| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
06 Jul 2005 06:10:38 AM |
| Object: |
Commentary: Scopes 2: Arkansas' Creationism Trial |
From the article:
-----------------------------------
by Jeffrey Katz
July 5, 2005 · The mysteries of the origin of life are usually discussed in
Arkansas in church or a science class. But for two weeks in 1981 they were
debated in a federal courtroom in downtown Little Rock.
At issue was a law requiring public schools to give "balanced treatment" to
evolution and creationism whenever either was taught. It was the first such law
in the country when the Arkansas legislature adopted it in March of that year.
An ACLU lawyer who opposed the law dubbed it Scopes 2. Clearly, the question of
how life began wasn't settled in the famous 1925 trial in Dayton, Tenn., and it
boiled up again in Arkansas six decades later. While the Arkansas case
obviously didn't have the same historic impact of the so-called Monkey Trial,
it did foreshadow battles between some scientists and fundamentalists that
continue to this day.
Actually, the Scopes 2 nickname didn't quite fit this particular case. For one
thing, Arkansas already had its version of the Scopes trial in 1968. That's
when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on teaching evolution.
And those who reject evolution were using a different tactic in the 1980s,
putting as much focus on their belief in creationism as their opposition to
evolution.
---------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4726786
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
| User: "Jason Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Scopes 2: Arkansas' Creationism Trial |
06 Jul 2005 06:19:14 AM |
|
|
Also see 'Timeline: Remembering the Scopes Monkey Trial' at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4723956
From the article:
---------------------------------
July 5, 2005 · Eighty years ago, in July 1925, the mixture of religion, science
and the public schools caught fire in Dayton, Tenn. The Scopes trial -- or
"Monkey Trial," as it was called -- dominated headlines across the country. The
trial lasted just a week, but the questions it raised are as divisive now as
they were back then. NPR looks back at the Scopes trial, the events that led up
to it and its aftermath:
----------------------------------
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Rohrer" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Scopes 2: Arkansas' Creationism Trial |
08 Jul 2005 01:31:44 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------
<snip article>
---------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4726786
Also note the other links on this page. NPR is covering several
Scopes/ID/evolution-related issues this week. NPR's Morning Edition
had a piece on evolutionary scientists avoiding debate with Creo/ID
proponents (there is a link to this at Jason's link), also a bit on the
Tulsa zoo thing. I heard a promo for more Scopes coverage on On The
Media this week.
Chris Rohrer
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Scopes 2: Arkansas' Creationism Trial |
06 Jul 2005 11:51:53 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 07:10:38 -0400, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------
by Jeffrey Katz
July 5, 2005 · The mysteries of the origin of life are usually discussed in
Arkansas in church or a science class. But for two weeks in 1981 they were
debated in a federal courtroom in downtown Little Rock.
At issue was a law requiring public schools to give "balanced treatment" to
evolution and creationism whenever either was taught. It was the first such law
in the country when the Arkansas legislature adopted it in March of that year.
An ACLU lawyer who opposed the law dubbed it Scopes 2. Clearly, the question of
how life began wasn't settled in the famous 1925 trial in Dayton, Tenn.,
I fail to just how a legal trial could possibly settle it. And it
wasn't settled in Dayton becuase it wasn't intended to; the trial
was a set up by the town fathers to promote business. They must
have been delirious with joy when they found out Bryan and Darrow
were coming, and Mencken would cover it.
and it
boiled up again in Arkansas six decades later. While the Arkansas case
obviously didn't have the same historic impact of the so-called Monkey Trial,
Actually, the Dayton trial had zero impact, although a good time
was had by all.
it did foreshadow battles between some scientists and fundamentalists that
continue to this day.
Actually, the Scopes 2 nickname didn't quite fit this particular case. For one
thing, Arkansas already had its version of the Scopes trial in 1968. That's
when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on teaching evolution.
I don't knwoi why you would call that Scope 2. Scopes was
convicted, paid his fine and went on with life, just like
everyone else did when the circus left.
And those who reject evolution were using a different tactic in the 1980s,
putting as much focus on their belief in creationism as their opposition to
evolution.
