DOCSLIB.ORG

Science Vs. Religion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Science Vs. Religion VOLUME TEN NUMBER 2 High Court Revisits Church-State Debate by Barbara Sheehan More than 200 years since the Bill of Rights was ratified in America, our society and our courts continue to debate the intent of the First Amendment and the boundaries that exist between church and state. This can be seen in two recently decided U.S. Supreme Court cases concerning public displays of the Ten Commandments — which interestingly rendered opposite rulings on whether such displays are permissible under the U.S. Constitution. Church-state issues also came into play in East Brunswick last fall when a head football WINTER2006 coach resigned after he Lawsuits Delve into Science vs. Religion by Phyllis Raybin Emert developed from non-human single cells as the result of natural processes, which randomly happened over Since the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin’s The billions of years. New species were formed, according Origin of Species, there has been an ongoing debate to Darwin’s theory, by passing on characteristics that reportedly was asked to stop about the origins of life on earth. That debate pits were the result of natural selection, or survival of the leading his team in pre-game prayers. supporters of Darwin’s theory of evolution against fittest. Weaker species failed to survive and only the While that case was resolved out of religious creationists who believe the creation stories strong traits continued and ultimately evolved into court — and in fact the coach later as told in the Bible. human beings. returned to his position — it The argument has raged since the Scopes Monkey Creationists believe the Bible story of Genesis, which nonetheless brought to the forefront Trial in 1925 and has heated up in recent years with is that God created the earth in six days, about 6,000 the tension that exists when debating several lawsuits that seek to have intelligent design, to 10,000 years ago. Most creationists feel that God this weighty issue. a controversial alternative science, taught alongside made the first human beings all at once exactly as they Brian M. Cige, a constitutional evolution, or as an alternative to it. In 2005 alone, more are today. lawyer in Somerville, says that in all than a dozen bills in 13 different state legislatures were The Center for Science and Culture (CSC), part these cases, like others that came introduced to challenge the teaching of evolution in the of the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian before them, the underlying issues public school science curricula. Kansas, Georgia, and research group in Seattle, is largely responsible for remain largely the same. How far can most recently Pennsylvania, have been thrust into the developing and promoting the intelligent design theory. people go in exercising their freedom national spotlight with lawsuits that oppose or dispute Separating themselves from their creationist of religion? the teaching of evolution and instead promote counterparts, CSC and supporters of intelligent design intelligent design, considered by some to be a see it as an alternative science. They accept that the Separation takes hold: a look back “scientific” offshoot of creationism. age of the earth is several billion years old and even To fully appreciate the church- accept some parts of the doctrine state debate, one might first take Evolution v. Intelligent Design of natural selection. However, a look back in history at how the Darwin’s theory of evolution they believe that life is too earliest American settlers dealt with explains that all complex and complicated to this issue. One account can be found human life be completely explained by in a fall 1997 report on the Bill of evolution. They do not claim Rights in Action: Separating Church that the intelligent designer is and State, by the Constitutional God, a higher being, or an Rights Foundation (CRF), a non- omnipotent force, but only profit, non-partisan, community- that “certain features of the based organization. CONTINUED ON PAGE 3 According to that report, church and state were closely linked in America in the years leading up to the Revolutionary War, with 9 of Freedom of the Press Helps Everyone, NotNot JustJust ReportersReporters the 13 colonies supporting official religions with public taxes. The by Cheryl Baisden The First Amendment Center in report further notes, “Religious Nashville, an organization that works dissenters…were discriminated In some countries, writing an article like this— to preserve and protect First against, disqualified from holding where different ideas and opinions are expressed— Amendment freedoms through public office, exiled, fined, jailed, would be illegal, and could land you in jail. But in information and education, beaten, mutilated and sometimes the United States, the First Amendment to the U.S. encourages all Americans to even executed.” Constitution guarantees citizens the right to express take the right to freedom of With the onset of the themselves in print. the press seriously, whether Revolutionary War, the Church of Freedom of the press is one of our basic rights they are reporting the news England began to lose its “monopoly under the First Amendment, which prohibits the or reading about it. Associated with on religion” in the southern states, government from restricting what is written in Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy according to the CRF report, and newspapers and