The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Talk:Tennessee vs. John Scopes

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

Attack on Christianity

From the article: "The trial was really an attack on Christianity and the Bible. Whether or not Scopes actually taught evolution was scarcely even discussed. Rather, it was a string of testimonies from scientists on the “scientific” basis for evolution, and from liberal theologians about how evolution and the Bible don’t contradict each other."

  • Not deleting anything from the article because I've been told that is not permissible.
  • This piece of text appears to me to be untrue and transparently biased. What do we mean, "The trial was really an attack on Christianity and the Bible?" The Trial was a criminal action against Scopes. The state didn't have to pass the Butler act if it didn't want to, and didn't have to prosecute Scopes if they didn't want to. The case was "Really" a criminal prosecution of Scopes, but the defense was of course ready and willing to take its best shots atCchristianity in response. Saying anything different shoots our credibility, I think.
  • Permission to delete the above text? Ungtss 21:25, 18 December 2005 (GMT)
I am not the author of the text, but it seems certain he was referring to the fact that the trial was staged by the ACLU to attack the teaching of creationism. Scopes committed the violation to go to trial. Therefore it wasnt a "real" criminal trial, but simply put forth to attack theism. I modified the text somewhat.--Chris Ashcraft 01:05, 19 December 2005 (GMT)
Thanks for qualifying it somewhat; i still respectfully disagree, however:). The State passed the law, the ACLU decided to test the law, and the State took the bait by prosecuting. There is no factual basis for saying the trial was "really an attack on the Bible." If anything, the law and prosecution were "really an attack on atheism," and the ACLU setup was "really an attack on a law that was an attack on atheism." The evolutionists had no power in this case except the power of the media. The creationists had the police, the legislators, and the judges on their side, enforcing the Butler act. Naturally it turned into an attack on the Bible during the court-case, but what basis do we have for believing that was the "purpose" of the setup by the ACLU? Their manifest goal in the trial was to challenge the law. They failed, of course, and so reverted to more devious means of atheistic evangelism. 40 years later, things were looking a little different for us:(. Ungtss 01:17, 19 December 2005 (GMT)

Inherit the Wind

"The movie “Inherit the Wind” was based on the Scopes trial, but was a gross distortion of the facts, blatantly slanted to make Christians look ignorant and intolerant."

  • I suggest we provide specific facts to back up this claim, instead of making such a bald proof by assertion:(. Ungtss 21:34, 18 December 2005 (GMT)
    • I added specific facts and deleted the above sentence, because it carried no content. i hope this is acceptable. Ungtss 21:38, 18 December 2005 (GMT)
I returned this text in part, and removed the comparisons with the McCarthy hearings in that section - however I left the suggestion that the play was really about the Senator elsewhere.

--Chris Ashcraft 01:05, 19 December 2005 (GMT)

Duplicated information

The last two paragraphs of the section "Trial" are effectively duplicated in the section following that. Philip J. Rayment 15:33, 6 May 2006 (GMT)


Minor spelling

In the fifth sentence under Publicity and drama is the sentence:

"Chicago's WGN radio station broadcast the trial with announcer Quin Ryan via clearn channel broadcasts for the first on-the-scene coverage of a criminal trial"

What does "clearn" mean? --Zephyr Axiom 17:58, 24 February 2007 (EST)