Replace This Text With The Title Of Your Learning Experience



Click here to return to Module 9

John T. Scopes of The Monkey Trial

A Historical Introduction Activity to the Scopes Trial and

Inherit the Wind by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee

Shelly Gruenwald

Central Catholic High School

[pic]

Fall 2010

Right on the job, by heck!

Illus. in: Life, 1925 July 2, p. 15. Illus. in AP101.L6 [General Collections] Prints and Photographs Division

Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 20. Nov. 2010

This is an interactive activity meant to introduce the historical trial of John Scopes and his infamous “Monkey Trial.” During the 19th century, the famous biologist Charles Darwin theorized that man evolved from a lower genus of species. He stated that man became superior because of his ability to reason. His theory still troubles many people who believe that God placed man on earth as related in the Bible. In 1925, this controversy touched off one of the most noted court cases in history when a man was tried for teaching Darwin’s theory. The Scopes trial became a significant work of American literature in the drama, Inherit the Wind, by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee. It is a work of literature to be explored rather than taught, with its origin in life and a continuing universal experience. The play emphasizes a theme, timeless and universal, in need of serious thought in the setting of a global world. This introduction should prepare the students for the play.

Overview/ Materials/LOC Resources/Standards/ Procedures/Evaluation/Rubric/Handouts/Extension

|Overview Back to Navigation Bar |

|Objectives |As a pre-reading strategy to Jerome Lawrence’s and Robert E. Lee’s Inherit the Wind,|

| |students will acquire background information about the Scopes trial. |

| |Students will identify the prevailing conflicts and prejudices surrounding the |

| |Scopes trial. |

| |Students will gain a better understanding of the issue of creationism versus |

| |evolution versus intelligent design. |

| |Students will consider recent issues and problems concerned with determining what |

| |will be taught in public schools. |

|Recommended time frame |3 days, 45-minute classes |

|Grade level |9th |

|Curriculum fit |English, Biology, U.S. History, Theology, Government |

|Materials |PowerPoint lesson |

| |The Butler Act |

| |Danger: Indoctrination |

| |Creationism: Monkeying With Science Education |

|Illinois State Common Core Standards Back to Navigation Bar |

| |Reading Standards for Literature 6-12: |

| |Key Ideas and Details: |

| |RL.9-10.1. Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what |

| |the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text. |

| |RL.9-10.2. Determine a theme or central idea of a text and analyze in detail its |

| |development over the course of the text, including how it emerges and is shaped and |

| |refined by specific details; provide an objective summary of the text. |

| |Integration of Knowledge and Ideas |

| |RL.9-10.8. Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, |

| |assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and |

| |sufficient; identify false statements and fallacious reasoning. |

| | |

| |Writing Standards 6-12: |

| |Range of Writing: |

| |RW.9-10.10. Write routinely over extended time frames (time for research, |

| |reflection, and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two)|

| |for a range of tasks, purposes, and audiences. |

|Procedures Back to Navigation Bar |

| |Day One: |

| |Complete the first two columns of the KWL Chart. The third column will be completed|

| |by the end of the unit. |

| |Discuss terms – Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design. |

| |Read “The Butler Act” of 1925 and discuss. |

| |Open and begin PowerPoint presentation. Discuss as necessary. |

| |Assign students Hunter’s Civic Biology Handout as Homework. |

| | |

| |Day Two: |

| |Finish Power Point Presentation and discuss as necessary. |

| |Go to “Summary of the Scopes Monkey Trial” |

| | |

| |Assign Cartoon/Editorial project as homework. Due in two days. |

| | |

| |Day Three: |

| |Read “Danger: Indoctrination A Scopes Trial for the 90’s” and discuss as necessary.|

| |Read “Creationism: Monkeying With Science Education” and discuss as necessary. |

| |Discuss current issues facing public schools today. |

| |Collect KWL Charts. |

|Evaluation Back to Navigation Bar |

| |Students will create a project in which they will create either a cartoon or write |