magazines, and reported on Studies, the Center notes that in the move toward more universal television and radio. countries without laws that protect separation of church and state “The Founding Fathers knew that the press could be freedom of the press, the government started to take shape. a check on government power,” says Bruce S. Rosen, a controls what is reported, so citizens only Among the leaders of this Chatham lawyer who works on First Amendment cases. hear one side of an issue and do not movement were James Madison “The Founding Fathers also hoped that the press would have the right to publish their own and Thomas Jefferson, who were encourage participation in important public issues and opinions. Reporters and publishers instrumental in defeating proposed educate the public.” who decide to go CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 CONTINUED ON PAGE 4 Freedom of the Press CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 against the government’s opinions, the Center asserts, protected by the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision in are often arrested. the case of The New York Times v. Sullivan, which held that in order to prove defamation the reporting in Freedom of the Press, not absolute question must be proven to have malicious intent or a Of course while we are guaranteed the right to a “reckless disregard for the truth or advance knowledge This publication was made possible through funding free press, that right can be abused if it involves lies or of falsity.” from the IOLTA Fund of the Bar of New Jersey. sensitive information that could endanger people’s lives, In his dissenting opinion in the Consumer which is why reporters and publishers sometimes end Reports case, Judge Alex Kozinksi of the Ninth Angela C. Scheck EXECUTIVE EDITOR up in court defending their First Amendment right to Circuit Court cited the Sullivan case stating, “I find it express themselves, according to Rosen. Just how far incomprehensible that a review truthfully disclosing all Jodi L. Miller the right to a free press goes is frequently tested in the this information could be deemed malicious under New EDITOR courts. In some cases, people have sued for defamation York Times Co. v. Sullivan. If Consumers Union [the of character or libel, which means their reputation was company that owns Consumer Reports] can be forced Editorial Advisory Board damaged when false information was reported by the to go to trial after this thorough and candid disclosure Stuart M. Lederman, Esq. press. In those cases it has to be proven that the report of its methods, this is the death of consumer ratings. CHAIR was false, and that the reporter or publisher printed It will be impossible to issue a meaningful consumer the lie intending to harm the person. review that a band of determined lawyers can’t pick Paula Eisen “Within certain limitations, the media is free to apart in front of a jury. The ultimate losers will be John J. Henschel, Esq. do or say anything it wants, however, if a reporter American consumers denied access to independent Louis H. Miron, Esq. revealed movements of U.S. troops, for example, which information about the safety and usefulness of Carole B. Moore jeopardized U.S. lives, that may not be protected, and products they buy with their hard-earned dollars,” Steven M. Richman, Esq. may be subject to criminal penalties,” says Rosen. Judge Kozinski wrote. Thomas A. Zeringo “If you wrote lies about someone and hurt their reputation, you may be subject to civil (money) Finally resolved New Jersey State Bar Foundation penalties, as well.” In November 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Board of Trustees the request to hear the case. After an eight-year battle, Consumer Reports v. Suzuki both Consumer Reports and Suzuki agreed to have the John J. Henschel, Esq. A recent First Amendment case concerning freedom case dismissed in July 2004. With the dismissal of the PRESIDENT of the press involved a 1988 review published in case, neither side will receive monetary damages and Consumer Reports, a magazine that tests everything neither side is required to admit liability in the matter. Ellen O’Connell, Esq. from air conditioners to washing machines and then According to Rosen, if the case had gone to trial, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT reports on the results. In a review of sports utility the court probably would have found that Consumer Mary Ellen Tully, Esq.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The 1925 Monkey Trial
    The “Monkey Trial” March 1925. • On 21st March 1925 Tennessee passed the Butler Act which stated: • That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals. Proposer of the act: John Washington Butler. Religion vs. Science. • (State Representative) John W. Butler, a Tennessee farmer and head of the World Christian Fundamentals Association, lobbied state legislatures to pass the anti-evolution law. The act is challenged. • John Thomas Scopes' involvement in the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial came about after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced that it would finance a test case challenging the constitutionality of the Butler Act if they could find a Tennessee teacher willing to act as a defendant. • Photograph of John Scopes taken one month before the trial. Opportunistic Bush Lawyers? • A band of businessmen in Dayton, Tennessee, led by engineer and geologist George Rappleyea, saw this as an opportunity to get publicity for their town and approached Scopes. • Rappleyea pointed out that while the Butler Act prohibited the teaching of human evolution, the state required teachers to use the assigned textbook, Hunter's Civic Biology (1914), which included a chapter on evolution. • Rappleyea argued that teachers were essentially required to break the law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scopes Trial, Antievolutionism, and the Last Crusade of William Jennings Bryan
