darrow)You have never in all your life made any attempt to find out about the other peoples of the earth - how old their civilizations are, how long they have existed on the earth - have you?
(Bryan) No sir, I have been so well satisfied with the Christian religion that I have spent no time trying to find arguments against it. I have all the information I want to live by and to die by.
(Darrow)Do you think the earth was made in six days?"
(Bryan) Not six days of 24 hours.
(Darrow)Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife?
(Bryan) No sir; I leave the agnostics to hunt for her.
(Darrow)Do you think the sun was made on the fourth day?
(Bryan)Yes.
(Darrow)And they had evening and morning without the sun?
(Bryan) I am simply saying it is a period.
(Darrow)The creation might have been going on for a very long time?
(Bryan)It might have continued for millions of years.
(Darrow)Yes, All right.



The press had a field day with this, revering it as one of the greatest the defense arguments of all time. The judge however, refused to accept this as evidence. Darrow requested that the jury return a guilty verdict so the trial could be pushed to a higher court, and they complied. Scopes was fined with 100 dollars, and his only comment was "Your Honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future ... to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my idea of academic freedom."

This trial is yet another situation in which fundamentalists showed the utmost ignorance which they so fondly possess. Mr. Scopes simply taught something that had appeared in a STATE APPROVED TEXTBOOK. Despite the extreme lack of intellectual prowess presented by the prosecution, and the large amount of bigotry from the judge and the jury, some good did come of this trial. After the trial, only two states kept laws preventing the teaching evolution, those states being Arkansas and Mississippi.

However, the problem still persists today. If Mrs. Parham had tested on the Chapter 11 in the biology textbook, phone calls would have occurred. Particularly with Southern Baptists, this fundamentalist bigotry is still all too common. (This is the point at which I say **** not using "I") I know some religious person is going to read this and get insanely pissed, and to them I say loosen up. If you can’t take arguments then you are clearly insecure in your faith, and need to hear these arguments. Maybe, just maybe, you’ll realize how ignorant you’re being and finally learn to actually think for yourself. That’s right, think for yourself. **** what everyone else says, it’s what you personally think that’s what matters. On the other hand, if you were offended by this you most likely believe that anyone who thinks for themselves is going to hell. And if that’s the case, then send me to hell because I would rather be in hell than in heaven with the bigot of a god that you believe in.
_________________THE END___________________________________________
Now, I am not an atheist, I just don't like fundamentalists

 

[Letters]

Haha, thanks for sharing that... I liked it as well...

(Darrow)You believe that all the living things that were not contained in the ark were destroyed?
(Bryan)I think the fish may have lived.

:cheers:

 

[LoneDeranger]

I think the Bible is based on actual events but was terribly exaggerated by the writers.

 

[theotherguy]

I think the Bible is based on actual events but was terribly exaggerated by the writers.

agreed, and the translators.

 

[Snakebyte]

I had to read Inherit the Wind twice for school (different years/classes). If you didn't know it's basically this case acted out in play/book form. The text is almost identical but the names are changed. I actually found it pretty entertaining, although most of the other kids slept through it.

 

[Letters]

I had to read Inherit the Wind twice for school (different years/classes). If you didn't know it's basically this case acted out in play/book form. The text is almost identical but the names are changed. I actually found it pretty entertaining, although most of the other kids slept through it.

And leave it to some nuts to attack teachers using that book in their class... :rolling:

 

[PvtRyan]

Hehe nice article.

