Hi Tim

Thanks for mentioning my site on your Blog about the Scopes Trial. If you have time to let me know specifically where you think my material maunders on unnecessarily I'm always open to useful criticism.

Best wishes

Andy B.

What a load of reactionary theocon crap. That Science progressed since Scopes is no surprise. That's the funny thing about Science: you can assert new theories, prove them and things will change, unlike some bible thumping my-way-or-the-highway thinking. But Science most certainly buried the Fundamentalist view of Creation that Scope's persecutors supported. Are you insinuating, in some theocon fascist way, that we should jail people for teaching Evolution?

Hi Jake!

What a wonderful first-hand demonstration of how intolerant and anti-rational a number of Christian-haters are.

That Science progressed since Scopes is no surprise.

Of course, science has "progressed". But it's instructive for us to remember how often we were wrong about so, so many things, which are often adopted, without good science backing them, as though they were true or beneficial.

Take divorce: In the 1960s, it was widely belived that the "enlightened" view was that if a couple was unhappy, it was better for the children if they separated. What science backed this? No more than for the racial hierarchy theories a generation before. Now researchers have done empirical studies and discovered -- lo and behold -- such ideas were dead wrong. Divorce for mere unhappiness is devastating to the children.

And yet again, the left drags something they call "sciece" into "proving" that gay marriage is beneficial. So where are the long-term double-blind peer-reviewed studies? Where are the determinations of statistical signfigance?

Again, utterly absent. Once again, the term "science" is being thrown about by those who apparently have no love for it whatsoever, but merely use it's name as a political tool. If gay marriage is good for children -- much less their would-be parents -- or detrimental, we'll never learn it until much later.

I value that people argue different views. (How could we have a good debate otherwise?) But what I do mind is this continual and ongoing false, dishonest, and unscientific invocation of the term "science" to support what are essentially unscientific views, but mere wishful thinking which reflects those invoking the word "science".

Marx did it, and the political left has never stopped since then. And it's worth exposing that to people -- apparently like you -- who seem utterly unaware of it.

But Science most certainly buried the Fundamentalist view of Creation that Scope's persecutors supported.

The very phrasing you use here, "Scope's persecutors" indicates how little you know about about the trial. I really recommend you just click that little link I've supplied and learn something -- even if it just results in you learning how to somewhat more intelligently attack and disparage those you view as your enemies.

But why should I expect you to learn? That would be asking entirely too much, apparently.

While you're at it, science has also utterly disproved the various arguments offered by Scope's defenders as well. But, again, I can see you're clearly not the kind of person who will follow a link and read it before commenting.

Are you insinuating, in some theocon fascist way, that we should jail people for teaching Evolution?

I'm openly saying -- and not meaning to insinuate in the slightest: (a) leftists are often wrong, but never apologize, (b) "Science" (i.e. not real science, but it is believed to be such at the time) has often been conscripted in the service of leftist political dogmas, and (c) many are woefully ignorant about the history of so-called "progressive" thought.

And I'm not some kind of young-earth creationist as you seem to assume, but undoubtedly that's easier for you than thinking about the points actually being raised in the post above.

It's called nuance, Jake.

While I'm not a creationist, I'm a big fan of William Jennings Bryan and the role he played in the Scopes Monkey trial, which has been dramatically rewritten as Tim notes. It's strange that Tim phrases this in terms of 'leftists' vs. 'conservatives' though. Bryan could probably be described as a Christian populist who was opposed to the conservative forces of his day. Of course, the terms 'conservative' and 'leftist' change so dramatically over time that they aren't really transferable from one age to another. The view that "racism is scientific" was a fundamentally conservative view in Bryan's time. i.e. it sought to retain an established system of power relationships.

And yet again, the left drags something they call "sciece" into "proving" that gay marriage is beneficial. So where are the long-term double-blind peer-reviewed studies? Where are the determinations of statistical signfigance?

