It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Text
Genesis in the Scopes Trial
Two-thousand-four-hundred-and-eighty-five years (plus or minus a year or two) after the writing of Genesis, Judge John T. Raulston read to grand jurors and the crowd assembled in the Rhea County Courthouse in Dayton, Tennessee the first thirty-one verses of Chapter One of Genesis. The judge explained that he found it “proper” to “call attention” to the Biblical story of creation because the defendant in the case he had just called, State vs. John Thomas Scopes, stood accused of violating a new Tennessee statute, called the Butler Act, that made it a crime “to teach any theory that denies the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible,and to teach instead that man had descended from a lower order of animals."
The Biblical creation story that Judge Raulston read as the historic trial opened came from Chapter 1 of Genesis, as it appeared in the King James translation. The judge does not read the strikingly different creation story found at Genesis 2:4b to 2.25, the “Adam and Eve story.” Those inclined toward Biblical literalism are forced to accept only one of the two stories as real history, and must treat the other account as partially fiction—although fiction with a true message. Given the more fanciful nature of the Adam and Eve story, with its creation from rib bone and its walking, talking snakes, the six-day creation story of Genesis 1 has been the obvious candidate for literalists to rally around.
Two-thousand-four-hundred-and-eighty-five years (plus or minus a year or two) after the writing of Genesis, Judge John T. Raulston read to grand jurors and the crowd assembled in the Rhea County Courthouse in Dayton, Tennessee the first thirty-one verses of Chapter One of Genesis. The judge explained that he found it “proper” to “call attention” to the Biblical story of creation because the defendant in the case he had just called, State vs. John Thomas Scopes, stood accused of violating a new Tennessee statute, called the Butler Act, that made it a crime “to teach any theory that denies the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible,and to teach instead that man had descended from a lower order of animals."
As the trial progressed, it became clear that the contradictions between the two Genesis accounts did not escape the attention of defense attorneys for teacher John Scopes. The defense demanded that the prosecution show which of the two creation stories it is that the Butler Act forbids teachers to “deny.” Does a biology instructor risk prosecution, Arthur Garfield Hays wondered aloud, if he or she questions whether the first woman was made from the rib of a man? The impossibility of determining which account of the “divine creation of man as taught in the Bible” could not be “denied” by Tennessee teachers, contended the defense, is a fatal flaw in the law: the law is unconstitutionally vague. Clarence Darrow threw down a challenge: “Tell us the origins of man as shown in the Bible. Is there any human being who can tell us?” Answering his own question, the nation’s most famous defense attorney said it is impossible: “There are two conflicting accounts in the first two chapters.” Without a clear statement in the law as to what “the story of divine creation” actually is, Darrow contended, Scopes cannot be prosecuted. Tennessee, he drawled, must identify “the chief mogul that can tell us what the Bible means.” If the state law provided “you must teach that man was made of the dust” or that “Eve was made of Adam’s rib,” then at least the law would be clear,” he argued. The law provides no hint which creation story must not be denied. Charges against Scopes, Darrow concludes, must be dropped.
Prosecutor William Jennings Bryan, unsurprisingly, saw none of the defense’s problems with the wording of the statute. “The statute is brief and free from ambiguity,” he asserted. Judge Raulston sided with Bryan. He denied the defense’s motion to quash, on the ground of vagueness, the indictment of Scopes.
Text
By David Zucchino
April 11, 2012, 9:31 a.m.
Discussion of creationism in public school classrooms in Tennessee will now be permitted under a bill that passed the Republican-controlled state Legislature despite opposition from the state’s Republican governor.
The measure will allow classroom debates over evolution, permitting discussions of creationism alongside evolutionary teachings about the origins of life. Critics say the law, disparagingly called "The Monkey Bill," will plunge Tennessee back to the divisive days of the notorious Scopes "Monkey Trial’’ in Dayton, Tenn., in 1925.
Gov. Bill Haslam refused Tuesday to sign the bill, saying it would create confusion over schools’ science curriculum. But the bill became law anyway. Haslam said he decided not to use his veto power, because the Legislature had the votes to override a veto. The measure passed by a 3-to-1 margin.
"Good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion,’’ Haslam said, according to Reuters. "My concern is that this bill has not met this objective.’’
The governor added: "I don’t believe that it accomplishes anything that isn’t already acceptable in our schools.’’
The state’s teachers are not allowed to raise alternatives to evolution but, under the new law, would be required to permit discussion of creationism and other beliefs if they are raised in class. The law would also permit discussion of challenges to such scientific conclusions as the man-made effects of climate change.
The law’s proponents say it will encourage critical thinking among students and protect teachers who do not believe in evolution, according to the Associated Press.
Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Tennessee’s largest teachers’ association, say it will permit teaching creationism as fact.
"With all the emphasis now on science, math and technology, this seems like a real step backwards,’’ Jerry Winters, director of government relations for the Tennessee Education Association, told Reuters. "Tennessee was the focus of this debate in the 1920s and we don’t need to be turning the clock back now.’’
In the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, Tennessee high school teacher John Scopes was convicted of violating a state law against teaching evolution in state schools; he was defended by Clarence Darrow and prosecuted by William Jennings Bryan. The conviction was later overturned.
Eight members of the National Academy of Sciences from Tennessee, including a Vanderbilt University Nobel laureate, signed a letter urging the Legislature to vote against the bill, saying it would damage the state’s reputation and harm Tennessee’s effort to recruit science and technical companies.
Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told the Nashville Tennessean that the bill was designed to undercut teaching about evolution, despite claims that it encourages critical thinking.
"This has always been a way for teachers to interject their religious viewpoints if they contradict evolution,’’ Lynn said.
reply to post by Sigismundus
TextWhy on earth would thinking persons ever take anything contained in these 2 contradictory Hebrew Morality Creation Myths as ‘Science’ to be taught to school children alongside Biology and Chemistry which makes use of such things as the Empirical Method?
originally posted by: Sigismundus
Can’t one be a CREATIONIST without ALWAYS dragging the TWO (Contradictory) Paleo-Hebrew Creation MYTHS (in Genesis) into the discussion EVERY SINGLE Time?
originally posted by: Myrtales Instinct
You sure can Sig, You can be a creationist all day long and nobody will give a flying flip.
But when you come along and use flame-bait tactics towards the deity we belive in, then we defend said deity and you in turn will then call us sensitive to our "myth." If you really think about it is you who is being sensitive because your minority point of view isn't the one being exalted.
Look at how you word things:
"without ALWAYS dragging the TWO (Contradictory) Paleo-Hebrew Creation MYTHS"
The fact remains - you are in the minority of what mankind believes.
Here is another one:
"consistently drag YHWH"
Again - YHWH is part of the norm and this norm has been consistent through the course of history.
Another:
"as if no other Creation Myths in the world even Exist?"
Now that is a deep question. Why do you think the teachings of Zeus didn't stick yet YHWH's did?
This is precious:
"this discussion is not for theological sissies"
Okay. I've read enough.
What is the exact purpose of belittling your peers?
originally posted by: Sigismundus
Why do people automatically jump on to the Jewish bible band-wagon for their spiritual answers when speaking about Creation?
Why not jump on to the Hindu Scriptures, or to the ancient German creation myths, or to the ancient Amerindian or Mayan myths of creation if they want to believe in a material 'creation' of the universe from a divine mind (or group of divine minds !)