| |an editorial letter depicting their opinion of evolution, Creationism, or |

| |Intelligent Design. |

| |Students will complete a KWL Chart. |

| |Students will be tested over information learned and retained on the unit test |

| |following the reading of Inherit the Wind. |

| |Rubric |

|Extension Back to Navigation Bar |

| | |

Primary Resources from the Library of Congress

Back to Navigation Bar

|Image |Description |Citation |URL |

|[pic] |Caricature of policeman "Tennessee" stopping |Library of Congress Prints and|

| |auto "Science" to allow mob of armed religious|Photographs Division, General |46/ |

| |fanatics under flag of "bigotry" to pass. |Collections. Illus. in: Life,| |

| | |1925 July 2, p. 15. | |

| | |Reproduction number, | |

| | |LC-USZ62-67529. | |

|[pic] |“No more monkey business” poster of Clarence |Library of Congress, Yanker |

| |Darrow (left) and William Jennings Bryan |Poster collection, |01208/PP/ |

| |(right), attorneys in the case of Tennessee |reproduction number, | |

| |vs. Scopes. |LC-USZ62-128564. Created/ | |

| | |Published: American Civil | |

| | |Liberties Union. [1975]. | |

|[pic] |John T. Scopes. |Library of Congress, Prints |

| | |and Photographs Division. |13628/ |

| | |George Grantham Bain | |

| | |Collection. Reproduction | |

| | |number, LC-B2- 6377-12. | |

|[pic][pic][pic] |The men responsible for instigating the Scopes|Dayton, Tennessee, Underwood &|

| |trial (from left to right): George W. |Underwood/ CORBIS. Bettmann |E043521.html |

| |Rappelyea, Professor Walter White, Clay Green,|Collection. | |

| |and R.E. Robinson. |July 6, 1925, Photographer: | |

| | |George Rinhart. | |

|[pic] |Inside a grandly decorated men's club |Library of Congress, Cartoon |

| |distinguished-looking, elderly gentlemen |Drawings: Swann Collection of|92/ |

| |interact with monkeys. One sits on a mantle, |Caricature and Cartoon. | |

| |bonding with four monkeys. A monkey smokes a |Creator: Rea Irvin, March 18,| |

| |cigar and holds a newspaper with a bag of |1915. Reproduction number, | |

| |peanuts at his feet. One monkey, a waiter, |LC-USZ62-88147 | |

| |brings a drink to a man reading a newspaper. | | |

| |Paintings of monkeys hang on the walls. | | |

|[pic] |New Jury To Be Used on Scopes Case |Dayton, Tennessee, Underwood &|

| |Original caption: 7/12/1925, Dayton, TN. The |Underwood/ CORBIS. Bettmann |E053672.html |

| |new jury selected to the Scopes case. Front |Collection. | |

| |row: R.B. Smith, J.H. Bowoman, J.H. Thompson, |July 12, 1925, Photographer: | |

| |W.C. Day, A.L. Centry, R.F. West, Judge |George Rinhart. | |

| |Raulston. Back row: J.G. Wright, J.L. | | |

| |Goodrick, J.W. Kiley, J.W. Dogley and W.F. | | |

| |Robinson. | | |

|[pic] |Five pages from Hunter’s Civic Biology. The |Hunter’s Civic Biology, pages |

| |pages include the following text, “The Races |192 – 195, 1914. |ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm |

| |of Man. -- At the present time there exist |Famous Trials | |

| |upon the earth five races or varieties of man,|by Douglas O. Linder (2010) | |

| |each very different from the other in |University of Missouri – | |

| |instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, |Kansas City (UMKC) School of | |

| |in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro|Law. Tennessee vs. John | |

| |type, originating in Africa; the Malay or |Scopes. The “Monkey” Trial, | |

| |brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; |1925. | |

| |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. | | |

Rubric

Back to Navigation Bar

|Political Cartoon Rubric |

| |

|CATEGORY |Level 4 - Advanced |Level 3 - Meets  |Level 2 -Meets partial  | |

| | |expectations |expectations |Level 1 Meets minimal |

| | | | |expectations |

|Hidden message |Student is able to include |Student is able to provide 3 |Student is able to include 2 |Student is able to include only one |

