X-Nilo Files 1(2), November 1998

What can the Scopes trial teach us?

Q. What lessons can Christians learn from the famous 1925 court case called the Scopes trial?

A. Well, there are two very important things to learn.

First, Clarence Darrow, the ACLU lawyer who defended the teacher who taught evolution, paraded before the public and media a number of famous scientists of the day who gave supposed scientific proof of evolution. But do you know what we’ve learned since then? The so-called proof they offered has been refuted by evolutionists themselves. So first, we should learn that evolution is not science.

Secondly, the prosecutor, William Jennings Bryan, allowed himself to be cross-examined by Darrow, who asked him questions about Cain’s wife, Noah’s Flood, and the age of the Earth, and Bryan couldn’t give answers. So the public thought there was no real defense of the Christian faith. So, the second lesson for us to learn from the Scopes trial is the importance of knowing how to defend the Bible.

The Bible tells us that we should always be ready to give answers when questioned about our faith. There are simple answers found in Genesis to these questions.

Quotes

'It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them.'
— Arthur C. Clarke, author of 2001: A Space Odyssey

'A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.'
— G. Goebbels, Propaganda officer for Adolf Hitler

Evolution is a FACT! NOT!!

Evolutionists, particularly in the universities are declaring louder and louder 'Evolution is a fact!' Many of the text-books used in public schools teach 'Evolution is a fact!'

From Webster’s Dictionary: fact (fakt), n.

1. a thing known to be true, thing known to have happened.

2. what is true, what has happened...

Since no human observer was present at Creation or during the evolutionary process, the only evidence we have is circumstantial, therefore neither Creation nor evolution can ever be facts. Each is accepted by FAITH based on the biases of the observer.

Science’s best knowledge is expressed in laws like gravity (which can be proven in the present and which have NO known exceptions). Scientific theories are specific statements that can be tested and demonstrated to be true and demonstrated not to be false. At best, evolution and Creation are models of the past that help us understand where we came from. Neither should be called scientific. Each of these models has implications in how students view their self identity.

Creation states that you are created in God’s image, but are marred by rebellion against Him. The whole Creation suffers from this rebellion. The Creation’s redemption was secured by Christ but will only be complete when He returns to receive those that belong to Him and He completely reconstructs everything.

Evolution states we came from slime and are going to become dirt. There is no meaning in the Universe, and the death, struggle, and suffering of all living things is just how it is. As an evolutionist said to me: 'Just learn to live with it.'

I will put my trust in Christ and not accept the meaninglessness of evolution. I hope you don’t either.

— Charlie Liebert, www.sixdaycreation.com/may.html

Inherit the Wind: Fact or Fiction!

Excerpt from 'Inherit the Wind: An Historical Analysis'

by Dr David Menton

First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo 19(1):35-38,
December 1996-February 1997

Rarely does a year go by that the play and film Inherit the Wind is not produced by a local school, or shown on television somewhere. Inherit the Wind is not a documentary, but is perceived by many viewers to be a documentary-drama of the famous Scopes 'monkey' trial.

The trial pitted William Jennings Bryan against Clarence Darrow in a classic battle over the teaching of evolution and Creation in public schools. Theatrical liberties were used extensively in developing the plot, but occasional courtroom exchanges were taken word-for-word from the transcript of the trial. The play is not an accurate representation of the great battle of ideas and beliefs that was waged at the Rhea County Court House in Dayton, Tennessee.

Curiously, Inherit the Wind (unlike some other docu-dramas) does not use the actual names of the participants or the places it portrays. Some characters, like the Reverend Jeremiah Brown and his persecuted daughter, Rachel, are fictitious. The rest of the principal characters of the play represent well-known participants in the Scopes trial. The character Matthew Harrison Brady represents William Jennings Bryan; Henry Drummond represents Clarence Darrow; Bert Cates represents John Scopes; and E.K. Hornbeck represents H.L. Mencken.

The Facts and the Play

THE PLAY: Great effort is made to solicit sympathy for John Scopes, the persecuted teacher cast into jail for teaching evolution, and who risks losing his job and his girlfriend. We are repeatedly reminded that 'fine and imprisonment' are possible consequences of his crime.

THE FACTS: Scopes was never jailed, nor was he in danger of imprisonment. The maximum penalty for violating the Butler Act, which forbade the teaching of evolution in Tennessee, was a $500 fine. Scopes was not a biology teacher; he filled in as a substitute for two weeks near the end of the school year for the biology teacher, who was ill. Scopes’ involvement in the trial was a willful decision on his part. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was seeking a teacher willing to stand trial, with all expenses paid, to challenge the Butler Act.

