tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post115376513115442469..comments2024-03-24T23:41:23.944-07:00Comments on Talk Wisdom: Darwinian Shell GameChristinewjchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1154114004705326902006-07-28T12:13:00.000-07:002006-07-28T12:13:00.000-07:00P.S.Christine,Your quibbles with creationism and I...P.S.<BR/><BR/>Christine,<BR/><BR/>Your quibbles with creationism and ID not being held as science are addressed in Schafersman's essay too. He explains it much better and much more thoroughly than I could.Ubersehenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17332607619856283785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1154113814364811182006-07-28T12:10:00.000-07:002006-07-28T12:10:00.000-07:00Well, we've gone in circles so many times on this ...Well, we've gone in circles so many times on this topic that I'm starting to get dizzy.<BR/><BR/>Bob,<BR/><BR/><B>Uber, you are illustrating my point well, all anti-theists can do when it comes to the issues of origins is call anything theistic explaining origing as unscientific. This is an a-priori dogma that you have (and many "scientists" for that matter), therefore everything MUST be explained purely naturalistically for theism is ruled out from the start.</B><BR/><BR/>As much as you word it so that it sounds like a criticism of the scientific method, it is not a negative thing that science does not consider the supernatural in its examination of the natural world. Because scientific research <I>is</I> the study of the <I>natural</I> world, methodological naturalism is the only way to go about it. As Steven Schafersman put it; <I>“Science, an inanimate discipline, demands methodological naturalism from its practitioners for science to work properly, and science could care less whether metaphysical naturalism </I><B>(the <I>a priori</I> dogma you mentioned)</B><I> is true or not, or whether its practitioners believe it or not.”</I> <BR/><BR/>- See Schafersman’s essay, <A HREF="http://www.freeinquiry.com/naturalism.html" REL="nofollow"><I>Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry</I></A> if you’re actually interested in knowing why scientists reject supernaturalism in any of its forms as a valid means of doing science.<BR/><BR/><B>This is why I don't bank to much on what Paleontologists like Dawkin's and Gould say, all they can do is look at data and really make hopefully educated guesses. This is in contrast to exact sciences like mathmatics, chemestry and physics where there really can't be too much debate over data interpretation.</B><BR/><BR/>I think you'd find, if you actually talked to the scientists doing the research, that paleontologists do a little more than "look at data and make hopefully educated guesses." <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule" REL="nofollow">Appealing to ridicule</A> certainly won't invalidate their work. But are you really interested in finding out, or do you prefer to rely on baseless criticisms, the scientific refutations of which you've chosen to ignore? <BR/><BR/><B>Personally I think we need to get to the root of this and ask "what is science?" That word is tossed around so often yet it is never really defined.</B> <BR/><BR/>Natural science is really quite clearly defined. It's a recognized creationist tactic, however, to attempt to introduce doubt into the minds of average citizens to make them think that there is some kind of controversy. <BR/><BR/>To rephrase this, there may be some controversy as to the meaning of science between creationists, but there is <I>no</I> significant controversy of the kind you're implying as to the meaning of science between <I>scientists</I>.<BR/><BR/><B>Just because atheists impose methodological naturalism on the scientific endeavor?</B><BR/><BR/>If you'll read the essay I posted above (or even some parts of it), you'll understand that atheists do not impose methodological naturalism on the scientific endeavour, it is the scientific endeavour that requires methodological naturalism from <I>anyone</I> attempting to take part, not just atheists.Ubersehenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17332607619856283785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1154049679348686272006-07-27T18:21:00.000-07:002006-07-27T18:21:00.000-07:00Hi Grace,Nice to see you here again!I believe in C...Hi Grace,<BR/><BR/>Nice to see you here again!<BR/><BR/>I believe in Creation. I am a young-earth Creation believer, in fact. However, I don't see Intelligent Design as a "rival" to Creation, per se, I see it as a possibly legitimate way to challenge the a priori definition of science that has been imposed upon us because right now, words like <I>evolution</I> and <I>science</I> are used in such a way as to make naturalism (to the exclusion of anything else) true by definition.<BR/><BR/>Oops...that was too long an answer! Sorry! ;-)Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1154048665401761882006-07-27T18:04:00.000-07:002006-07-27T18:04:00.000-07:00Christine,I am just curious here....not a part of ...Christine,<BR/>I am just curious here....not a part of the debate at all...I care not for such things. But... are you saying you adhere to Intelligent Design and not Creationism?