| |4-5 visual cues in their |visual cues in the cartoon to|visual cues in the cartoon to |visual cue in the cartoon to support |

| |cartoon to support their |support their views. |support their views. |their views. |

| |views. | | | |

|Creativeness |Student is able to create an|Student is able to create a |Student is able to create a |Student is able to create a visual of |

| |attractive and creative |somewhat attractive and |visual of their cartoon and |their cartoon and its topic that is able |

| |visual of their cartoon and |creative visual of their |its topic that is able to be |to be viewed by the class. |

| |its topic that is able to be|cartoon and its topic that is|viewed by the class. | |

| |viewd by the class. |able to be viewed by the | | |

| | |class. | | |

|Phrasing |Student is able to portray |Student is able to somewhat |Student is able to slightly |Student is not able to portray his views.|

| |in their message a |portray in their message a |portray in their message a | |

| |creative/complete way of |creative/complete way of |creative/complete way of | |

| |identifying the views of the|identifying his views. |identifying his views. | |

| |student. | | | |

|Defend |Student can support their |Student can somewhat support |Student cannot support their |Student cannot support their messaging in|

| |messaging in the cartoon and|their messaging in the |messaging in the cartoon OR |the cartoon AND defend why they created |

| |defend why they created it |cartoon and defend why they |defend why they created it. |it. |

| | |created it. | | |

| |

|COMMENTS: |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

|Editorial Letter |

| |

| |

| |

| |

|CATEGORY |Level 4 - Advanced |Level 3 - Meets  |Level 2 -Meets partial  | |

| | |expectations |expectations |Level 1 Meets minimal |

| | | | |expectations |

|Ideas and content |A strong position is |A clear position is taken. Ideas |A position is evident. Ideas and |A position is attempted and/or is |

| |focused and well-supported |are logical and supported with |details are offered but are not |vaguely defined. Ideas are |

| |with pertinent details and |adequate details and references. |fully developed or supported. |underdeveloped and are not supported|

| |references throughout. |Detailed and relevant, overall. |Limited and/or superficial in ideas|with adequate or relevant details. |

| |Detailed and perceptive, | |and content, overall. |Absence of ideas and lack of |

| |overall. | | |understanding found , overall. |

|Defend |Student can support their |Student can somewhat support their|Student cannot support their |Student cannot support their |

| |messaging in the letter and|messaging in the letter and defend|messaging in the letter OR defend |messaging in the letter AND defend |

| |defend why they wrote it |why they wrote it. |why they wrote it. |why they wrote it. |

|Language conventions |The writing is well crafted|The writing is effective. |The writing is competent. Remaining|The writing is simplistic. Technical|

|(grammar, syntax, |and proficient. Errors are |Remaining errors do not detract |errors do not detract from the |errors may impede the communication |

|diction, etc.) |few and/or minor. |from the presentation of ideas. |presentation of ideas. |of ideas. |

|Overall impact |Engaging, insightful and |Effective, thoughtful and |Convincing and thoughtful at times |Unclear and/or unconvincing, |

| |persuasive, overall. |persuasive, overall. |but requires elaboration and |overall. Tenuous and limited. |

| | | |further revision. Credible, but |Further revision essential. |

| | | |ordinary. | |

COMMENTS:

Handouts

Back to Navigation Bar

Ms. Gruenwald English 9 NAME______________

Paint Me a Picture in Words or Drawings!

Choose one of the following two assignments. Please put your name on the back. It will be displayed in the room for the duration of the unit. You may need to reexamine the trial facts to gather additional background information. The power point will be available on the website. This project is worth 20 points.

Due on ______________.