Scopes willingly joined ranks with the ACLU in an attempt to repeal or nullify the Butler Act.

THE PLAY:Throughout the play, William Jennings Bryan is portrayed as closed-minded, pompous, stupid, intolerant, hypocritical, insincere, and gluttonous.

THE FACTS: Bryan is reported to have read Darwin’s On the Origin of Species 20 years before the Scopes trial! Bryan’s reservations about the theory of evolution were certainly influenced by his religious beliefs, but he had written many well-argued articles critical of the evidence used to defend the theory of evolution.

To support his case about the harmful effects of evolutionary philosophy, Bryan used some of Darrow’s own arguments against him. The year before the Scopes trial, Darrow had saved two young murderers from the death sentence. He claimed this terrible crime was inherent in his organism, and it came from some ancestor. He also claimed:

Is any blame attached because somebody took Nietsche’s [evolutionary] philosophy seriously and fashioned his life upon it? ... it is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university.

As a speaker, Bryan radiated good humored sincerity. Few who heard him could help liking him. … In personality he was forceful, energetic, and opinionated but genial, kindly, generous, likeable and charming. … He showed a praise-worthy tolerance towards those who disagreed with him. … Bryan was the greatest American orator of his time and perhaps any time.¹

THE PLAY: The conservative Christians of Dayton, Tennessee, are portrayed as ignorant, closed-minded, and discourteous.

THE FACTS: The following is an excerpt from H.L. Mencken’s first dispatch sent to his newspaper: 'Nor is there any evidence of that poisonous spirit which usually shows itself when Christian men gather to defend the great doctrine of their faith. … On the contrary, the Evolutionists and the Anti-Evolutionists seem to be on the best of terms, and it is hard in a group to distinguish one from the other.'²

THE PLAY: Scope’s financé 'Rachel Brown' is called as a witness and is badly mistreated by Bryan. Bryan, always the fanatic, loses his self-control and becomes cruel and merciless in his questioning of the frightened young lady. Darrow, on the other hand, magnanimously agrees not to cross-examine Rachel lest she be further discomforted after Bryan’s abuse.

THE FACTS: No women participated in the trial. Scopes did not have a special girlfriend or fiancé at this time. Bryan was courteous at all times in his handling of witnesses, as the trial transcript reveals. Darrow, on the other hand, was at times condescending and contemptuous in his treatment of witnesses, jurists, opposing lawyers and even the judge. Darrow was, in fact, cited for contempt of court for repeatedly interrupting and insulting Judge Raulston.

THE PLAY: Darrow questions Bryan on the topic of sex.

THE FACTS: Bryan never went into a frenzy, nor did he recite the books of the Bible. This was just another attempt to depict Bryan as a raving religious lunatic.

THE PLAY: The 'prisoner,' John Scopes, is found guilty and Darrow is visibly shaken by this great injustice against his client. Bryan, on the other hand, is vindictive and complains about the paltry $100 fine levelled against John Scopes for a crime of such magnitude: 'Your Honor, the prosecution takes exception! Where the issues are so titanic, the court must mete out more drastic punishment.'

THE FACTS: Violation of the Butler Act was punishable by a fine of no less that $100 and no greater than $500; imprisonment was not a provision of the law. Bryan was not the least concerned about the fine, nor was anyone else. Indeed, Bryan had offered to pay Scopes’ fine. All of Scopes’ expenses relating to the trial were covered by vested interests, as was the tuition for his graduate education after the trial.

THE PLAY: The play builds to a noisy and chaotic climax as Bryan loses all sense of dignity and reason and goes into an incoherent tirade to read his concluding statement. The crowd is bored and walks out. Finally, overcome by religious zeal, Bryan continues with his closing remarks, and collapses on the courtroom floor. Minutes later, his death is announced.

THE FACTS: Neither Bryan nor Darrow attempted to give the customary closing argument to the jury. Once Darrow accomplished his purpose of ridiculing Bryan’s beliefs in Biblical miracles, he asked the judge to instruct the jury to find Scopes guilty, and in so doing, eliminated the need for closing arguments. This maneuvre by Darrow prevented Bryan from giving his well-supported scientific and religious argument against the theory of evolution. Bryan was anxious that the text of his speech be made available to the public, and made provision for its publication only one hour before his death. He died in his sleep at the age of 65 (not in a frenzy) five days after the trial.

References

¹ The Great Monkey Trial, Sprague de Camp, pp. 36-37.

² The Great Monkey Trial, Sprague de Camp, p. 147.

Little Green Men – Are they out there?

Q. Are evolutionists really serious when they tell us they’re searching outer space for extra-terrestrial life?

A. Evolutionary scientists are so convinced that evolution is true, they believe there must be millions of civilizations in outer space, and they’re spending millions of dollars looking for them.

