Inherit the Wind
Film — By Dylan Peterson on April 16, 2010 at 7:05 am
I received a lousy education when it came to science. I don’t remember anything my high school teachers taught me, and for college I went to the Moody Bible Institute (where science isn’t much of a priority). So to catch up, I am constantly talking to my wife about evolution, biology and animals. She’s the manager of Education Programs at the Lincoln Park Zoo, an excellent source on scientific matters. Our conversations are usually quite one-sided–I ask a question, and she offers answers.
“What’s the difference between evolutionary adaptation and environmental adaptation?”
“If earth first formed as mostly molten rock, where did all of the watery ocean come from?”
“Are all evolutions due to genetic mutations, or are some of them intentional by a given species?”
Why didn’t I learn these things in high school? I don’t mean to pick a fight, but I have a feeling that Christianity had something to do with it. My entire family believed in Creationism, and taught me to believe in it as well. There’s a pretty good chanc my high school teachers taught me all of this science stuff, but my instructed presuppositions insisted I not believe whatever imposing “fact” they presented. Now, I hold nothing against my family. They believe what they believe, and I can catch up intellectually in due time, but some are not so fortunate. Some remain in the snares of ignorance for as long as they live. Generations beget generations that perpetuate their fathers’ nonsensical beliefs.
The whole fight between evolution and creationism is one of the most embarrassing debates of all time. It’s a cosmic food fight with apples and oranges. One side argues for “all spiritual” while the other argues “all physical.” And there is no compromise (intelligent design doesn’t count, of course. It’s a philosophical idea, not a science or faith).
But what’s most depressing is the length of time it has gone on for. In 1960, Stanley Kramer made a movie about this stupid fight: Inherit the Wind. 50 years ago, can you believe it? Actually, the movie was parabolic of McCarthyism, by way of a real trial that took place in 1925 (85 years ago!). The Scopes “Monkey” Trial convicted a Tennessee school teacher of breaking a local law: not teaching Bible-centric science in the classroom. Along with this trial came all sorts of press and national attention, for the media viewed it as a “science vs. religion” showdown in the American justice system.
Kramer’s film highlights all of the insanities of the fundamentalist creationist wack-jobs, with ugly housewives picketing against “scientism” in the streets like the great-grandmothers of the tea party movement, and pompous preachers calling hellfire down upon those who believe in evolution. Mobs march and shout “he’s a sinner!” or “we’ll ride him out on a rail!” (referring to any who are not Christians, of course). This small town of southern morons don’t need to hear anything different from what they’ve always thought. They’re happy as they are, so happy that they’ll scream and yell and picket to defend their habitual way of life. They do and say the same thing over and over and over, until they don’t even know why anymore. All they know is that this is what they’ve lived by, so why wouldn’t they continue to?
The film insists that viewers think about the issue for themselves. Those on one side or another will be riled up either by lines about a literal 7-day creation week, or the necessity of giving up faith for the sake of progress. Ideas are pitted against beliefs, personified through a prosecutor and defendant, played theatrically by Spencer Tracy and Fredric March. Viewers will ask, “What is right?”, “What is truth?” and “What’s the difference?”
“It is one of the peculiar imbecilities of our time, when we place a grid of morality upon human behavior–so that the action of every man must be measured against an arbitrary latitude of right and a longitude of wrong, in exact minutes, degrees and seconds” Henry Drummond (Spencer Tracy) tells a bewildered jury. He speaks of right vs. wrong in a trial about teaching evolution in school. If a law deems evolution wrong, but objective science deems evolution truth, who wins? Right, or truth? Truth, or right? The result is a fight no one can win. Both are losers. Pain and strife are the only outcome in such a battle. Those who fight for truth are frustrated to tears by the mass of public ignorance, while the believers are personally devastated by the direct attacks on their faith.
“Religion is supposed to comfort people, not frighten them to death!” yells Bertram Cates, the man accused of the crime.
What a thing to shout. These small-town Christians are so scared of opening their minds that it may kill them. For them, Hell is the result of not adhering to every aspect of the Bible, so they even make their laws according to the Word. But Kramer won’t stand for this. The film’s passion was fueled by the insanity of McCarthyism, something that came somewhere in between the creationism vs evolution argument, but through the same notion: the intimidative powers of authority (be they spiritual or political) prevent free thinking of individuals. Even worse, it makes “free thinking” out to be sinful, to the point that partakers do not even want to be free. For these Christians want their power to come in numbers. They don’t want to decide things for themselves, they want to be a wolf pack.
“GODLINESS NOT GORILLAS!”
“ATHEISTS, GO BACK TO YOUR APES!”
“I LOVE THE LORD!”