1. Become a political cartoonist yourself. Create your own cartoon about the evolution controversy. Your cartoon should include a drawing, a caption, and an explanation of what you intend to convey. Write your descriptions based on your knowledge of evolution and your understanding of the circumstances surrounding this trial. Draw on a piece of blank computer paper.

2. Write an editorial letter for the newspaper explaining your thoughts on the theories of evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design. Be sure to include some facts and/or statistics to back up your opinion. This editorial must be typed.

Ms. Gruenwald English 9 NAME______________

KWL Chart

| | | | |

| |What I KNOW |What I WANT to know |What I LEARNED |

|Creationism | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Evolution | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Intelligent Design | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

CREATIONISM: Monkeying With Science Education

by Morris Sullivan art/Marty Kelley

IMPACT Press: Article: Dec. '99/Jan. '00 '99



In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In 1925, in a little town in Tennessee, a schoolteacher named John T. Scopes was prosecuted for teaching Darwin's theory of evolution in a public school. The press called it the "Monkey Trial" because of the popular misconception that Darwinism taught that man's ancestors were monkeys. Scopes was defended by Clarence Darrow, a now-legendary criminal attorney.

Scopes lost the case; his sentence was a fine of $100. By the time the state supreme court overturned the conviction, most of the world had been forced to take sides in a clash between religion and science. For some, the Biblical version of creation was the only possible one; any admission that man might have come into existence by other means was tantamount to questioning the very existence of God.

The Scopes trial serves as a great example of losing the battle but winning the war. While he lost initially and the law stayed in the Tennessee statutes until the 1960s, most of America began to accept that the scientific method would often reveal a glimpse of the workings of the universe that would contradict the Biblical explanations. Of course, this wasn't the first time the world had seen that happen. It happened, too, when the Pope forced Galileo to recant his teachings that the world was not, in fact, the center of the universe.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

Now, due to the efforts of a handful of activists armed with a set of faulty "evidence," education about the source of creation is in danger of being plunged back into darkness. For several years, "creationism," a movement made up of religious-minded scientists and others has pushed state school boards to require public school science programs to teach "alternative theories" about creation.

A little over a decade ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot teach the belief that a divine power created the universe. However, three states have begun to de-emphasize evolution in their curricula. The most dramatic example is Kansas, whose school board has adopted new science testing standards. Caving in to pressure from creationists, the state has revised the set of information that its students are expected to know and understand. No longer will Kansas students be expected to understand the theory of evolution. Incidentally, they are no longer expected to know anything about the big bang theory, either.

States generally derive their education standards from academic bodies that stay current on important information, and look to these organizations for guidance when creating their testing standards. School Boards then look to the testing standards for guidance when creating their curricula. Teachers are advised to tailor the contents of their course planning to prepare their students to meet the testing standards. For all practical purposes, therefore, dropping a topic from the testing standards removes it from the coursework.

The Kansas State Board of Education applied to the National Research Council, American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Teachers Association for permission to incorporate portions of their published science standards into the Kansas Science Education Standards. After reviewing the Kansas standards, the organizations denied that permission.

A joint statement released in September of 1999 by the three organizations says that "the Kansas standards effectively eliminated consideration of any aspects of evolution that examine the origins of the Earth and life and processes that may give rise to the formation of new species ... (and) adopted a position that is contrary to modern science ..."

Further, the statement points out a component of the creationist agenda--to show weaknesses in the hypotheses about the extinction of dinosaurs--and identifies "at least an implicit attempt by the Kansas State Board of Education to undermine a currently accepted body of knowledge. In fact, data gathered and analyzed by scientists from many disciplines lend increasing weight to the prevailing ideas about how dinosaurs became extinct."

According to a separate statement released by the National Academy of Sciences, "... many scientific explanations have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed that they are held with great confidence. The theory of evolution is one of these well-established explanations. An enormous amount of scientific investigation since the mid-19th century has converted early ideas about evolution proposed by Darwin and others into a strong and well-supported theory. Today, evolution is an extremely active field of research, with an abundance of new discoveries that are continually increasing our understanding of how evolution occurs."

