I recently saw a documentary about the "Scopes Monkey Trial", and it really made me think.

Most people know the name, but do not really understand the issues at hand, the laws broken, or what the final outcome was.  To most people, it was simply a lawsuit over Evolution Vs. Creationism.

In reality, it was to decide if a teacher had broken a law that prohibited the teaching of anything other then Cretionism in public schools.  The teacher in question (John Scopes) decided to teach out of a textbook that was not approved, and was a strong proponent of Darwinism.  He was put on trial, and convicted.  But because of a technicality (the judge decided the fine - and not the jury as was required under Tennessee law), the judgement was later overturned.

The judgement was basically accepted as the "law of the land" until 1968, when it was overturned by the US Supreme Court (the Butler Law - which was what Mr. Scopes was convicted of was already overturned in 1967).

Basically, I am curious as to what others think of this topic.  Because of it's potentially controversial nature I am plaing it in here.

In short, was Mr. John Sopes right in teaching what he was?  Was it right for him to teach out of a non-approved textbook, and teaching his own beliefs, reguardless of what the State of Tennessee had already decided was or was not appropriate?

The state cannot afford to have its public schools teach mythology in lieu of science. 

In a free country I suppose you cannot dictate what private schools do.  If you want to handicap your child's understanding of life as we know it by teaching him a curriculum of archaic hogwash, I guess that's your prerogative. 

In general, we need scientists, doctors, engineers, and so forth, so the schools the government funds must serve the needs of present-day civilization!

John Scopes was right, the state of Tennessee was wrong.

The Scopes trial was long before I was born, so I'll grant that my appreciation of its significance is probably not what it should be. That said...

...Schools should spend more time teaching kids right from wrong than on the origin of man (granted, I believe morals should come from parents, not schools, but that is another thread). At the end of my day, it really matters not in what I believe (or don't believe) so long as I have been as decent a human being as possible. It also matters not from where we come because the only way we are going to find out a definitive answer is when we are dead.

Personally, I think teaching evolution and creationism in school is a waste of time.


Was it right for him to teach out of a non-approved textbook, and teaching his own beliefs, reguardless of what the State of Tennessee had already decided was or was not appropriate?


It is always appropriate, just, and right to question that which does not seem to be right. States, at one point in the not-so-distant past, thought segregation was also a good idea.

While refamiliarizing myself with this case, I came across this site. I quote:

"As Scopes later described the meeting, Rappalyea said, "John, we've been arguing and I said nobody could teach biology without teaching evolution." Scopes agreed.  "That's right," he said, pulling a copy of Hunter's Civic Biology--the state-approved textbook..."

Now, I don't take everything I read on the 'net as the 100% truth, but it seems that his teaching of Evolution was a continuation of what was in the state-approved biology textbook.

While refamiliarizing myself with this case, I came across this site. I quote:

"As Scopes later described the meeting, Rappalyea said, "John, we've been arguing and I said nobody could teach biology without teaching evolution." Scopes agreed.  "That's right," he said, pulling a copy of Hunter's Civic Biology--the state-approved textbook..."

Now, I don't take everything I read on the 'net as the 100% truth, but it seems that his teaching of Evolution was a continuation of what was in the state-approved biology textbook.


The book was the state approved book.  But it was also required that any parts of the book that dealt with Evolution were not to be taught.  In fact, the book only discussed Evolution in 5 pages (pages 191-196).  And it was forbidden to use those pages in any form of instruction.

I voted other because a biased religious view should not be taught in school.


Because of it's potentially controversial nature I am plaing it in here.

It could be deemed controversial, but science and logic should dictate what our children are taught. I would be OK with a course discussing ALL of the world's religions from an objective teacher.
But I'm not sure that it's possible...

I also voted "other" because while I think a state has the right to set "standards", I don't think they should be allowed to micromanage what/how the teacher teaches those standards.  As someone who is studying to be a teacher, this is important to me.  My best friend's sons go to a school that micromanages what/how the teachers teach to the point they are given lesson plans/worksheets/etc and are not to deviate from those.  In other words, every class at a given grade level works on the EXACT SAME work from day to day.  I have no problem with a school or state saying "you must teach A, B & C", but I think it's overstepping to state "you have to teach ONLY A, B & C using X, Y & Z ONLY".  As an English major, I have had a teacher who told a student she was wrong for interpreting a poem in a way other than what the teacher did.  IMO, that's not right.  Something like poetry can be interpreted in so many different ways and is different from person to person and to teach it as if it has only one meaning is doing an injustice to literature as a whole.  Also, in a class I took last semester, the professor was told she HAD to include certain writers in her class (although it was a period-based class, not a genre based class).  Those that she didn't care for, all we did was read 1-2 works and had a 5-10 min discussion on them.  Those she DID like, we spent 2-3 classes on.  Now, I could understand if all of the writers had an influence on the writing style of the time we were studying (Eliot, Langston Hughes, Hemingway), but some of them didn't.