    University of Mississippi eGrove Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2012 Six Days of Twenty-Four Hours: the Scopes Trial, Antievolutionism, and the Last Crusade of William Jennings Bryan Kari Lynn Edwards Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd Part of the History of Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Edwards, Kari Lynn, "Six Days of Twenty-Four Hours: the Scopes Trial, Antievolutionism, and the Last Crusade of William Jennings Bryan" (2012). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 96. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/96 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SIX DAYS OF TWENTY-FOUR HOURS: THE SCOPES TRIAL, ANTIEVOLUTIONISM, AND THE LAST CRUSADE OF WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN A Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Southern Studies The University of Mississippi by KARI EDWARDS May 2012 Copyright Kari Edwards 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT The academic study of the Scopes Trial has always been approached from a traditional legal interpretation. This project seeks to reframe the conventional arguments surrounding the trial, treating it instead as a significant religious event, one which not only altered the course of Christian Fundamentalism and the Creationist movement, but also perpetuated Southern religious stereotypes through the intense, and largely negative, nationwide publicity it attracted. Prosecutor William Jennings Bryan's crucial role is also redefined, with his denial of a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis during the trial serving as the impetus for the shift toward ultra- conservatism and young-earth Creationism within the movement after 1925.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes Edwards V. Aguillard: Creation Science and Evolution
    Notes Edwards v. Aguillard: Creation Science and Evolution - The Fall of Balanced Treatment Acts in the Public Schools "It took God only six days to create the universe - it's gonna take the court two weeks to decide if it should be taught."' I. INTRODUCTION Since Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859,2 religious fundamentalists have waged war against the book's evolu- tionary teachings.' Recognizing that the courts will not allow the teaching of evolution to be suppressed,4 fundamentalists no longer 1. Statement by an anonymous observer at the Arkansas creation-evolution trial. D. NELKIN, THE CREATION CONTROVERSY - SCIENCE OR SCRIPTURE IN THE SCHOOLS 137 (1982). 2. The theory of evolution credited to Darwin (1809-1882) is that all forms of advanced life inhabiting the earth originated as lower forms of life, which ascended to their current status in a natural selection. Note, The Constitutional Issues Surrounding the Science-Religion Conflict in Public Schools: The Anti-Evolution Controversy, 10 PEPPERDINE L. REV. 461, 463 (1983). 3. "In 1925, fundamentalists and evolutionists first clashed in court at the crimi- nal trial of John Scopes. Scopes, a Tennessee schoolteacher, was convicted of violating a state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution." Levit, Creationism, Evolution and the First Amendment: The Limits of ConstitutionallyPermissible Scientific Inquiry, 14 J.L. & EDUC. 211, 211 (1985). The law was upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court. Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 289 S.W. 363 (1927). 4. Forty years after the Scopes trial, the United States Supreme Court held that the prohibition of the teaching of evolution violated the first amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • How William Jennings Bryan's Struggle with Social Darwinism and Legal Formalism Demythologize the Scopes Monkey Trial Kevin P
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Campbell University Law School Campbell University School of Law Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 2004 Inherit the Myth: How William Jennings Bryan's Struggle with Social Darwinism and Legal Formalism Demythologize the Scopes Monkey Trial Kevin P. Lee Campbell University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/fac_sw Recommended Citation Kevin P. Lee, Inherit the Myth: How William Jennings Bryan's Struggle with Social Darwinism and Legal Formalism Demythologize the Scopes Monkey Trial, 33 Cap. U. L. Rev. 347 (2004). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. INHERIT THE MYTH: HOW WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN'S STRUGGLE WITH SOCIAL DARWINISM AND LEGAL FORMALISM DEMYTHOLOGIZE THE SCOPES MONKEY TRIAL KEVIN P. LEE* The trial of John T. Scopes is an important milestone in the history of American legal thought. Known in the vernacular as the "Scopes Monkey Trial," the case took place in Dayton, Tennessee in the summer of 1925.1 It concerned a substitute high school biology teacher who was arrested and convicted for teaching evolutionary theory in violation of a Tennessee anti- evolution act.2 At the time, the trial was the most public confrontation between religious fundamentalism and modem science.