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

The creationists only won a partial victory in Kansas--the de-emphasis of evolution. Their ultimate goal is that "creationism" will be taught instead of, or at least alongside, the big bang and evolution. They argue that evolution is only a "theory". As such, its no more scientific than the Biblical version of creation. Lots of people, who would like to believe Genesis' version, agree. However, for most, their agreement is based on a misunderstanding of the term "theory."

Many people use the term "theory" as a synonym for "opinion." However, in a science classroom, "theory" means something very specific. A scientist formulates a hypothesis, which may explain a phenomenon. He or she then tests the hypothesis through some means of experimentation or seeking supporting evidence. If the hypothesis passes the test, then it is tested again and again by other scientists to see if it passes it consistently. If the testing supports the hypothesis over and over, it becomes a theory. If it doesn't pass consistently, another hypothesis is sought. Sometimes, a better hypothesis comes along that explains more or better. In that case, the old theory is discarded and the new adopted.

A theory should not only explain what has happened, but predict what will happen. Theories about the Earth's movement in the heavens, for example, accurately predict when the sun will rise. In science, a theory must be tested using empirical means. In other words, at some point, the scientist must be able to perceive evidence for the theory with normal human senses. Even then, the theory is not considered "fact" unless it becomes somehow empirically observed. For instance, the theory that the earth is round can be "proved" either by travelling all the way around it or by flying into space to look. Only then does it become fact.

In science, there are relatively few "facts."

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Religion is another matter. Religion--or at least Christianity--insists that certain things be considered facts, based purely on faith. In other words, you are supposed to believe, just because the religious view says to. The faithful will tell you, for example, that God exists in fact, in spite of the total lack of empirical evidence for God's existence. If pressed for evidence, they will come up with a series of irrational statements like, "Well, the world couldn't possibly exist unless God made it," or "There has to be a reason for all this to exist." According to the religious world-view, too, all of creation exists for the benefit of man.

In truth, of course, there are alternative explanations for the Earth's existence, lots of things happen for no reason, and there's no evidence that the universe exists purely for our enjoyment. For the fundamentalist who wants to believe every word of the Bible, however, life is a house of cards, with each card a tenet of faith. If you remove one card, the entire house collapses.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

The Christian fundamentalists want desperately to cling to their faith. In order to do that, however, they must somehow reconcile science with the tenets of their faith. That's where Creationism comes in. Genesis says that the world, including the first man and woman, was created in six days. If you add together all the "begats" in the Bible, then you can determine its age at about 10,000 years, give or take a millenium. The goal of the creationists is to "scientifically" support Genesis' version of the creation and to "scientifically" disprove both the Big Bang Theory and Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

The creation scientists enjoyed a few victories in the early 1980's. For example, a 1981 Arkansas bill passed which required the teaching of "creation science" in schools, including "evidences and inferences that indicate sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing"; "the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about the development of all living kinds from a single organism"; "separate ancestry for man and apes"; and "a relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds." A similar law made it through the Louisiana legislature that year.

Fortunately, the courts overturned those laws. The presiding judge in the Arkansas case, William Overton, called the bill "a religious crusade, coupled with an attempt to conceal this fact" and that "both the purpose and effect is the advancement of religion in the public schools."

However, that has not deterred the creationists. Unable to get their own "theory" into the curricula, they simply changed strategy and began trying to get the competition eliminated. They attempt to accomplish this by using every chance they can get to debate and "disprove" the scientific theories. Their methods employ manipulation of fact and evidence; they also rely upon the relative ignorance of their non-scientist audiences and their listeners' strong desire to "believe."

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Evolution is a scientific theory; the Biblical story of creation is a myth. When you attempt to transform mythology into science, you only succeed in reducing it to so much horse-shit.

Myths contain truths. Those truths, however, are not in the nature of scientific reasoning. Instead, those truths take the form of allegory, of metaphor, of poetry. They bind us to one another and help us understand who we are. The Biblical story of creation is a powerful myth. Reading the verses of Genesis helps us feel the connection to the thousands of generations that came before us and our contact with greater mysteries than those sciences can resolve.

