The Scopes Trial - Two Views

This is an actual photo of the closing arguments in the Scopes Monkey Trial which tackled the issue of Evolution in 1925. The story is familiar to almost all Americans; and still rages today; Creationism versus Evolution. We will leave that argument for another time. I will only quote the late John Paul II, who said, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." I tend to believe that there is much truth in that statement.

The focus of this post is the difference between the movie "Inherit the Wind" with Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow, facing off with Fredric March as William Jennings Bryan. I have never understood the need to turn the real life trial into fiction. Don't get me wrong, it's one of my favorite films. Although it takes a bit of license with some of the characters, the courtroom dialogue is almost verbatim with the words spoken during the trial. Except for one little difference; the summation; which was actually held outdoors, just across from the courthouse. The trial had engendered so much interest that there was simply not enough room for all of the interested spectators and press attending the proceedings.

Another great difference is that although lawyers are actors to some extent, the trial was recorded audibly, and listening to the same summations by the actors versus the lawyers is a “no win” for the lawyers. They have the words, but the actors have the greater ability to deliver them with the passion they deserve.

The photo above is of the actual summation; note that William Jennings Bryan (seated) is snapping his suspenders, just as Fredric March did in the film. The man in the foreground, and speaking, is Clarence Darrow. There are radio broadcasts of the trial available on line so that you can compare the two different deliveries for yourself. A scene from the movie is posted below with the link provided. The You Tube embeds from the film have been disabled by request, hence the link, rather than the actual film. By the way; note the resemblance between William Jennings Bryan and Fredric March; in the photograph above, as well as the film, it's positively uncanny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Kdc0LLSW8&feature=related

"The Language of Science and Faith" by Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." When Pope John Paul II spoke these words he crystalized an argument that, for me, had been ongoing since I was about 11 years old and first became acquainted with the debate which continues to surround us today.

For me, it has always been easy to reconcile religion with science. I just figured science was invented by God. For an 11 year old, that was pretty deep thinking. And really, over the years, my views on that have not changed much. It's kind of like this; God created us, watched us screw things up and hopes we can straighten it all out ourselves without his Intervention. We, too, can only hope. This belief system is commonly known as "Deism."

In the famous Scopes "Monkey" Trial of 1925, in which a schoolteacher was charged with teaching evolution against the state law prohibiting it, the prosecution argues that Evolution, as a theory, has no creedence in religion. William Jennings Bryan, the 3 time candidate for President, and noted attorney, actually argued against science. His opponent, the brilliant, and somewhat unpredictable Clarence Darrow, argued for the defense that the Bible, particularly Genesis, was "pleasant poetry." I have never been comfortable with either of these dismissals of the two divergent points of view. Nothing is ever that simple.

This book will set what you think you believe in, on it's head. I thought I was a believer in Deism, that is, one who believes in a God who created the Universe, then stepped back to let us run our course. This book postulates the belief in BioLogos, which is a form of Theism, a belief that there is a God who acts in conjunction with his Creation. I'll have to think about this concept.

This is a book which will require more than one reading, as well as an examination of some of my core beliefs regarding religion. My own relationship with God is a very personal one. I speak, He listens; sometimes. At other times, He roars, and I begin to rethink my position. We are engaged in a tug of war for my soul, and at age 56, I'm not all that sure who is winning.

Enter this book with an open mind. It was not written to destroy any religious beliefs you might already have. Rather, this book explores the things we all have in common, with the design of reconciling the science interwoven within our individual beliefs.