<BR/><BR/>Just a yes or no sort of answer will suffice. Don't go to great lengths for me...I promise...it's not worth your time!! :)<BR/><BR/>love,<BR/>gracegracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16353719852472577554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1154047655240832922006-07-27T17:47:00.000-07:002006-07-27T17:47:00.000-07:00Ubersehen,You stated: "The bottom line is this: I...Ubersehen,<BR/><BR/>You stated: "The bottom line is this: Intelligent Design/Creationism attempts to provide evidence for the existence of a god by venturing into the realm of scientific research."<BR/><BR/>Your first mistake is lumping ID and Creationism together. They are different in several respects. <BR/><BR/>Your second mistake is misrepresenting what ID is:<BR/><BR/>"Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence." <BR/><BR/>-- William A. Dembski<BR/><BR/>There is nothing in that definition that says anything about God. In fact, in Dembski's <A HREF="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=61" REL="nofollow">online book excerpt</A>, he flatly claims, "In particular, it is not my aim to guarantee creationism." (Go to link, scroll down to page 4 and read section under the subtitle <I>Rehabilitation Design</I>.<BR/><BR/>You stated: "They have not, to date, stood up to the rigours of the scientific method, and so they are not science."<BR/><BR/>In Phillip E. Johnson's book, <I>Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds</I>, he addresses a very important point about your (above)claim:<BR/><BR/><I>The intellectual elite think that reason starts with the assumption that nature is all there is and that a mindless evolutionary process absolutely <B>must</B> be our true creator. the common people aren't so sure of that, and some of them are very sure that God is alive.<BR/><BR/>I agree with the common people. If we are right, the consequences are very, very important. The ruling naturalists know that too, although they may deny it. That is why they are so determined to define words like <B>evolution</B> and <B>science</B> in such a way <B>that naturalism is true by definition.</B></I><BR/><BR/>Like Bob, I agree that it is God, who acted openly and who left his fingerprints all over the evidence...<BR/><BR/>However, if Creationism is rejected because of adherence to Genesis, the Intelligent Design is a theory that explores the designer's handiwork without specifically identifying just who is the designer. Dembski's definition above shows the aim of ID theory. If people want to extrapolate and place a "name" upon the designer, then so be it. I could identify the designer as the God of the the Bible, just as a Carl Sagan follower might identify the designer as an alien; but that issue would not need to be discussed in the science class. For all we know, Carl Sagan could be correct that it was aliens (like in the movie Contact). So, the argument against ID as a legitimate scientific inquiry <I>because</I> someone wants to add a "God inference" doesn't negate the work being done to identify design scientifically.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153982492999075342006-07-26T23:41:00.000-07:002006-07-26T23:41:00.000-07:00Jody-Nice story, I'll stick with the more authorat...Jody-<BR/>Nice story, I'll stick with the more authoratative "In the beginning God..."<BR/><BR/>Uber, you are illustrating my point well, all anti-theists can do when it comes to the issues of origins is call anything theistic explaining origing as unscientific. This is an a-priori dogma that you have (and many "scientists" for that matter), therefore everything MUST be explained purely naturalistically for theism is ruled out from the start. <BR/><BR/>Thus, when it comes to evolution I think that the data is read through the lense of a theory, and as Jody shows we have a nice wonderful heart warming story about how life came to be. Thus fossils which are found are made to fit into that story, though there are infinite possibilities. This is why I don't bank to much on what Paleontologists like Dawkin's and Gould say, all they can do is look at data and really make hopefully educated guesses. This is in contrast to exact sciences like mathmatics, chemestry and physics where there really can't be too much debate over data interpretation.<BR/><BR/>Although I too don't think Coulter is the best rescource to show the flaws of evolution (Alvin Plantinga is brilliant when it comes to this) she is right to a point. Much of it is a well played game.<BR/><BR/> Personally I think we need to get to the root of this and ask "what is science?" That word is tossed around so often yet it is never really defined. Why is ID and Creationism unscientific? Just because atheists impose methodological naturalism on the scientific endeavor?R.S. Ladwighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13487404072546513179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153977798504825302006-07-26T22:23:00.000-07:002006-07-26T22:23:00.000-07:00Hi all,Quite a conversation going on here. I've b...Hi all,<BR/><BR/>Quite a conversation going on here. I've been away for the past 2 days getting my daughter's apartment packed up to move into a better place for her 2nd year at college. The cable was already shut off so no TV or internet was available. It drove me crazy...but I did get to read a great book during the breaks from packing.<BR/><BR/>Just walked in the door back home, but wanted to let you all know why I've been absent from the debate.<BR/><BR/>I'll post replies tomorrow. Good night!<BR/><BR/>ChristineChristinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153944301946244132006-07-26T13:05:00.000-07:002006-07-26T13:05:00.000-07:00what about those fossils?, and why do you keep usi...