By trying to force fit those same verses to scientific reasoning, however, you defeat their purpose--you make them ridiculous.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--and it was the sixth day.

In the U.S., much of the power that legislates our day-to-day activities still lies in the hands of the states, not the Federal government. That tradition has derived from the belief that, as William Jennings Bryan said in the 1920's, "the essence of democracy is found in the right of the people to have what they want." Because of the varying "wants" of populations scattered throughout the nation, it has long been assumed that state governments could best determine what the people want.

However, we have another tradition in our country--that all Americans enjoy certain rights. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in order to protect the rights of the minority; the founding fathers recognized that the whim of "the people" would at times conflict with the rights of the individual. Perhaps unfortunately, the founding fathers did not include in their list the right to a good education.

One of the primary purposes of any society is the education of its children. The most primitive societies are structured to provide its children with the knowledge and skills necessary to survive and succeed: to hunt and gather food, to obtain shelter, to procreate and provide for their offspring. The education of the young also includes communicating those values that will support the continued existence of the society.

One or two hundred years ago, the education received by students in Kansas probably had little effect on residents of Florida, New York, and California. In fact, it was probably a good thing that much of education rested with the states, whose economies and industries varied so greatly. Today, the "global village" has virtually become a reality, and it has become imperative that our society ensure that all its children receive the best possible education.

"The best possible education" would include neither the deliberate teaching of horseshit nor the deliberate withholding of information. As citizens of the global village, we should insist that all of our society's children learn the best and most current information, and should never have information withheld because it conflicts with someone's religious agenda.

The creationists are entitled to their rights to believe and express their opinions, no matter how cockamamie. However, for a public school system within America to deliberately deprive its students of knowledge or teach them shoddy science is almost criminal. All of us, whether parents or not, depend on the education of America's children to create our future. We need to start demanding that education will build the future we want to inhabit, and to use the courts and political systems as its architects.

Danger: Indoctrination

A Scopes Trial for the '90s

The Wall Street Journal, December 6, 1993

 's.htm

[pic]

Stephen C. Meyer

When most of us think of the controversy over evolution in the public schools, we are likely to think of fundamentalists pulling teachers from their classrooms and placing them in the dock. Images from the infamous Scopes "monkey" trial of 1925 come to mind. Unfortunately, intolerance of this sort has shown itself in California in the 1990s as a result of students complaining about a biology instructor. Unlike the original Scopes case, however, thiscase involves a distinguished biology professor at a major university -- indeed, an acknowledged expert on evolutionary theory. Also unlike Scopes, the teacher was forbidden to teach his course not because he taught evolutionary theory (which he did) but because he offered a critical assessment of it.

The controversy first emerged last fall after Dean Kenyon, a biology professor at San Francisco State University, was ordered not to teach "creationism" by John Hafernik, the chairman of his biology department. Mr. Kenyon, who included three lectures in biological origins in his introductory course, had for many years made a practice of exposing students to both evolutionary theory and evidence uncongenial to it. He also discussed the philosophical controversies raised by the issue and his own view that living systems display evidence of intelligent design -- a view not incompatible with some forms of evolutionary thinking.

Mr. Hafernik accused Mr. Kenyon of teaching what he characterized as biblical creationism and ordered him to stop.

After Mr. Hafernik's decree, Mr. Kenyon asked for clarification. He wrote the dean, Jim Kelley, asking what exactly he could not discuss. Was he "forbidden to mention to students that there are important disputes among scientists about whether or not chemical evolution could have taken place on the ancient earth?"

Mr. Kelley replied by insisting that Mr. Kenyon "teach the dominant scientific view," not the religious view of "special creation on a young earth." Mr. Kenyon replied again (I paraphrase): I do teach the dominant view. But I also discuss problems with the dominant view and that some biologists see evidence of intelligent design.

He received no reply. Instead, he was yanked from teaching introductory biology and reassigned to labs.