I voted other because a biased religious view should not be taught in school.

It could be deemed controversial, but science and logic should dictate what our children are taught. I would be OK with a course discussing ALL of the world's religions from an objective teacher.
But I'm not sure that it's possible...
Actually, it is.  I had to take a religion class in my first college and although the teacher was a "Catholic" priest, he was very open-minded and very unbiased on the different religions we were taught.  Granted, he was an unorthodox priest....he was married and converted from Episcopalian to Catholicism. 

I have to disagree, Mama.
Everyone that I have ever met is religiously biased, and I will include myself in that statement.

(Hello, self. Nice to meet ya!)


Granted, he was an unorthodox priest....he was married and converted from Episcopalian to Catholicism. 


Your professor sounds very interesting, but I sure as hell wouldn't want him teaching my kids.
The fact that he converted from one religion to another is evidence that he doesn't know the answers.
I'm sure he's open-minded (he'd have to be), but isn't he just rolling the dice?

A true atheist would make a good teacher for that class...
That way each child could make up their own mind.

SCIENCE = FACTS not FAITH

I have to disagree, Mama.
Everyone that I have ever met is religiously biased, and I will include myself in that statement.

(Hello, self. Nice to meet ya!)

Your professor sounds very interesting, but I sure as hell wouldn't want him teaching my kids.
The fact that he converted from one religion to another is evidence that he doesn't know the answers.
I'm sure he's open-minded (he'd have to be), but isn't he just rolling the dice?

A true atheist would make a good teacher for that class...
That way each child could make up their own mind.

If you had ever met my professor, you might feel differently.  He was more knowledgeable about various religions than anyone I've ever met.  Before converting to Catholicism, he studied a variety of them in depth and chose Catholicism because that was what he most identified with.  In fact, it was his teaching and honest answers to my and other students' questions that made me realize that I disagree with most of the Catholic Church's teachings.

Here is a little more information to muddy the water:

The book in question was the 1914 edition of George Hunter's A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems.  And here are some excerpts of the "forbidden" 5 pages:

The Races of Man. -- At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; The American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.

Improvement of Man. -- If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection. This improvement of the future race has a number of factors in which we as individuals may play a part. These are personal hygiene, selection of healthy mates, and the betterment of the environment.

Eugenics. -- When people marry there are certain things that the individual as well as the race should demand. The most important of these is freedom from germ diseases which might be handed down to the offspring. Tuberculosis, syphilis, that dread disease which cripples and kills hundreds of thousands of innocent children, epilepsy, and feeble-mindedness are handicaps which it is not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity. The science of being well born is called eugenics.

Parasitism and its Cost to Society. -- Hundreds of families such as those described above exist today, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poorhouse and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites.

The Remedy. -- If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with some success in this country.

{Bold face is mine}

So is that really what we want taught to our children?  Oh no, religion must be kept away from our children!  We must not clutter their minds with such things as morality.  Instead, let's teach them about Eugenics, and how certain races are inferior to that of Caucasians.  And while we are at it, we will teach them how to get rid of the "parasites".

And lastly, think about this:  If "the South" was so horrid, then why forbid these chapters?  If anything, it seems to give justification to many of the actions taken during the era.  But strangly, this is part of the "forbidden text" that Mr. Scopes was convicted of teaching.

Strange, the things that are never mentioned about this case.  I wonder what things would be like now if at the time, the law was overthrown, and teaching like this was spread through the country.  Could you imagine what the result would be if a generation was taught that thinking of Caucasians as being superior was right, and that everything possible should be done to "protect the caucasian bloodline"?

Here is a little more information to muddy the water:

The book in question was the 1914 edition of George Hunter's A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems.  And here are some excerpts of the "forbidden" 5 pages:

The Races of Man. -- At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; The American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.