<B>what about those fossils?, and why do you keep using the word transitional as if that means something scientific in terms of making your belief that evolution is more likely than ID.</B><BR/><BR/>Since you clearly want nothing to do with science, understanding the importance of correct definitions, common sense, and any other number of essential qualities for such a discussion, my answer is:<BR/><BR/>Because Mutant Lava Monkeys told me so. <BR/><BR/>Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to the pet store so that I can have a more intellectually stimulating discussion with a trout.Ubersehenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17332607619856283785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153944231257024842006-07-26T13:03:00.000-07:002006-07-26T13:03:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Ubersehenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17332607619856283785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153941189301539462006-07-26T12:13:00.000-07:002006-07-26T12:13:00.000-07:00what about those fossils?, and why do you keep usi...what about those fossils?, and why do you keep using the word <I>transitional</I> as if that means something scientific in terms of making your belief that evolution is more likely than ID.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10281126424462398813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153939990721466852006-07-26T11:53:00.000-07:002006-07-26T11:53:00.000-07:00How is it that you can claim to love science, and ...How is it that you can claim to love science, and yet disbelieve what science tells you? Is it love in the same sense that I love pugs, but would never want to own one?<BR/><BR/>And I'm not frustrated. I'm simply convinced that you are an extremely obtuse individual. I make my statements with rational consideration. But I don't suppose this is something that you can help easily. You've been brought up this way, after all, and we all begin as slaves to our roots.<BR/><BR/>So again, what about those transitional fossils?Ubersehenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17332607619856283785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153936244405935502006-07-26T10:50:00.000-07:002006-07-26T10:50:00.000-07:00limpy99, Good Boy! ;)I knew you could do it!limpy99, Good Boy! ;)<BR/>I knew you could do it!Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10281126424462398813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153936175533075122006-07-26T10:49:00.000-07:002006-07-26T10:49:00.000-07:00This just reveals that you are an ignorant moronDo...<I>This just reveals that you are an ignorant moron</I><BR/><BR/>Does name calling help your point uber?<BR/>It does help my point, you are frustrated, most Godless people worshiping themselves are. You still have time to change.<BR/><BR/><I>Why do you persist in claiming the authority to argue scientific matters if you have no interest whatsoever in science?</I><BR/><BR/>I love science Uber. I am not an authority in the science world, and never have claimed to be. You care to prove your accusation? I, unlike you, know the difference between Man's opinion or observations and God's truth.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10281126424462398813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153935738189152712006-07-26T10:42:00.000-07:002006-07-26T10:42:00.000-07:00I found it!I found it!limpy99https://www.blogger.com/profile/06975672608204212282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153934794330724112006-07-26T10:26:00.000-07:002006-07-26T10:26:00.000-07:00Actually, Mark, it's more a matter of that one ext...Actually, Mark, it's more a matter of that one <I>extremely important</I> definition. If you declare that "transitional fossils" should be an archaeological find of neatly stacked, completely intact skeletons that each vary slightly from one to the next as the progress further towards to top, you'll likely find that there is no such thing and that "transitional fossils", as you've defined them, do not exist.<BR/><BR/>Since what transitional fossils actually <I>are</I>, according to the paleontologists who would know, is defined very clearly in the Talk.Origins FAQ, you will, sadly, have to use that definition instead of your own.<BR/><BR/><B> Transitional Phases are peppered with the words "Probably, Should Have, Most Likely".</B><BR/><BR/>This just reveals that you are an ignorant moron who is deliberately deceiving himself and anyone else he can get on board into believing that he knows anything about scientific research. Evidence does not corrolate to fact. Evolution is based, in many areas, on probability, so it is quite responsible of Hunt, and others, to use words like "Probably", "Should have", and "Most likely". <BR/><BR/>I'll ask you the same question I asked Christine:<BR/><BR/><B>Why do you persist in claiming the authority to argue scientific matters if you have no interest whatsoever in science?</B>Ubersehenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17332607619856283785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153928570112809472006-07-26T08:42:00.000-07:002006-07-26T08:42:00.000-07:00SCORE CARDGod - 7259845225874662002584002540+Uber ...<B>SCORE CARD</B><BR/>God - 7259845225874662002584002540+<BR/>Uber - 0<BR/>Phronk - 0<BR/>limpy - still looking for his pp. :)Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10281126424462398813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153928303916189022006-07-26T08:38:00.000-07:002006-07-26T08:38:00.000-07:00If you have just skimmed part of the FAQ and concl...