The same ridiculous signs are still being scribbled today. Visit any tea party demonstration and it’s clear to see how a generation can beget a generation. People don’t want change. They want to be right. I was “right” through my high school science education, but (due to close-mindedness) I never took away any truth. It’s not until after my youth has passed that my mind has been so gloriously corrupted. But let’s try to pay attention to the next generation, because “corrupting the youth” is all too often an indication of progress. Or perhaps it’s more suitable to say, evolution.
8 Comments
As a former science teacher, I find the argument embarrassing on both sides. that is, I observed some real dishonesty among the scientific folks, too.
That said, I think it’s interesting that this is posted the same day that Donald Miller posts his excellent blog entry about how some people will credit Mother Nature or evolution (personifying evolution and assigning intelligence to it) for great design that is observed in nature. Coincidence?
total coincidence. maybe synchronicity. certainly not divine.
but personifying evolution sounds like a bad idea. though it does sound like something Oprah would do. David Attenborough wouldn’t have been so careless if he were narrating.
That tea party link is something else. And didn’t Attenborough did his fair share of anthropomorphizing?
Like you, I know very little about natural science–really, about any science. In fact, I’m really curious about the answers to your three opening questions. But I love Richard Dawkins’s books. He mocks creationists a lot, which is good fun, but his explanations are just as full of mystery and wonder as the creation story, only they’re mystery and wonder more rigorously explained. This is hard to put into words, but I sort of feel like natural selection is completely irreconcilable with creationism, yet I believe them both fully. This is either Orwellian doublethink or an indication that the truth is beyond our current understanding, which is the much more exciting option, and which shouldn’t preclude TRYING to understand.
Oh, and Dawkins personifies evolution all the time, usually pointing out with great care that we shouldn’t take him literally.
Dylan my initial reaction to your article is that in language, at least, your attitude appears to be bitter, hostile (dare I say ignorant) towards those who believe in creationism. This is the same argument that you make against tea party members and creationists. Which is worse, the fervent belief of creationists or your unfortunate hypocrisy? I’m not attacking you personally as a hypocrite, but I think that your argument is hypocritical. Like so many people who adhere to the current rally cry for tolerance (which is really just a cop out for not knowing how to love people as Christ loves them) your thoughts display a double standard that says that it’s ok to be a Christian as long as your not a politically conservative creationist. Where is the tolerance in that?
There is ample evidence for creationism and there is ample evidence that Evolution is riddled with holes and gaps in its explanation for creation. I think that if you were as enlightened as you claim to be you might have read somewhere along the way that even Charles Darwin recognized that his theory is only a theory, and not a hard fact.
The truth is that no one knows how the earth was created. We just know that it was created. The point that you need to come to is a recognition that God created the earth and that his ways are bigger than ours. If the 7 day creation explanation is symbolic or literal I don’t think that we could fully comprehend God’s creation even if He explained it to us in plain English. We can’t know all of God’s mystery and your thoughts seem to say that you somehow do know without a doubt how God did it, and not just that He did it. This is the same argument that you slam the Creationists for.
Inherit the Wind is a great play,but I was really interested to learn about the differences between the play and the actual Scopes trial. Reading from the trial transcript, it is clear that there were some intelligent arguments from the Creationists. A.J. Jacobs covers this well on his chapter on creationism in The Year of Living Biblically.
First off, great article Dylan. I have to disagree with a number of the posts for a number of reasons. First off, I’m not sure about the hypocricy described. The distinction between evolution and creationism is in the presence of evidence. As much as people point to “holes” in evolutionary theory, these do not corrupt the theory itself, nor are they direct evidence of a creator, further, many of the most cited “holes” are actually already resolved. To argue this shows a gross misunderstanding of the nature of science. I’d recommend Thomas Kuhns “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” as a good explanation of how science works. People question science, theories change, thats how science works. One could distort this debate in an attempt to justify their perspective, but its not valid. Evolution and creationism are NOT equal in their validity. When I taught high school science, I explained this position to frustrated parents by saying that there are people out there who deny the holocaust. No teacher would ever teach such a thing, because there is clear evidence it occurred. To claim otherwise requires some extravagant conspiracy theory that lacks evidence. Is denying people the right to share their opinions on the holocaust hypocritical?
Though I believe the “young earth” creationists are fundamentally mistaken in their literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1, I was also made aware a number of years ago that the play “Inherit the Wind” is a caricature of what really happened at the Scopes Monkey Trial. This awareness came after a visit to Bryan College in Dayton, TN. The other side of the story, it seems, is that William Jennings Bryan was a progressive. Famous for his “Cross of Gold” speech in which he advocated the abolition of the gold standard so that labor would not “be crucified on a cross of gold,” he was, in keeping with his egalitarian political views, opposed to the textbook’s teaching on social Darwinism and its inherent racism. This of course in no way justifies the young earth creation position, but it is something worth considering before one compares actual events with fabricated ones.