Evolutionists around the world are listening to outer space for any radio signals coming from this supposed intelligent life. What they’re listening for, they tell us, are 'ordered sequences.' If they heard 'pulse, pulse, pulse,' they would get all excited because they’d think there’d be intelligence out there.

The thing that blows my mind is that if scientists turned their telescopes into microscopes, and looked at our genes, our DNA, and all the information that builds human beings, there they would find the most complex ordered sequence in the entire universe! And yet, evolutionary scientists look at all this and say chance; but if they hear some ordered pulses from outer space, they get excited and say, 'WOW! There’s intelligence out there!'

Is there intelligent life other than human beings? The answer’s in Genesis. Yes there is—but it’s the infinite intelligence: The Creator God of the Bible.

— Excerpt from the Answers…with Ken Ham radio broadcast December 4, 1995

Did you know?

Did you know that a sidewalk which abuts a public school – and is open to public traffic – is a public forum? Witnessing and Bible/tract (e.g., creation tracts) distribution may not be prevented in such areas (subject to limited controls in the interest of public safety and order).

Did you know that 'release time' (i.e., when students are excused to go off campus for other learning experiences) is one of the most under-used, constitutionally permitted tools for churches and religious parents to influence public schools for good?

Did you know that public schools may teach about religion, including material about the Bible and other religious matters, including the history of religion, comparative religion, Biblical literature, and the role of religion in American history and in the history of other countries?

Did you know that school libraries can’t discriminate against Creation/Christian books on the basis of ideology?

Science in the News

We’ve all heard the claim, much adapted from the original, but essentially the same: the human embryo traces its evolutionary descent during development. Is the lie any more truthful now than it was then?

The Infamous 'Fish Stage' in Human Embryos

Excerpt from Ernst Haeckel.

First published in:
Creation 18(2):33-36,
March-May 1996.

Of all Haeckel’s dubious activities, that for which he is most famous, or perhaps most infamous, is his promulgation of the totally erroneous theory that the human embryo is initially identical with that of other mammals and then goes through a series of stages where it has gills like a fish,¹ a tail like a monkey, etc. Sometimes called 'the law of recapitulation' or Haeckel’s term 'the biogenetic law,' this idea has been summarized in the mouthful, 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,' which means the development of the individual embryo repeats its alleged evolutionary history.

The first thing to say about this dictum is that 'law' it is not! The idea is now known to be completely false. It is therefore not surprising that Haeckel could not find sufficient anatomical evidence to make his theory convincing. Never one to let lack of evidence stand in his way, Haeckel manufactured the 'evidence' by fraudulently changing the drawings of embryos by two other scientists.

In his book Natürliche Schöpfungs-geschichte (The Natural History of Creation), published in German in 1868 (and in English in 1876 with the title, The History of Creation), Haeckel used the drawing of a 25-day-old dog embryo which had been published by T.L.W. Bischoff in 1845, and that of a 4-week-old human embryo published by A. Ecker in 1851–59.² Wilhelm His, Sr (1831–1904), a famous comparative embryologist of the day and professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig, uncovered the fraud.

Prof. His showed in 1874 that Haeckel had added 3.5 mm to the head of Bischoff’s dog embryo, taken 2 mm off the head of Ecker’s human embryo, doubled the length of the human posterior, and substantially altered the details of the human eye. He sarcastically pointed out that Haeckel taught in Jena, home of the then finest optical equipment available, and so had no excuse for inaccuracy. He concluded that anyone who engaged in such blatant fraud had forfeited all respect and that Haeckel had eliminated himself from the ranks of scientific research workers of any stature.^3,4

References

¹ In fact, the creases in the human embryo which Haeckel referred to as 'gill slits' have no connection with breathing, but develop into ear and jaw areas.
² Ref. 1, pp. 276, 469, 472, which reference T.L.W. Bischoff, Entwicklungsgeschichte des Hunde Eies, F. Vieweg, Braunschweig, Germany, 1845; and A. Ecker, Icones Physiologicae, L. Voss, Leipzig, 1851–59.
³ Adapted from ref. 1, pp. 276, 475, which references Wilhelm His, Unsere Körperform, C.W. Voegel, Leipzig, 1874.
⁴ It is noteworthy that the latest (15th) edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica, committed as it is to evolution, makes no mention of Haeckel’s many fabrications. The 1992 printing says merely, 'Haeckel tended to speculate,' 'his concepts of recapitulation were in error,' and he 'was often involved in controversy.' Ref.: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1992, Vol. 5, p. 610.