There are several disturbing aspects to this story:

First, Mr. Kenyon is an authority on chemical evolutionary theory and the scientific study of the origin of life. He has a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford and is the co-author of a seminal theoretical work titled "Biochemical Predestination" (1969). The

book articulated what was arguably the most plausible evolutionary account of how a living cell might have organized itself from chemicals in the "primordial soup."

Mr. Kenyon's subsequent work resulted in numerous scientific publications on the origin-of-life problem. But by the late 1970s, Mr. Kenyon began to question some of his own earlier ideas. Experiments (some performed by Mr. Kenyon himself) increasingly contradicted the dominant view in his field. Laboratory work suggested that simple chemicals do not arrange themselves into complex information-bearing molecules such as DNA -- without, that is, "guidance" from human experimenters.

To Mr. Kenyon and others, such results raised important questions about how "naturalistic" the origin of life really was. If undirected chemical processes cannot produce the coded strands of information found in even the simplest cells, could perhaps a directing intelligence have played a role? By the 1980s, Mr. Kenyon had adopted the second view.

That a man of Mr. Kenyon's stature should now be forced to lobby

for the right to teach introductory biology, whatever his current view of origins, is absurdly comic. Mr. Kenyon knows perhaps as much as anyone in the world about a problem that has stymied an entire generation of research scientists. Yet he now finds that he may not report the negative results of research or give students his candid assessment of it.

What is more, the simplistic labeling of Mr. Kenyon's statements as "religion" and the strictly materialistic view as "scientific" seems entirely unwarranted, especially given the philosophical overtones of much origins theory. Biology texts routinely recapitulate Darwinian arguments against intelligent design. Yet if arguments against intelligent design are philosophically neutral and strictly scientific, why are Mr. Kenyon's arguments for intelligent design inherently unscientific and religiously charged? In seeking the best explanation for evidence, Mr. Kenyon has employed the same method of reasoning as before he changed his view. His conclusions, not his methods, have changed.

The problem is that in biological origins theory, dominant players currently insist on a rigidly materialistic mode of explanation -- even when, as Mr. Kenyon maintains, explanation of the evidence requires more than the limited powers of brute matter. Such intellectual strictures reflect the very essence of political correctness: the suppression of critical discourse by enforced rules of thought.

Fortunately, San Francisco State University's Academic Freedom Committee has come to a similar conclusion, ruling decisively this summer in Mr. Kenyon's favor. The committee determined that, according to university guidelines, a clear breach of academic freedom had occurred.

Apparently, however, Mr. Hafernik and Mr. Kelley disagree. Mr. Hafernik has emphatically rejected the committee's recommendation to reinstate Mr. Kenyon, citing his own freedom to determine scientifically appropriate curriculum. In response, the American Association of University Professors informed the university last month that they expect Mr. Kenyon's mistreatment to be rectified. Meanwhile, as SFSU considers its response, a world-class scientist waits -- yet another casualty of America's peculiar academic fundamentalism.

 

Copyright © 1993 Stephen C. Meyer. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

File Date: 12.29.98

This data file may be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial use.

[pic] [pic]

[pic] [pic]

[pic]

The Butler Act

PUBLIC ACTS

OF THE

STATE OF TENNESSEE

PASSED BY THE

SIXTY - FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

1925

________

CHAPTER NO. 27

House Bill No. 185

(By Mr. Butler)

AN ACT prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, 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.

Section 2. Be it further enacted, That any teacher found guilty of the violation of this Act, Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be fined not less than One Hundred $ (100.00) Dollars nor more than Five Hundred ($ 500.00) Dollars for each offense.

Section 3. Be it further enacted, That this Act take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it.

Passed March 13, 1925

W. F. Barry,

Speaker of the House of Representatives

L. D. Hill,

Speaker of the Senate

Approved March 21, 1925.

Austin Peay,

Governor.

-----------------------

Hunter’s Civic Biology, 1915, pages 192-195.



................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download