Improvement of Man. -- If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection. This improvement of the future race has a number of factors in which we as individuals may play a part. These are personal hygiene, selection of healthy mates, and the betterment of the environment.

Eugenics. -- When people marry there are certain things that the individual as well as the race should demand. The most important of these is freedom from germ diseases which might be handed down to the offspring. Tuberculosis, syphilis, that dread disease which cripples and kills hundreds of thousands of innocent children, epilepsy, and feeble-mindedness are handicaps which it is not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity. The science of being well born is called eugenics.

Parasitism and its Cost to Society. -- Hundreds of families such as those described above exist today, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poorhouse and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites.

The Remedy. -- If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with some success in this country.

{Bold face is mine}

So is that really what we want taught to our children?  Oh no, religion must be kept away from our children!  We must not clutter their minds with such things as morality.  Instead, let's teach them about Eugenics, and how certain races are inferior to that of Caucasians.  And while we are at it, we will teach them how to get rid of the "parasites".

And lastly, think about this:  If "the South" was so horrid, then why forbid these chapters?  If anything, it seems to give justification to many of the actions taken during the era.  But strangly, this is part of the "forbidden text" that Mr. Scopes was convicted of teaching.

Strange, the things that are never mentioned about this case.  I wonder what things would be like now if at the time, the law was overthrown, and teaching like this was spread through the country.  Could you imagine what the result would be if a generation was taught that thinking of Caucasians as being superior was right, and that everything possible should be done to "protect the caucasian bloodline"?
Who's to say they weren't?  Just because it wasn't in "science" class doesn't mean that it wasn't being taught.  Remember at the time, segregation was legal so it's not a stretch to believe that this WAS being taught, if not from a book, then in households and churches.

I went to an all-girls, Catholic high school and we were taught the theory of evolution.  All our science books were provided by the state, so we got the same books kids that went to public schools receieved. 

In theology class, we were told of the other view people sometimes believe but we were never told it was preferable to evolution.  We were told it was different, which is how it should be.  Teach children both views, let them decide which one they want to believe.

I went to an all-girls, Catholic high school and we were taught the theory of evolution.  All our science books were provided by the state, so we got the same books kids that went to pubic schools receieved. 

*puts on Beavis hat* huh, huh, huh, you said "pubic" huh, huh, huh*

*puts on Beavis hat* huh, huh, huh, you said "pubic" huh, huh, huh*



Oh sh*t, I didn't even see that.  ;D 

Oh sh*t, I didn't even see that.  ;D 
You were still jealous thinking of my sub to "Pimps and Hos" magazine, weren't you? ;D

You were still jealous thinking of my sub to "Pimps and Hos" magazine, weren't you? ;D



You've got me.  Can't put anything past you, Kim. 

You've got me.  Can't put anything past you, Kim. 
Hey, what can I say, I was edumucated at one of them there pubic schools ;)

Hey, what can I say, I was edumucated at one of them there pubic schools ;)



Y'all must have some fancy book-learnin' goin' on there!

Y'all must have some fancy book-learnin' goin' on there!
Yup :P

*pulls out his copy of Kentucky Fried Movie so he can watch the clips from Catholic High School Girls In Trouble*

I voted "Other" - the state can't be completely prescriptive, and the teacher can't be given full rein, there has to be a balance.

Excluding textbooks en masse is not a good idea, period.  Loved your highlights (in the text, not your hair, Mushroom ;)) - would I be happy with my children being taught from this text?  Probably, but only if used as an example of blinkered extremism rather than as a worthy viewpoint (and when they're old enough to understand the implications - say, age >13).  It's kind of useful to go into the world knowing there are people with objectionable views.

And as for the description of "Eugenics" as a science - given that it's about as much science as Intelligent Design or astrology... whoever wrote it really doesn't understand what science actually is, and therefore this *definitely* shouldn't be taught as part of a science curriculum.  However, it raises moral issues which are far better discussed openly than hidden away.  Strangely enough, we covered eugenics at school in biology - used as an example of what can happen if you take things too detached from humanity.  Thing is about the whole concept of eugenics is that "what I am is good, what I don't like is bad" under the guise of trying to seem like it's all rational.