The tactics certainly have been different. In Dayton they just
wanted the trial, not the results.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Scopes 2: Arkansas' Creationism Trial |
08 Jul 2005 01:48:44 PM |
|
|
Scopes was
convicted, paid his fine and went on with life, just like
everyone else did when the circus left.
----------------------------------
Scopes conviction was overturned on appeal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Scopes 2: Arkansas' Creationism Trial |
08 Jul 2005 01:56:44 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1120848524.339100.318340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Scopes was
convicted, paid his fine and went on with life, just like
everyone else did when the circus left.
----------------------------------
Scopes conviction was overturned on appeal.
On a technicality. IIRC, the fine had to be determined by the jury, not the
judge. The prosecutor decided not to go for another trial. Wisely, IMO.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Herb Huston" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Scopes 2: Arkansas' Creationism Trial |
07 Jul 2005 06:01:45 AM |
|
|
In article <1ucpc19b74a7ib0bss40jasaqjvsrvigsr@4ax.com>,
Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
}I don't knwoi why you would call that Scope 2. Scopes was
}convicted, paid his fine and went on with life, just like
}everyone else did when the circus left.
Actually, the Baltimore Sun, Mencken's paper, paid the $100 fine. Don't
forget that Scopes was a schoolteacher.
--
-- Herb Huston
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Scopes 2: Arkansas' Creationism Trial |
07 Jul 2005 03:50:51 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:01:45 -0000, (Herb
Huston) wrote:
In article <1ucpc19b74a7ib0bss40jasaqjvsrvigsr@4ax.com>,
Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
}I don't knwoi why you would call that Scope 2. Scopes was
}convicted, paid his fine and went on with life, just like
}everyone else did when the circus left.
Actually, the Baltimore Sun, Mencken's paper, paid the $100 fine. Don't
forget that Scopes was a schoolteacher.
Yeah, but the town fathers solicited him to be the defendant, so
they should have paid the find.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Scopes 2: Arkansas' Creationism Trial |
08 Jul 2005 06:17:46 AM |
|
|
Hatunen wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:01:45 -0000, (Herb
Huston) wrote:
In article <1ucpc19b74a7ib0bss40jasaqjvsrvigsr@4ax.com>,
Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
}I don't knwoi why you would call that Scope 2. Scopes was
}convicted, paid his fine and went on with life, just like
}everyone else did when the circus left.
Actually, the Baltimore Sun, Mencken's paper, paid the $100 fine. Don't
forget that Scopes was a schoolteacher.
Yeah, but the town fathers solicited him to be the defendant, so
they should have paid the find.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
actually the town fathers were duplicitous and all good christians seem
to take after them. my wife claims they can't be christians. I agres.
josephus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Herb Huston" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Scopes 2: Arkansas' Creationism Trial |
08 Jul 2005 10:29:34 AM |
|
|
In article <cc5rc111dda0u30rtprpn3v36g8hglf7ku@4ax.com>,
Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
}On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:01:45 -0000, (Herb
}Huston) wrote:
}
}>In article <1ucpc19b74a7ib0bss40jasaqjvsrvigsr@4ax.com>,
}>Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
}>}I don't knwoi why you would call that Scope 2. Scopes was
}>}convicted, paid his fine and went on with life, just like
}>}everyone else did when the circus left.
}>
}>Actually, the Baltimore Sun, Mencken's paper, paid the $100 fine. Don't
}>forget that Scopes was a schoolteacher.
}
}Yeah, but the town fathers solicited him to be the defendant, so
}they should have paid the find.
Dishonest politicians and businessmen? Who'd ever believe it? Anyway,
since the conviction was overturned on a technicality, I would guess that
the fine was refunded.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Scopes 2: Arkansas' Creationism Trial |
09 Jul 2005 02:09:52 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:29:34 -0000, (Herb
Huston) wrote:
In article <cc5rc111dda0u30rtprpn3v36g8hglf7ku@4ax.com>,
Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
}On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:01:45 -0000, (Herb
}Huston) wrote:
}
}>In article <1ucpc19b74a7ib0bss40jasaqjvsrvigsr@4ax.com>,
}>Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
}>}I don't knwoi why you would call that Scope 2. Scopes was
}>}convicted, paid his fine and went on with life, just like
}>}everyone else did when the circus left.