    [Show full text]
  • “Scopes Wasn't the First”: Nebraska's 1924 Anti-Evolution Trial
    “Scopes Wasn’t the First”: Nebraska’s 1924 Anti-Evolution Trial (Article begins on page 2 below.) This article is copyrighted by History Nebraska (formerly the Nebraska State Historical Society). You may download it for your personal use. For permission to re-use materials, or for photo ordering information, see: https://history.nebraska.gov/publications/re-use-nshs-materials Learn more about Nebraska History (and search articles) here: https://history.nebraska.gov/publications/nebraska-history-magazine History Nebraska members receive four issues of Nebraska History annually: https://history.nebraska.gov/get-involved/membership Full Citation: Adam Shapiro, “‘Scopes Wasn’t the First’: Nebraska’s 1924 Anti-Evolution Trial,” Nebraska History 94 (2013): 110-119 Article Summary: “Darwin and Genesis fought out a battle in District Judge Broady’s court in Lincoln,” reported the Fremont Tribune on October 22, 1924, “and . Genesis lost and Darwin won.” Nebraska had its own anti- evolution trial nearly seven months before the famous Scopes trial opened in Tennessee. But how did the Nebraska case remain obscure while the Tennessee case became a national sensation? Cataloging Information: Names: John Scopes, Charles Darwin, William Jennings Bryan, Charles W. Bryan, David S Domer, William A Klink, Charles William Taylor, Frank R Beers, Herbert Spencer, Charles Hodge Place Names: Dayton, Tennessee; Rising City, Butler County, Nebraska Keywords: evolution, Midland College, slander, Genesis, eugenics, (physical) disability, Four Minute Men, Siman Act,
    [Show full text]
  • The Scopes Trial: Who Decides What Gets Taught in the Classroom?
    CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION SPRING 2006B I L L O F R I G H T S I N A C VOLUTME 2I2 O NUMBN ER 2 The Scopes Trial: Who Decides What Gets Taught in the Classroom? One of the most famous trials in American history took place in a small town in Tennessee in 1925. On trial was a high-school teacher, John Scopes. The charge against him: teaching evolution. n July 10, 1925, hundreds of reporters gathered in Dayton, Tennessee. They were covering the trial of JOohn Scopes, a 24-year-old science teacher and part-time football coach. Scopes had been arrested for violating a Tennessee law that made it unlawful “to teach any theory that denies the Story of Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animal.” The Scopes trial riveted Attorney Clarence Darrow (standing on the right) questions the witness William national attention and is one of the most famous trials of Jennings Bryan in the Scopes trial. The judge had moved the trial outdoors the century. because he was afraid the floor might collapse. (Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7091, image #2005-26202) Evolution Versus Religion In 1859 in Great Britain, Charles Darwin published On the War I. The outcome of the war caused widespread disillusion - Origin of the Species . In his book, Darwin laid out evidence ment, and many were concerned about a perceived collapse in that living things had evolved from common ances - public morals. Fundamentalists shared a belief in biblical lit - W tors through a mechanism he called “natural selec - eralism.