Now I'd love to join the discussion that's bound to follow about the evolution theory. But experience has taught me it's useless. Creationists are completely unwilling to accept facts and arguments. They're just blind, no other words for it.
Their debates are made up out of false arguments, sketchy evidence and quotes ripped out of context.
I'm fine with religion, believe whatever you want to believe, I won't loose any sleep over it, but please, don't try to dismiss the well backed up by proof theory of biological evolution with tales which have absolutely no supporting evidence.
Believe what you want to believe, but don't merge yourself into a scientific debate because religion isn't science. Therefore, creationists (people who take the bible literally and seek evidence for it, not to be mistaken with regular believers) are idiots. Because they see their religion as science, which it isn't. They see the bible as the only truth and everything in it is true. Then they seek evidence that backs up the bible. That's not the right way to conduct science. If one day the evolution theory turns out to be wrong with enough evidence, scientists dismiss it or improve it with new evidence that fixes the old flaws. Creationists don't do this, they won't say "oh it seems that man wasn't the first animal on earth, guess the bible was wrong about this". And that's wrong, science can never be based on dogma's.

Read this article to see how creationists debate: http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/mooncheese.htm (the article is ofcourse not a serious one but as a parody of how creationsts debate)

 

[HybridM]

I'm not going to read it, I loathe religion and the death and suffering it causes in the world.

 

[mrchimp]

Well that was quite interesting, personally I think the bible is a super over glorified fairy tale made up of myths that have been rewritten over the ages to sound more believable. Whenever part of the bible is proven wrong in a literal sense the bible bashers just say it's supposed to be taken as a metaphore.

The bible is for people who want to have answers to things true knowledge can not provide them. I just accept I don't know everything about the universe, I don't just put things I don't understand down to God or spirits. If I don't have a theory good enough to believe in I'm not just going to follow any old crap.

 

[HybridM]

very well said mrchimp.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

I'd join in this thread more than this post, but apparently I'm just too damn blind, narrow minded and unwilling to accept facts....Ah well.

 

[theotherguy]

I'd join in this thread more than this post, but apparently I'm just too damn blind, narrow minded and unwilling to accept facts....Ah well.

not to mention your avatar features a member of the kkk

i really didnt intend this to be a debate over evolution and creation, personally, i belive both. I belive god made primitive forms of life, and then guided them through evolution using random events

I also belive that god made the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so that he wouldnt have to micromanage everything

 

[snark^]

There's a lot of problems with the bible: the new testament was written some 600 years after the events, thus some (ie., a lot of) detail would have been lost/blurred over the centuries; the old testament appears to be a collection of hebraic myths and features major borrowings from other cultures (note how the 10 commandments bear more than a passing resemblence to Hammurabi's laws); best of all though is the mistranslations which mainly came about from the first English version as presented in the KJV. Time to think back to Rimmer's parents in Red Dwarf being 7th Day Adventist Hopists: based on their mistranslated bible reading as "Faith, Hop and Charity; the best of these being Hop."

The new testament was originally written in greek, it being the language of the writing classes of the time. King James I (succeeded Liz I to the throne) ordered a version made in English so that all his subjects could read the wisdom contained therein; effectively he was doing this to try and break the absolute power of the church at the time IIRC (and thus divert more of that goodly moola into his own treasury).

The translator messed it up though, obviously his greek not being up to the standard required -- for as it goes in the most famous example: camelos is greek for that fixed loop at the end of a piece of rope and needle was apparently the colloquial greek term for anchor in those days. No wasting of expensive metal in mere anchor chains in those days -- they just used rope instead.

So what this means is that Christ's original words were along the lines of "It is easier to get a loop of rope through the eye of an anchor than it is for a rich man to enter heaven" Still something that's hard to do and which probably invloves the use of hammers, pliers and so on, but it does sound ever-so-slightly less difficult than the heavily metaphysical thing we have in English bibles; that which involves some rather annoyed dromedaries and tiny needles. I'd imagine the angels would be upset too, as it'd interupt their dancing practises on the head of said pin.

 

[PvtRyan]

I'd join in this thread more than this post, but apparently I'm just too damn blind, narrow minded and unwilling to accept facts....Ah well.

I assume you mean my post? (besides the article)

Well, it wasn't meant as a flame. But if you truely believe that everything (including the stuff that was totally wrong after scientific research) in the bible is real than well.... you are narrowminded and running away from the facts. And that's not a flame, it's an observation.