}>
}>Actually, the Baltimore Sun, Mencken's paper, paid the $100 fine. Don't
}>forget that Scopes was a schoolteacher.
}
}Yeah, but the town fathers solicited him to be the defendant, so
}they should have paid the find.
Dishonest politicians and businessmen? Who'd ever believe it? Anyway,
since the conviction was overturned on a technicality, I would guess that
the fine was refunded.
They weren't dishonest. They were pretty up front about it being
a PR ploy.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herb Huston" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Scopes 2: Arkansas' Creationism Trial |
09 Jul 2005 03:23:37 PM |
|
|
In article <2780d158lkuf3o5ep7vt7ibq9gdudmha55@4ax.com>,
Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
}On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:29:34 -0000, (Herb
}Huston) wrote:
}
}>In article <cc5rc111dda0u30rtprpn3v36g8hglf7ku@4ax.com>,
}>Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
}>}On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:01:45 -0000, (Herb
}>}Huston) wrote:
}>}
}>}>In article <1ucpc19b74a7ib0bss40jasaqjvsrvigsr@4ax.com>,
}>}>Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
}>}>}I don't knwoi why you would call that Scope 2. Scopes was
}>}>}convicted, paid his fine and went on with life, just like
}>}>}everyone else did when the circus left.
}>}>
}>}>Actually, the Baltimore Sun, Mencken's paper, paid the $100 fine. Don't
}>}>forget that Scopes was a schoolteacher.
}>}
}>}Yeah, but the town fathers solicited him to be the defendant, so
}>}they should have paid the find.
}>
}>Dishonest politicians and businessmen? Who'd ever believe it? Anyway,
}>since the conviction was overturned on a technicality, I would guess that
}>the fine was refunded.
}>
}They weren't dishonest. They were pretty up front about it being
}a PR ploy.
My question was in reference to their not having paid Scopes' fine.
--
-- Herb Huston
--
-- http://www.radix.net/~huston
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Scopes 2: Arkansas' Creationism Trial |
11 Jul 2005 06:19:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 20:23:37 -0000, (Herb
Huston) wrote:
In article <2780d158lkuf3o5ep7vt7ibq9gdudmha55@4ax.com>,
Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
}On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:29:34 -0000, (Herb
}Huston) wrote:
}
}>In article <cc5rc111dda0u30rtprpn3v36g8hglf7ku@4ax.com>,
}>Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
}>}On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:01:45 -0000, (Herb
}>}Huston) wrote:
}>}
}>}>In article <1ucpc19b74a7ib0bss40jasaqjvsrvigsr@4ax.com>,
}>}>Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote:
}>}>}I don't knwoi why you would call that Scope 2. Scopes was
}>}>}convicted, paid his fine and went on with life, just like
}>}>}everyone else did when the circus left.
}>}>
}>}>Actually, the Baltimore Sun, Mencken's paper, paid the $100 fine. Don't
}>}>forget that Scopes was a schoolteacher.
}>}
}>}Yeah, but the town fathers solicited him to be the defendant, so
}>}they should have paid the find.
}>
}>Dishonest politicians and businessmen? Who'd ever believe it? Anyway,
}>since the conviction was overturned on a technicality, I would guess that
}>the fine was refunded.
}>
}They weren't dishonest. They were pretty up front about it being
}a PR ploy.
My question was in reference to their not having paid Scopes' fine.
That being a day when $100 was a lot of money, I suspect the town
fathers were quite grateful to have the Sun pay it.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Scopes 2: Arkansas' Creationism Trial |
06 Jul 2005 08:02:53 AM |
|
|
See my remarks on Deep Impact collision. America is a litigious society.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Commentary: Scopes 2: Arkansas' Creationism Trial |
06 Jul 2005 11:53:04 PM |
|
|
On 6 Jul 2005 06:02:53 -0700, wrote:
See my remarks on Deep Impact collision. America is a litigious society.
That's partly because in America litigation can get results.
That's not true in many countries.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