    [Show full text]
  • Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change
    religions Article Revisiting the Scopes Trial: Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change K. L. Marshall New College, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH1 2LX, UK; [email protected] Abstract: In the century since the Scopes Trial, one of the most influential dogmas to shape American evangelicalism has been that of young-earth creationism. This article explains why, with its arm of “creation science,” young-earth creationism is a significant factor in evangelicals’ widespread denial of anthropogenic climate change. Young-earth creationism has become closely intertwined with doctrines such as the Bible’s divine authority and the Imago Dei, as well as with social issues such as abortion and euthanasia. Addressing this aspect of the environmental crisis among evangelicals will require a re-orientation of biblical authority so as to approach social issues through a hermeneutic that is able to acknowledge the reality and imminent threat of climate change. Citation: Marshall, K. L. 2021. Revisiting the Scopes Trial: Keywords: evangelicalism; creation science; young-earth creationism; climate change; Answers in Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Genesis; biblical literalism; biblical authority; Noahic flood; dispensational theology; fundamentalism Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change. Religions 12: 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12020133 1. Introduction Academic Editors: Randall Balmer The 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial is often referenced as a metonymy for American and Edward Blum Protestantism’s fundamentalist-modernist controversy that erupted in the years following World War I. William Jennings Bryan, the lawyer and politician who argued in favor of Received: 25 January 2021 biblical creationism1—in keeping with his literal understanding of the narratives in Genesis Accepted: 12 February 2021 Published: 20 February 2021 1 and Genesis 2—was vindicated when the judge ruled that high school biology teacher John Scopes had indeed broken the law by teaching Darwinian evolution in a public school.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Gets to Say What I Need to Know?
    agenda • formulate • enforce • independent • incentive • standard • neutral • mandate SoGen Unit 8.2 social studies WHO GETS TO SAY WHAT I NEED TO KNOW? SOCIAL STUDIES ACTIVITIES Session 1 2–3 Reader’s Theater Identifying Different Perspectives and Support Session 2 4–6 Building Background Knowledge Session 3 7–9 Class Discussion Session 4 10 It’s Debate Time! Session 5 11 Writing SUPPLEMENTARY ACTIVITIES FOR OTHER CONTENT AREAS ELA 12–13 Homeschooling: Freedom or Neglect? Math 14 Per-Student Spending Science 15 Who gets to say what I need to know? FOCUS WORDS Examining the Focus Words Closely 16 © 2015 SERP SoGen Unit 8.2 1 Session 1 agenda • formulate • enforce • independent • incentive • standard • neutral • mandate Reader’s Theater What should be taught in schools? Setting: Four friends are chatting in the food court at the Tri-County Mall in Cincinnati, Ohio. Matt has just arrived in Ohio. His mother is in the military and has been stationed in Texas, Massachusetts, and South Carolina, so this is his fourth school in eight years! Monica is originally from Quebec, Canada, while Paul and Adell have always lived in Cincinnati. Paul: So, Matt, what’s it like switching schools so often? Adell: So you’re saying there’s not one truth? I still think You must get to be really good at making friends. there should be an agreed-upon version of facts, and that all American kids should read the same novels in Matt: Yeah, either good at making them or good at living English and hear the same stories about our past.
    [Show full text]
  • Modified Document A: Sparks Letter to the Editor Sourcing
    WWW. HISTORICALT HINKINGM ATTERS. ORG — SCOPES T RIAL Modified Document A: Sparks Letter to the Editor Many citizens wrote letters to Tennessee’s newspapers in response to the Butler Act. Below is an excerpt from a letter written by a parent. Dear Editor: When the bill against the teaching of evolution in public schools was passed, I could not see why more mothers were not thanking the lawmakers. They were protecting our children from one of the destructive forces which will destroy our civilization. I for one was grateful that they stood up for the right. And grateful, too, that we have a Christian man for governor who will defend the Word of God against this so-called science. The Bible tells us that the gates of Hell shall not win against the church. We know there will always be standard-bearers for the cross of Christ. But in these times of materialism I thank God deep down in my heart for everyone whose voice is raised for humanity and the coming of God’s kingdom. Mrs. Jesse Sparks Pope, Tennessee Source: Mrs. Jesse Sparks, letter to the editor, Nashville Tennessean, July 3, 1925. Some of the language and phrasing in this document has been modified from the original. The original document can be found on the HTM website, www.historicalthinkingmatters.org. Sourcing 1. Why does Mrs. Sparks care about what is taught in schools? Contextualizing 2. To what does Mrs. Sparks refer when she says “these times of materialism”? Close Reading 3. Find all of the words that suggest the presence of a great danger.