 

[Sprafa]

The physical meaning of life is to procreate and spread one's genes. You only have the ability to question those primal instincts because the homo sapiens species advanced to such a point that our brains were finally capable of true self awareness and self analysis. There are many examples in human history where this ability has gone awry, however. Less than a thousand years ago the Aztecs considered human sacrifice a crucial element to their very survival. They would sacrifice their own children, kicking and screaming all the way, in an attempt to make it rain again.

It is quite clear that we as a species are in the middle of a confusion period. We aren't really sure what the heck is going on, what we're supposed to be doing, or where the heck we're supposed to go. Look no further than the incredibly diverse range of religions and ideals from which to choose and you can see we really just have no clue. This is why certain people can be led to believe that an alien spacecraft is trailing a comet and that if they drink some funky Kool Aid they'll be able to travel to their homeland again. Cleanse the gene pool, thank you very much.

Most people are given religion as the panacea and are thus able to effectively participate in a large society and (in general) obey their respective morals and ethics. When a new member of our species joins this world, their physical location and culture determine the particular panacea they are given and will (most likely) follow for the rest of their lives. Some people are capable of breaking out of this brain-washing and attempt to search for their own meanings. You might be one of them, however you are still clinging to some of the notions instilled in you by other people when you were younger. I can't help you there other than to suggest that you release everything you were taught and look for your own answers. If indeed you're looking to discover on your own rather than be told by someone else...

Now, there are people that are simply incapable of breaking free from this programming and will just blissfully live their lives until their bodies no longer function. For them, the meaning of life was planted long ago and is quite simple. Any affront to their ideals is just so completely bizarre and foreign to them that they won't ever understand what you're trying to say. This is what we called closed-minded. The brain is a blank sheet of paper as a newborn child. It fills with knowledge along the way. For some people, the process of learning and discovery ends at some point and they just move through life like the programmed robots they are. "I am a product of God/Allah/Satan/insert_your_god_here. I will obey what my elders told me our god wants me to do. I will procreate. I will teach my children to be just like me. Then I will die, and I will go to heaven/insert_your_everlasting_playground_here."

For a select group of others, the entire life cycle is a process of learning and dicovery, and they just keep searching. For those people, life is trying to understand the meaning of life. Einstein was one such person. For him, his meaning of life was to try and reveal his god. His god happened to be the set of laws that define all of the physical world, and not the kind of god Christians or Jews or any other monotheistic religion believes in. IE, a religion whereby the divine creator of all things has a penchant for displaying a biased interest in homo sapiens and that we were crafted in his image. Einstein's god was not a single invisible entity but rather purely scientific in nature: understand how all forces in the universe work and you will have discovered god. His god would be revealed through the Unified Field Theory. Unfortunately that has yet to come to fruition.

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." - Albert Einstein

Now, where do you fit in all of this? Understand that, and you will have found your meaning of life. Still not sure? If you're young... and my guess is that you are since it sounds like you're a little confused... my suggestion to you is just to keep an open mind. When you do find that meaning, remember to be considerate to alternate views, especially those of people you respect (IE, your family.) You have the right to do as you want, however some people in your life will take offense no matter what it is you decide to do. Just note that they may not be capable of understanding, and that is okay. Love them for who they are and what they mean to you, but do not alter your beliefs purely to assuage them.

 

[LoneDeranger]

Religion offers a pleasant alternative to the true meaning of life. Thats why many people accept it. Might as well live a lie and be happy then learn the truth and be depressed all the time.

The truth, really is quite dark. We are all gona die eventually. Not only that but eventually we'll reach a point at which it will become harder and harder for life to exist. This is because the universe is constantly getting darker and cooler. I'm sure our ancestors will find some way to slow down the process by gathering galaxies together or creating some sort of a low-energy intelligent lifeform. But still there will come a time when the last star goes out in the sky and it becomes a dark, cold, lonely place.

So the current scientific conclusion is apparently that life is useless. That's not something that people want to accept (not even me, and I'm an atheist basically). Hopefully science will find a more pleasant future for us, or we will all have to turn to religion one day.