Sunday, November 20, 2011
The Scope of an Outsider
The Cates trial has brought a long-oppressed issue to light: the teachings of science and religion in the classrooms of our children. Does religion have a place in scientific curriculum? Of course the children of Tennessee know the tales of Genesis and the teachings of the Lord, but should children associate science with the Bible? In the defense, Mr. Cates argues that they should solely be taught theories of evolution and natural selection as postulated by the controversial Charles Darwin himself with the aide of his lawyer, Mr. Drummond. The prosecution consists of Mr. Brady and the state of Tennessee. The state of Tennessee is prosecuting because of their "anti-evoution" laws which prohibit the teaching of evolutionary theories in public classrooms. The defense attacks the prosecution by proposing a series of questions that question the scientific validity of the Bible. While both sides present strong arguments, the jury and the audience end up favoring Mr. Brady and the position that he takes. Mr. Brady and the state of Tennessee do not believe in teaching young children anything that opposes the truths of the biblical account of creationism. Even though Mr. Cates did not win his trial, it has been a landmark event in that it brought forth the complexity of this controversy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems that all the articles come to the same conclusion... but this is still a nice article because it has a clear point of view, good job:)
ReplyDeleteI think that the "Anti-evolution" laws promote the ideas of ignorance. Schools are suppose to present all knowledge of the world, not just the points of views from specific religions. By only introducing one way to look at the world, children learning would become closed minded about everything in the world. Just like the people who came up with the "anti-evolution" laws. It's a choice to believe in evolution, just like it is a choice to believe in God. But it's the choice that makes it possible for Humans to grow as a species.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that Mr. Cates didn't actually win the trial is, I think, only in the sense that the laws weren't changed as was stated. The idea that religion isn't the only correct way of looking at things won. While nothing legally changed, attitudes and perspectives definitely were. It's true that this was a landmark event that will change society.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the article was very well written, concise, and to the point. However, it could probably be improved by adding some of the arguments that were made during the trial. Also, I think Cates/Scopes just wanted his students to have a wider view of the world, and didn't only teach evolution. As for my opinion about the trial, I believe the Cates/Scopes Trial did have a large effect on what was able to be taught in schools, as you can see today that evolution is taught all over America. Still, I think it is hard to understand how religious everyone was back then, so evolution was most likely a very difficult idea for people to understand.
ReplyDeleteI think this article is quite well-written and direct. Brady was eventually able to prevail only because the majority of the people in that time were very religious; I am sure that today, Cates's argument would be considered much more substantial and persuasive, and would likely win him the trial. I also believe that a reluctance to accept new ideas played a role in the outcome of the trial. The concept of evolution was a relatively new one back then, whereas the biblical account of creation had been around for thousands of years -- people (including the jury) would be much more inclined to stick with the existing teachings than immediately embrace something so new and radical. The fact that the trial won so much recognition and helped cause the change in the government's view of evolution proved a major victory for Cates, even though he did not win the trial itself.
ReplyDeleteI think this article is well written, but somewhat lacking in detail. More could be said about the arguments Brady and Drummond made during the trial. I agree with your point that although Cates did not win, he still brought the controversy to light.
ReplyDeleteI really like the flow of this article and the way the author presented the information, but I do disagree with one statement. The author wrote that both sides presented strong points of argument, but I feel that Drummond's points far outweighed Brady's in both validity and number. Why do you think the jury sided with Brady back then? After acting out the Scopes trial, the jury in our class unanimously voted in favor of Drummond.
ReplyDeleteThis shows us that the opinions of individuals can greatly vary over the course of the years, and that many occurences that would be considered crimes back in the day would not even be given a second glance today.
Well written, but rather short. I agree with your conclusion that the most important result of the trial is a wider knowledge of the issue. In my opinion laws such as banning the teaching of evolution are unjust, but breaking the law is breaking the law. One needs to debate the law before they break it, not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteA well-written piece. I especially like the title. If I had a suggestion, it would probably be to watch the tenses, but it is a solid summary of the trial.
ReplyDeleteI agree! Even though Cates didn't win his trial, this event was very important to society at the time. It set the ground for the pressing question: "does education include religion?"
ReplyDeleteYes, this issue is very complex. Although both sides did provide evidence, it seemed to me that Cates had actual evidence, while Mr Brady relied on the ingrained beliefs that the people already had. It seems to me that, in today's society, it would have been an easy win for Cates
ReplyDeleteI thought that this was a great summary of the Scopes Trial. The flow of the article seemed effortless and posed interesting questions. I also liked how the author took notice that the winner of the trial is not necessarily unimportant.
ReplyDelete