Perhaps I'm blind (I miss a lot, politically, since I hardly watch TV) but I've never heard anyone argue that gay marriage was "scientific." Beneficial? Beneficial to whom? To society in general, perhaps? Well, I suppose you could ask "is it better for two people to be in an uncommitted relationship, sleeping with as many people as they can, or should they minimize their number of sexual contacts." In that sense I'm sure you could give a pretty "scientific" argument for gay marriage in terms of preventing STDs.

What I usually hear argued is not whether gay marriage is beneficial to the participants, though, but the question of what causes homoserotic orientation in the first place. Is it like sex and race? Can it be changed or is it a choice? This is where I usually see the men in white coats being trotted out for public display.

While there seems to be good statistical evidence against homosexuality as a genetic trait, it's still possible (though not conclusive) some that homoerotic tendencies might be congenital or fixed very early in life as opposed to being learned. A lot of guys I've known who say that self describe as 'gay' claim that they knew their orientation very early in their lives. I'm not as sure about girls, though. The intent in arguing, sometimes deceitfully, for a genetic base to homoerotic orientation is to cement homoerotic orientation as a protected class similar to race or sex and to argue against those who want to put gay people through behavior modification. Of course, not only is a genetic basis for homosexuality unscientific, but it's totally irrelevant. An amendment forbidding discrimination based on sex is all someone really needs to argue against sexually discriminatory tactics.

Hmm... Okay, I've been doing some rereading of the trial. It seems I've been subject to some later day conservative revisionist history in this regard, or at least 'reframing.'

Here's a copy of what Bryan was defending;
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/tennstat.htm

It essentially bans any text that doesn't agree with a literal interpretation of the bible, a horrible legal standard that deserved to be struck down.

I still like the rest of Bryan's political career, so I suppose I was more predisposed to accept the defenses of him regarding Scopes that are circulating without thinking critically and researching the matter. But if a literal view of the bible is demanded as an enforcable standard in education, then it is the validity of that standard which must be taken to task and not the alternatives. The standard was invalid, so it should be criticized, regardless of whether you agree with the alternatives or not.

The segregation of people into races and the ranking of those races, incidentally, was not caused by Darwinian theories. Linneaus's works on taxonomy, which preceede Darwin's "Origin of Species" by roughly a century (IIRC) had similar passages.

Certainly, Darwin has been used for racist ends but so has religion. That doesn't invalidate either.

While I realize that Tim is not a short earth creationist, for any that may be out there who see Evolution as an evil plot of atheists to control the minds of young schoolchildren I'd like to include a quotation by Dr. Francis Collins, a devout Christian who has directed the Human Genome Project in the United States.

"We seem to be engaged in contentious, destructive, and wholly unnecessary debate about evolution and creation. From my perspective as a scientist working on the genome, the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming . . . Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Faith-Science%20News/Austerberry2005.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/transcripts/collins.html

Ryan

I think maybe we need to be a little careful about taking online reports on the Scopes trial as being 100% accurate until we've checked them for accuracy - and that includes my own site.

In the case of the site you refer to, there is at least one piece of highly misleading editing of a section of the session between Darrow and Bryan which manages to make Darrow look far more competent than he actually was, whilst distorting Bryan's position on points such as the age of the earth. I have documented the relevant text here:

http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness3.html#pww

As to what Bryan supported or did not support, in fact it is quite clear that:

(a) Bryan had no objection to evolution being taught in schools, so long as it was presented as a theory and not as a fact
(b) Bryan actually disagreed with the terms of the Tennessee Act, because it imposed a financial fine. In Florida he had persuaded the legislature to accept a bill which did not impose any penalty

For what it's worth, far from being opposed to science, as Darrow (and many subsequent commentators) have tried to make out, Bryan was actually a long time member of the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). Something that is quietly ignored on most websites which wish to present Bryan as a reactionary ignoramus.

I hope this will enable you to be more comfortable about having a positive opinion of Bryan.

Andy B.