Class Two - Song of the Young Paleontologist

Col. Clarence Darrow and Col. Wm. Jennings Bryan
share a companionable moment during the Scopes trial.

I stumbled upon discovered this site quite by accident while doing some research about singalongs.

Don't ask.

Anyhoo, it looks pretty interesting. Remember that Tennessee was the location of the Scopes Trial. Now the East Tennessee State University Department of History hosts numerous evolution links on its webpages.

If you scroll halfway down the page, you'll find a funny song by Alexander Volokh. Sing along to the tune of My Favorite Things from The Sound of Music.

Do you think William Jennings Bryan would have enjoyed this song? Discuss.

Class Two - Intelligent Design Proponents Claim Intellectual Freedom Threats

There is an organization called the Discovery Institute, which includes the Center for Science and Culture. Their focus is on intelligent design, which they describe thusly:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Proponents of intelligent design made a movie called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which asserted that:

The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” rejects the notion that “the case is closed,” and exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy.

You can read a New York Times article about one of the premieres of the film, in which organizers denied entry to evolutionary biologist P. Z. Myers. I suppose another way of phrasing it was that he was expelled from the theater...

Here are links to a few reviews of the film, as well as a detailed rebuttal websites:

New York Times

Variety

Christianity Today

New Scientist

Vue Weekly

Scientific American

Expelled Exposed

Movie Mom at beliefnet posts a thoughtful review of the film, as well as offering some analysis of intelligent design . She discusses the first federal case which considered whether to teach it in the schools:
A Republican Christian judge appointed by President George W. Bush ruled that Intelligent Design is not science. He ruled, "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory...ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID...Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause [of the Constitution]."

What do you think of the intelligent design theory? Is it science? Should it be taught in schools? Should teachers' rights of intellectual freedom permit them to discuss this with their classes?

Class Two - March 2: A New Religion Emerges in Response to Creationism

There's a battle in America. It's being waged on the rear ends of vehicles across the country.

I'm guessing that, at some time or another, you've seen this symbol on the back of a car:

Christians call it the Ichthys or Ichthus, which means fish. You can learn the religious significance by clicking here. The symbol sometimes has a small crucifix inside or the Greek letters for fish, ΙΧΘΥΣ or ΙΧΘΥC.

You may have seen this one, favored by fans of evolution:Or this one, in which Christian creationists respond to evolutionists:



The evolutionists have responded with a T-Rex eating the truth fish. I'm waiting with breathless anticipation to see what happens next.

There's an intriguing article analyzing what's going on when people use these symbols. University of Georgia Speech Communications Professor Tom Lessl
contends that the Darwin fish is an act of "ritual aggression" for some, a lighthearted humorous act for others. But he asserts that it is "humor with an edge."


But have you ever seen this one? Do you know what it stands for?
Check out this website. You will find an elaborate "religion" created by one man, enthusiastically embraced by followers around the world. It's The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Bobby Henderson was responding to the Kansas School Board decisionmaking on science standards. They were considering including the "alternative theory" of intelligent design with the "theory" of evolution in classes. He wrote them a letter proposing that his religion also be presented. His letter concluded:

I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Niklas Jansson's adaptation of Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam depicts the Flying Spaghetti Monster in its typical guise as a clump of tangled spaghetti with two eyestalks, two meatballs, and many "noodly appendages".

This is the most creative satirical protest I've ever seen. Followers call themselves "Pastafarians." Their official conclusion to prayers is "RAmen."

Can you imagine them appearing in the court scene of Inherit the Wind, cheering on Spencer Tracy as he argued on behalf of evolution? Alas, they commenced their worship/activism 45 years too late. Timing is everything.

What do YOU think of all this? Craziness? Crazy-like-a-fox-ness? Blasphemous? Savvy political theatre?

Class Two - March 2: Similar Conflicts - Global Warming

There are parallels between the intellectual freedom issues raised in Inherit the Wind and the current battle over global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists provides information and analysis here about "contrarians" - skeptic organizations who reject the widely accepted conclusions about global warming. In many cases, it's not Christian fundamentalists who are fighting scientists. It's corporate interests or extreme right-wing groups like Rev. Sung Myung Moon's Unification Church.

Media Matters for America took issue this week with the Washington Post and columnist George Will for his alleged misuse of data and distortion of statements by climate experts to suggest that human-caused global warming is not occurring. You can read more details here.

Now for a more lighthearted look at the issue, courtesy of The Big Picture:

The more observant of you will note that there is no California on this map . . .

This is a parody of the famous Saul Steinberg 1976 New Yorker cartoon called "A View of the World from 9th Avenue, 1976"

Can you think of any other issues that have emerged in which groups attempt to silence scientists?

Class Two - March 2: Intellectual Freedom

Marian the Librarian
might have been a bit prim and proper,
but she was passionate about intellectual freedom!

As you know, Inherit the Wind addresses the issue of what material can be taught in public schools. The American Library Association maintains an Office for Intellectual Freedom. You can learn about their initiatives and projects such as Banned Book Week, resources such as information about intellectual freedom in the states, censorship in schools, and effects of the USA Patriot Act.

Hours of reading pleasure, indeed!

Do you think some books should be banned? What do you think of the USA Patriot Act? Should there be limits on free speech in the schools? Share your thoughts!

