Karina+Week+6

I believe that the Scopes Trial in 1925 was one of the most important court cases in the history of evolutionary science, not because the jury ruled in favor of teaching evolution in the classroom, but because of the effect that the trial had on the country as a whole. The trial affected public opinion to the point where, “Of the fifteen states with anti- evolution legislation pending in 1925, only two states (Arkansas and Mississippi) enacted laws restricting teaching of Darwin's theory.” (State v. John Scopes ("The Monkey Trial") by Douglas O. Linder) The trial was publically broadcast to a large audience, “…[there] were announcers ready to send to listeners the first live radio broadcast from a trial.” (State v. John Scopes ("The Monkey Trial") by Douglas O. Linder) and passions were stirred with posters, banners, famous people, speeches and live monkeys. “In the sensation-loving 1920s, the sensations that attracted the most attention were those that in some way appeared to be contests between the intellect and Victorian values and beliefs. The Scopes trial fit this pattern perfectly.” (State v. John Scopes: A Final Word by Douglas O. Linder) There has always been conflict between religion and science over evolution by natural selection back to when it was first published by Darwin is 1859. Evolution was seen as a challenge to the Biblical account of creation (of which there are conflicting stories between Genesis I and Genesis II I might add). But regardless, evolution – or more specifically the idea the people were descended from monkeys (actually from a distant common ancestor) – scared people. If there was no creator to make humans special and better than animals, then why shouldn’t we act like animals? What does our common ancestry do to the status of human beings? These were not the first questions of this sort that were and are brought up by any means, but the Scopes Trial was widely publicized and really introduced this debate into popular culture. Even though the debate is still occurring, the “Monkey Trial”, “... did represent a significant setback for the anti-evolution forces.” (State v. John Scopes ("The Monkey Trial") by Douglas O. Linder)

In today’s society, the “battle” of the religious fundamentalists to stick their own narrow creation story in the classroom as an “alternative” theory to evolution is occurring, and it bothers me a lot. The argument that is usually presented for this new name for creationism goes something like this (and is often presented in secular terms and intentionally avoids identifying the creator or “intelligent designer”.) – In order for there to be equality and intellectual honesty and so that those who hold creationist beliefs are not unfairly discriminated against, an alternate explanation to evolution must be taught. There are also claims that the existence of irreducibly complex organisms and organs (usually the eye or flagellum of microorganisms are used as examples) are far too complex for evolution to explain and therefore //must// have been designed because it would have been impossible for such structures to //just evolve//. Another tactic of the proponents of intelligent design is to try and convince the public that the scientific community is divided about evolutionary theory.

The problems that can be seen right from the start with these arguments for intelligent design is that it is asserted as a science, when it does not follow any sort of scientific “method”. To quote from my //What is This Science?// essay, “ Science focuses on observable, physical evidence, and uses repeatable experimentation...” There is no way to test metaphysical beings using any method known to science and thus cannot be called a science by definition. And by taking the creationists argument that everything must have a creator, than by logic, a god must have a creator. Who then created the creator? Why created the creator of the creator? Putting a creator at the beginnings of the universe creates an infinite regression of questions and is thus useless. Of course, many religious people fix this problem by stating that God exists outside the universe and all the laws of nature, etc so of course he/she/it can exists without needing a creator. I have a sort of pet-peeve with the irreducible complexity argument because it’s like, because //I can’t// imagine any other way for something this complex to occur, it //must// have been designed. Also, the scientific community at large does agree on evolution.

My view is that science and evolution belongs in schools and science classes, and any religious ideas that are taught as fact should stay in churches or at home. Religion can and should be taught in classes like comparative religion (in a non-biased way) so that people learn that their religion is not the only one in the world that makes claims about the world or about creation.