Sounds very much like it's not as simple as a "creation vs evolution" argument


SCIENCE = FACTS not FAITH

Not exactly: but IMO this is probably worth a thread of its own.  To summarize, I'd say science means always questioning received opinion and trying to find what fits best with what you can see - and testing everything you can.  It doesn't always (or even usually) supply "facts", especially in capital letters.


*pulls out his copy of Kentucky Fried Movie so he can watch the clips from Catholic High School Girls In Trouble*

I remember going to that one when I was well under-age...  :o

SCIENCE = FACTS not FAITH



Not exactly: but IMO this is probably worth a thread of its own.  To summarize, I'd say science means always questioning received opinion and trying to find what fits best with what you can see - and testing everything you can.  It doesn't always (or even usually) supply "facts", especially in capital letters.


Science is not about facts at all.  It is about a structired belief based upon what has been observed.  And that belief often changes over time.

After all, it really was not that long ago that "Molecules" were thought to be the smallest particle.  Then "Atoms" were discovered, and it was assumed that the smallest particle was the Electron.

Wow, then along came Quantum Physics, and we discovered such nifty things as Quarks.  Does that automatically mean that all the previous science was wrong?

Science if a structured system of theories and assumptions, that tend to stand as "fact" until something comes along and proves that it is not quite true.  And sometimes, things discovered through "science" are simply not believed.

As a good example, Albert Einstein discovered the theory behind "Black Holes", but dismissed them.  He himself believed that nothing so strange could ever exist in a sane and logical universe.

Science is not about facts at all.  It is about a structired belief based upon what has been observed.  And that belief often changes over time.

After all, it really was not that long ago that "Molecules" were thought to be the smallest particle.  Then "Atoms" were discovered, and it was assumed that the smallest particle was the Electron.

Wow, then along came Quantum Physics, and we discovered such nifty things as Quarks.  Does that automatically mean that all the previous science was wrong?

Science if a structured system of theories and assumptions, that tend to stand as "fact" until something comes along and proves that it is not quite true.  And sometimes, things discovered through "science" are simply not believed.

As a good example, Albert Einstein discovered the theory behind "Black Holes", but dismissed them.  He himself believed that nothing so strange could ever exist in a sane and logical universe.

In science, a fact is a fact by way of a testable hypothesis, an experiment that can be repeated.  If a scientist challenges a fact, he or she sets up another testable hypothesis to contradict the fact in question.  Fact does not equal immutable truth.
Some parts of the theory of evolution are considered established facts scientifically proven, but still open to challenge by further inquiry.
Other parts of the theory are still hypotheses in the works and not yet considered "facts."
What I objected to in re "intelligent design" is:
"Golly, look at this magnificent and complex universe, somebody really smart must have made it!"
"You mean God?"
"Not necessarily."
"Then what intelligent being designed the universe?  And what intelligent being designed the intelligent being who designed the universe? And what intelligent being designed the intelligent being who...."
"Look, this couldn't all have happened by like random chance and stuff."
"Why not?"
"Because it's too complex. Did'ja ever see all those little mechanisms at work in a single cell?"
"Maybe that's not so complex.  What is complexity?  Is that not a man-made concept?"
"Uhhhh....what are you, a devil-worshipping secular progressive?"
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/flame.gif

In science, a fact is a fact by way of a testable hypothesis, an experiment that can be repeated.  If a scientist challenges a fact, he or she sets up another testable hypothesis to contradict the fact in question.  Fact does not equal immutable truth.

You made me check my definition of fact

By the dictionary definition, a "fact" does imply "truth" (mutable or otherwise... unless, of course, you're a lawyer in which case it means whatever you want it to ;)); however, as a scientist by training, I agree with your explanation of your usage of the word.  Interesting.

I don\'t think evolution or creation should be taught, I think the school should teach about Darwin and about the Biblical documents.

You made me check my definition of fact

By the dictionary definition, a "fact" does imply "truth" (mutable or otherwise... unless, of course, you're a lawyer in which case it means whatever you want it to ;)); however, as a scientist by training, I agree with your explanation of your usage of the word.  Interesting.

Remember the Indiana Jones movie where Jones explains to the class, "Archeology is the search for fact, not truth." 
It becomes a philosphical question.  Fact of course implies truth.  If you believe a fact is correct and I believe a fact is correct, it's the truth to us. BUT it's not necessarily the truth once and for all.

The ancient Greeks believed we thought with our hearts and the brain was a cooling system.  That was a fact to them, but nobody believes that fact is the truth anymore!