    [Show full text]
  • Scopes Trial
    Scopes Trial Lesson plans for primary sources at the Tennessee State Library & Archives Author: Kristy Sproles, Sullivan Central High School Grade Level: High School Date Created: May 2015, standards updated 2019 Visit www.tn.gov/tsla/educationoutreach for additional lesson plans. Introduction: Without a doubt, the question, “where do humans come from?” was asked long before Charles Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859. Yet throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty- first century, the debate amongst members of the scientific and religious communities has continued to be a divisive and widely debated topic. The Scopes “Monkey” Trial is perhaps one of the critical events of this controversy and one of the landmark legal decisions of the twentieth century. Guiding Questions: Who were the major figures of the Scopes Trial? What were the main arguments on both sides of the Scopes Trial? What was the outcome and the legacy of the Scopes Trial? Learning Objectives: The students will write a letter to the editor of the Chattanooga Daily Times based on the article, Plan Assault on State Law on Evolution. The students will make predictions on the outcome of the ACLU wanting to test the anti-evolution legislation in Tennessee in 1925. The students will research and create mock interviews of participants in the Scopes Trial to be per- formed in front of the class. The students will tell the story of the Scopes Monkey Trial through the use of primary sources. The students will be assessed through an essay test consisting of the three guiding questions directly linked to the Tennessee standard US.38.
    [Show full text]
  • Sparks Letter to the Editor Sourcing Contextualizing Close Reading
    WWW. HISTORICALT HINKINGM ATTERS. ORG — SCOPES T RIAL Document A: Sparks Letter to the Editor Many citizens wrote letters to Tennessee’s newspapers in response to the Butler Act. Below is an excerpt from a letter written by a parent. Editor of the Nashville Tennessean: At the time the bill prohibiting the teaching of evolution in our public schools was passed by our legislature I could not see why the mothers in greater number were not conveying their appreciation to the members for this act of safeguarding their children from one of the destructive forces which . will destroy our civilization. I for one felt grateful for their standing for the right against all criticism. And grateful, too, that we have a Christian man for governor who will defend the Word of God against this so-called science. The Bible tells us that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the church. Therefore we know there will always be standard-bearers for the cross of Christ. But in these times of materialism I am constrained to thank God deep down in my heart for . every . one whose voice is raised for the uplift of humanity and the coming of God’s kingdom. Mrs. Jesse Sparks Pope, Tennessee Source: Mrs. Jesse Sparks, letter to the editor, Nashville Tennessean, July 3, 1925. Sourcing 1. Why does Mrs. Sparks care about what is taught in schools? Contextualizing 2. To what does Mrs. Sparks refer when she says “these times of materialism”? Close Reading 3. Find all of the words that suggest the presence of a great danger.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Historical Question: Why Was the Scopes Monkey Trial Significant?
    Central Historical Question: Why was the Scopes Monkey Trial significant? Activity 1 – Analysis of a 1925 Biology textbook Directions: Read the introduction and the textbook excerpt and answer the questions below. Introduction: In 1925, Tennessee passed the following law, called the Butler Act: It shall be unlawful for any teacher . to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals. The Butler Act made it illegal to teach from textbooks like the one below. Textbook – A Civic Biology, 1925 The Doctrine of Evolution. We have now learned that animals may begin with very simple one-celled forms and end with a group which contains man himself. The great English scientist Charles Darwin explained the theory of evolution. This is the belief that simple forms of life on the earth slowly gave rise to more complex forms. Man’s Place in Nature. We see that man must be placed with the vertebrate animals because of his vertebral column. We place man with the apelike mammals because of structural likeness. The group of mammals which includes the monkeys, apes, and man we call the primates. Evolution of Man. There once lived races of men who were much lower in their mental organization than present people. If we follow the early history of man, we find that at first he must have been little better than one of the lower animals. Gradually he must have learned to use weapons and kill his prey, first using rough stones for this purpose.
    [Show full text]