Class Two: Bonus post for a Sunday! A Comedian's Take on Evolution vs. Creationism

Because I love my students SO much, I've decided to share a very funny clip of a one of my favorite funny men talking about evolution vs. creationism. Dara O'Briain actually raises some pretty valid points in his support of evolution...

Please note: You may wish to play it a couple of times to get used to his Irish accent.
Warning: if you are offended by mild bad language, you might not want to play this.





If you enjoyed this clip, it's part of a DVD released in the United Kingdom called Dara O'Briain, Live at the Theatre Royal. I'm not sure it plays on all US DVD players, though, so if you order it, check the DVD region(s) to make sure they're compatible with your equipment.

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?