Class Two: Evolution vs. Creationism Today

There are numerous blogs that focus on evolution issues. Here is one that I found interesting:

EvolutionBlog Commentary on the Endless Dispute Between Evolution and Creationism

Many evolutionists consider the Obama administration to be friendly to their cause. The Tree of Life cites the science backgrounds of several new executive branch members here.


The evolutionary biologist who writes that blog, Jonathan A. Eisen, was so enthusiastic about candidate Obama that he wrote a funny post in which Charles Darwin endorsed Obama.

Indeed, the New York Times commented shortly before the election that

Mr. Obama embraces the theory of evolution and argues that the teaching of intelligent design and other creationist ideas “cloud” a student’s understanding of science.

You may recall the hullabaloo surrounding creationism vs. evolution during the 2008 Presidential election.
If not, allow these writers to remind you...



Sarah Palin, Evolution and Creationism from Science & Religion Today

Palin's Dangerous Views on Science Education from Michigan Messenger

There are also some interesting books about evolution and genetic development. Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene intrigued me. The Amazon.com review noted:

Inheriting the mantle of revolutionary biologist from Darwin, Watson, and Crick, Richard Dawkins forced an enormous change in the way we see ourselves and the world with the publication of The Selfish Gene. Suppose, instead of thinking about organisms using genes to reproduce themselves, as we had since Mendel's work was rediscovered, we turn it around and imagine that "our" genes build and maintain us in order to make more genes. That simple reversal seems to answer many puzzlers which had stumped scientists for years, and we haven't thought of evolution in the same way since.

What's YOUR view of the evolution/creationism issue?

Only a few of you commented in class. Did you agree with the student who said that she didn't understand the conflict? She viewed the Biblical stories as metaphors, not to be taken literally, so that she could simultaneously accept scientific explanations. Do you think that it's possible to believe in a god-like creator and also accept Darwin's theory? Or do you have another viewpoint?

Class Two - March 2: Inherit the Wind

The fine folks at Wikipedia have a great summary description of Inherit the Wind:

Inherit the Wind is a play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee, which opened on Broadway in January 1955; a 1960 Hollywood film based on the play; and three television remakes. It was recently brought back onto Broadway in a revival. The play's title comes from Proverbs 11:29, which in the King James Bible reads:

He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind:

and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.

Inherit the Wind is a fictionalized account of the 1925 Scopes "Monkey" Trial, which resulted in John T. Scopes' conviction for teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to a high school science class, contrary to a Tennessee state law that prohibited the teaching of anything besides creationism. The fictional characters Matthew Harrison Brady, Henry Drummond, Bertram Cates and E. K. Hornbeck correspond to the historical figures of William Jennings Bryan, Clarence Darrow, John Scopes, and H. L. Mencken, respectively.

Despite numerous similarities between the play and history, the play was not intended as a documentary-drama about the Scopes trial, but instead as a warning against dogmatism and the "evils" of McCarthyism.

This was a very personal focus for the screenplay writers, according to a review at filmsite.org. It revealed that one of the writers, credited as Nathan E. Douglas, was blacklisted Nedrick Young.

The Wikipedia site also has some terrific analysis of the differences between the script and reality.

I found a neat movie review website called Common Sense Media. It evaluates films and rates them for parents. I really liked how the writers provide some discussion questions to help families be more active viewers. Here's an excerpt of the entire piece for Inherit the Wind:

Parents need to know that kids will hear some mild swearing. A scene in which a jailed teacher is burned in effigy by a menacing crowd might disturb sensitive kids. The movies raises issues of creationism vs. evolution.

Families can talk about the advantages and limitations of using movies to dramatize historical events. Can movies tell the story of events in ways that other media, such as books or radio, can't? How much of an event can you show in a couple of hours and how do you decide what to leave out? Do you think that the real lawyers arguing this case were swayed slightly towards the others' positions by the end of the trial, as is portrayed here? Or is this simply a device for tying up the story in a neat bow?

You can read the whole review here.


There's an interesting website called beliefnet. It has an article called "The Scopes Trial vs. Inherit the Wind: The Movie's Inaccuracies Have Perpetuated Stereotypes." It's well worth reading. I found the comments section very interesting in light of our class focus of popular culture portrayals of social justice issues and actors:

xsherme 1/8/2000 6:26:10 PM

One thing that I don't think helps is Hollywood's tendency to portray scientists as nerds with no emotional intelligence and no ability to connect with others. An inference from this would be that if such people can't even make friends, they surely can't have an intimate relationship with God.

geasterbrook 1/6/2000 9:08:32 AM

I say yes, it has. Popular culture somehow makes everything seem sillier and more heated at the same time. Its effect on the science and religion debate is the same. The actual debate is more thoughtful and more cordial than you'd ever guess from reading about it in the newspapers.

Clark College Mature Learning Instructor Duane Ray steered me to a very detailed analysis of the differences between the true case and the movie. It's entitled The Monkey Trial. I'm not sure who wrote it. But Duane's endorsement of the material led me to share it with you. Normally, I prefer to know the source of such writing. Duane taught an entire course on the conflict between evolutionists and creationists, so I trust his judgement.
What did you think of the film? Did it present the conflict fairly? Did it make you think about the issue any differently than you did before you saw it?