<I>If you have just skimmed part of the FAQ and concluded that it doesn't have what you consider to be "real" transitional fossils, go back to part 1 of the FAQ and carefully read the section titled "What is a transitional fossil?" Think about what you have read. Then read the rest of the FAQ, and pay particular attention to the "species-to-species" sections in part 2. If you still think the FAQ doesn't have "real" transitional fossils, chances are you have misunderstood the theory of evolution. Define what a "real" transitional fossil should be, and why you think the modern theory of evolution would predict such a thing. Then let's talk.</I><BR/><BR/>'talkorigins', the Fact based Bible for Uber and phronk had the above to say. <BR/><BR/>So it's more of a definition game?, and STILL NO EVIDENCE of evolution.<BR/>Or is it dating techniques? and which one?<BR/>btw, Hunt's evidence for each and everyone of her <I> Transitional Phases</I> are peppered with the words <B>"Probably, Should Have, Most Likely"</B>. Yeh! thats Fact!Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10281126424462398813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153872815075935752006-07-25T17:13:00.000-07:002006-07-25T17:13:00.000-07:00Oh also to add, to the data being theory laden, th...Oh also to add, to the data being theory laden, this does not apply to exact sciences such as physics, mathmatics, and chemestry. But sciences like paleontology, much of geology and archaelogy are really dependant upon a objective interpretation of the evidence. Unfortunatly, objectivity is pretty well impossible to come by. It is hard to view evolutionists as objective when men like Richard Dawkins say stuff like: "Every explanation of lifes origins before 1859 is useless." Evolution gives presupositional support to Dawkin's atheism, it's hard to say that Dawkin's would be neutral on this when his faith is at stake.R.S. Ladwighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13487404072546513179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153872316129777132006-07-25T17:05:00.000-07:002006-07-25T17:05:00.000-07:00Interesting stuff, The scopes trial totally was a ...Interesting stuff, <BR/>The scopes trial totally was a publicity stunt to make the evolution theory of origins seem slick and progressive and biblical creationism backwoods. You can read the actual transcript of what went down online. <BR/><BR/>As far as the fossils supporting macro evolution go, I think in the philosophy of science a strong case can be made that all data is theory laden. Darwinists come to data (new fossil) with a theory in hand making the data fit the theory. Every time now when a new unknown species fossil is found it is automatically an ancester to a modern species. Unfortuanatly, that is hard to know with certainty.<BR/><BR/>Personally I think the main push to uphold evolution is because it gives philosophical support to atheism. As a theist I can believe in a theistic evolution, however the atheist is not left with this option, he must speak of lifes origins purely naturalistically. Therefore, whatever goes against the a-priori dogma of naturalism in science is non-science. Thus ID and CS are automatically ruled to be non-science in an a-priori fashion.R.S. Ladwighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13487404072546513179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153866539183384872006-07-25T15:28:00.000-07:002006-07-25T15:28:00.000-07:00But before you answer anything I've had to say, Ch...But before you answer anything I've had to say, Christine, I'm really interested to hear what you have to say about Phronk's link to <I>evidence for hundreds of transitional fossils</I>. Particularly in light of your repeated claims of there being none. Just so I don't steal any of his steam and so there's no confusion, here's a repeat of his link.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" REL="nofollow">Transitional Fossil FAQ</A><BR/><BR/>All of us Darwiniacs are interested in what you Magic Space Lizard Fundies have to say about it.Ubersehenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17332607619856283785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153854873856651002006-07-25T12:14:00.000-07:002006-07-25T12:14:00.000-07:00You can bet your life that if anything about Creat...<B>You can bet your life that if anything about Creation or ID had been flawed and included in the textbooks, the evolutionists would have the ACLU at the doors of the school burning the pages and suing the textbook makers and distributors.</B><BR/><BR/>The issue with Creationism or ID in <I>science</I> classrooms is not whether or not they are <I>flawed</I>, so much as whether or not are <I>science</I>. Since Creationism and ID are not science, the evolutionists, ACLU, NCSE, PTA, and any other concerned organizations would obviously heatedly rebel against their presence in a <I>science</I> textbook.<BR/><BR/>For the rest of the "arguments" you present, they are not worth responding to. They have already been addressed by numerous qualified scientists and refuted. But it is again made clear, based on your continued assertion that there are no transitional forms, in the face of clear evidence that there are, that <I>you have no interest in the research going on in the scientific fields that comprise the study of evolution</I>. Thus, you are hopelessly tied to the flawed, outdated, and refuted pseudo-scientific arguments of Wells, Behe, Dembski, and their ilk.<BR/><BR/>Why do you persist in claiming the authority to argue scientific matters if you have no interest whatsoever in science?<BR/><BR/>Here is an alternative. Start yet another organization, call it the "<I>Magic Space Lizard Fundie Organization for Research Into the Nature of God's Universe</I>" (MSLFORINGU), or "<I><B>TRUTH</B> > Science</I>" or whatever you like. Begin your own research into the origins of the universe, but continue to ignore science (it won't be hard, you're doing well with that bit already). Then, when you've found a way to reiterate <I>The Good Christian's Grand Unified Theory of Everything</I> (TGCGUTE), present it to the school boards as its own course. Not as science of course ('cause it's not), but as its own unique approach to exploring life. At least then your approach will be more honest.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and be sure to buy your own <A HREF="http://www.shopinprivate.com/fununfortwo.html" REL="nofollow">fundies</A> today!Ubersehenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17332607619856283785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153852140551982442006-07-25T11:29:00.000-07:002006-07-25T11:29:00.000-07:00One other thing, I don't agree that the trial was ...One other thing, I don't agree that the trial was a publicity stunt, although the town where the tiral was held certainly looked to benefit from it. For both sides, it was an important argument that needed to be heard.<BR/><BR/>And it was.<BR/><BR/>And now we teach evolution in science class and creation in Bible school. As we should.limpy99https://www.blogger.com/profile/06975672608204212282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153851922598124792006-07-25T11:25:00.000-07:002006-07-25T11:25:00.000-07:00An interesting and even accurate point. The Darwi...An interesting and even accurate point. The Darwiniancs did, I guess, "stage", the Scopes trial in the sense that there was a deliberate challenge to a Tennesse law, no doubt passed by Magic Space Lizard Fundies, which criminalized the teaching of evolution. What the Darwiniacs did was find a volunteer, in this case Scopes, who would agree to stand trial as having taught evolution contrary to the law. My recollection of this is a little fuzzy, but I think I remember reading somewhere that Scopes may not even have taught evolution or been that big a proponent of it. I could be wrong about that, but I do know he agreed to be the subject of a trial so that the Magig Space Lizard Fundies would have to actually defend their position in open court. You can certainly call it a staged performance, but it's not as underhanded as you, (and I may be being harsh here, as I'm sure Coulter is a 100 times worse), makes it sound. Our legal system does not allow for cases to be brought just to test theories; there has to be an aggrieved party. In order to contest the law, the Darwiniacs had to have a client, hence Scopes. Of course, if there was no law in the first place, there would have been no case.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Also, in the end, Calrence Darrow subjected Wiliam Jennings Bryan, the atty for the state, to a withering cross-examination that pretty much ended the legitimacy of teaching Creationism as science. While the Darwiniacs did lose that case, they won the war.limpy99https://www.blogger.com/profile/06975672608204212282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153844146574267522006-07-25T09:15:00.000-07:002006-07-25T09:15:00.000-07:00Ann Coulter plagiarism charges overblownOf course,...<A HREF="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/7/11290/58796" REL="nofollow">Ann Coulter plagiarism charges overblown</A><BR/><BR/>Of course, being that "The Daily Kos" is a left wing loonie, he would include disparaging remarks about Ann. But at least he was honest enought to admit that the plagiarism accusations were overblown.<BR/><BR/>A somewhat nicer article: <A HREF="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/11/D8IPPLI89.html" REL="nofollow"><BR/>Syndicator Denies Coulter Lifted Material</A>Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-1153843617636135772006-07-25T09:06:00.000-07:002006-07-25T09:06:00.000-07:00Wow! In chapter 10, Ann details the staging of th...Wow! In chapter 10, Ann details the staging of the Scopes trial and what propaganda the film <I>Inherit the Wind</I> really is! It appears that Darwiniacs not only faked experiments by staging frauds, fallacies, and downright deceptions to promote their macroevolutionary religion, but they also got an entire town plus Hollywood to go along with a faked, staged and deceptive story about the Scopes trial! I knew that the movie wasn't entirely truthful or accurate, but according to the book <I>Summer for the Gods</I> by Edward Larson, the Scopes trial was nothing but a publicity stunt! There's even more information about the farce of <I>Inherit</I> in Jack Schnedler's, <I>The Real Scopes Trial: 'Inherit the Wind' Is Seared into the American Public Consciousness, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette</I> (Little Rock), July 10, 2005. When I get some extra time I will post more about this.<BR/><BR/>What's worse, according to a story in the Kansas City Star News, in 2003, they are still showing this film in high school biology classes! Talk about propagandist indoctrination and being "lose with the truth" as Phronk claimed about ID!Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.com