# Return of the Scopes Monkey Trial **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 5, 2004, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174 "2004-11-05T13:39:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/1 "2004-11-05T13:39:38Z")
In [this article](http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1099528822690), it explains that a Georgia school is challenging the validity of evolution. > [@](#): > > In the case that goes to a bench trial in U.S. District Court in Atlanta on Monday before Judge Clarence Cooper, a small sticker placed in 10th-grade biology textbooks has again forced a courtroom collision between science and religion. Selman v. Cobb County School District, No. 1:02CV2325 (N.D. Ga. filed Aug. 21, 2002). > > The sticker states: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” When I was growing up in Colorado, the church taught religion (creationism) and the schools taught science (evolution). I was pondering this one day back in junior high school and it occurred to me that there is no reason whatsoever for the two to be mutually exclusive. If God can create man by breathing into a pile of dust, then he can certainly create man by designing an evolutionary process, right? Why do creationists have such a problem with evolution? (As a side note, most of the debates I’ve heard about it refer specifically to the origins of _man_. I didn’t realize anyone could dispute the existence of evolution in the rest of the plant and animal world anymore. Isn’t the evidence that species evolve overwhelming? We’ve not only seen it, we’ve _controlled_ it with domesticated creatures and a massive array of plants.) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/2 "2004-11-05T14:10:43Z")
Evolution is a fact **and** a theory. The **fact** of evolution is that species die out and other species _which weren’t there before_ take their place, over _millions_ of years. This is a **fact** , demonstrated by the fossil record. The **theory** of evolution is that different groups from the same species become isolated, thus developing different characteristics rather like two isolated groups of Latin-speakers developing different languages. Just as those Latin-speakers could eventually not _understand_ each other, the two biological groups could eventually not _breed_, thus becoming new species. This _theory_ **explains** the fossil _fact_. We should keep an open mind by all means, but evolution is a **fact**. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/3 "2004-11-05T14:12:39Z")
> [@](#): > > When I was growing up in Colorado, the church taught religion (creationism) and the schools taught science (evolution). I was pondering this one day back in junior high school and it occurred to me that there is no reason whatsoever for the two to be mutually exclusive. IMO, a state school forcing the teaching of religious doctrine is tantamount to establishing a state religion, and therefore a violation of the First Ammendment. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/4 "2004-11-05T16:44:48Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > I didn’t realize anyone could dispute the existence of evolution in the rest of the plant and animal world anymore. Isn’t the evidence that species evolve overwhelming? It is yet they do. Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/5 "2004-11-05T17:16:56Z")
> [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > IMO, a state school forcing the teaching of religious doctrine is tantamount to establishing a state religion, and therefore a violation of the First Ammendment. The particular part of my post that you quoted said nothing about state schools teaching religious doctrine. It said that my school (yes, it was a public school) taught us evolution (science) and our _church_ taught the creationist religious doctrine. The reason that lawsuit described in the linked article isn’t as straightforward is that they’re _not_ specifically teaching creationism. Instead, they’re branding evolution as a questionable theory, thus encouraging students to ask questions that could lead to discussion of creationism, even though they aren’t explicitly mentioning it. Personally, I don’t have a problem with mentioning creationist beliefs in school. Explain that virtually all cultures and religions have their own creation stories, and discuss Adam and Eve along with some of the others. Explain that it’s the most prevalent in the U.S., and that, unless taken literally, it in no way conflicts with the scientific facts (and yes, theories, too) behind genetics, mutation, survival of the fittest, and evolution of mankind. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/6 "2004-11-05T17:28:18Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > The reason that lawsuit described in the linked article isn’t as straightforward is that they’re _not_ specifically teaching creationism. Instead, they’re branding evolution as a questionable theory, thus encouraging students to ask questions that could lead to discussion of creationism, even though they aren’t explicitly mentioning it. Except that no other theory or fact mentioned in a science textbook merits a sticker. The religious motivation of this is pretty clear, and often comes up in the legislative debate. > [@](#): > > Personally, I don’t have a problem with mentioning creationist beliefs in school. Explain that virtually all cultures and religions have their own creation stories, and discuss Adam and Eve along with some of the others. If you mention creationism in a discussion of religions in a history class, fine. If you mention it while discussing the history of evolution as something most people used to believe in, like phlogiston, fine also. But then you have to talk about how creationism was falsified. Talking about it as if science consideres it a viable candidate for explaining the development of life and humans is not fine. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/7 "2004-11-05T17:33:10Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > If God can create man by breathing into a pile of dust, then he can certainly create man by designing an evolutionary process, right? Why do creationists have such a problem with evolution? Because Genesis does not describe an evolutionary process. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/8 "2004-11-05T17:37:35Z")
I’d be fine with that sticker if they added a few words. " **Much like the Bible,** evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. " ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/9 "2004-11-05T17:49:55Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’d be fine with that sticker if they added a few words. " **Much like the Bible,** evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. " Evolution is a fact that has nothing to do with the origin of living things. The bible isn’t a theory or a fact. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/10 "2004-11-05T17:54:41Z")
I wonder if their physics textbooks have similar warnings about the theories of gravity and relativity. ---
**Author:** ![Papermache\_Prince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f05b48/32.png) [@Papermache\_Prince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Papermache_Prince)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/11 "2004-11-05T18:00:59Z")
Using my amazing psychic powers, I’ll hazard a guess that what **Ravenman** is cleverly suggesting is that the people calling for the sticker would object _strongly_ to any sticker suggesting that the Bible is not a fact. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/12 "2004-11-05T18:18:11Z")
> [@](#): > > The sticker states: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” Good. Then the teachers can start the course by explaining to the kids what the difference is between a theory and a wild-ass guess. Clearly the people pushing for this sticker have no idea about that. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/13 "2004-11-05T18:59:09Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Why do creationists have such a problem with evolution? We don’t, or at least I don’t anymore. I used to think that the people pushing evolution were trying to tell me that God had nothing to do with creating life. I now realized that’s not (always) the case. It took me coming here to realize that (yay for the squashing of ignorance!). When I took Biology 101 a few years ago, my professor handled this in exactly the way I think it should be handled. He said there are three theories as to how life began: [ol] [li]Supernatural[/li][li]Extraterrestrial[/li][li]Evolution[/li][/ol] Since science does not deal in the supernatural, he said we weren’t going to talk about it. If our origins are extraterrestrial (we were planted here by aliens, or our ancestors came from another planet), all that does is push our beginning back further, so we’re not going to talk about that either. That just leaves evolution. I’m not asking for biology teachers to get very deeply into the religious side of things, but I think it’s worth mentioning since it clearly explains that the teacher is not trying to convert people into godless heathens or disprove God in any way. I’m sure that if one of the students started pushing the issue, he would have responded similarly to Dr. Indiana Jones. > [@Indiana Jones](#): > > [Biology] is the search for Fact, not Truth. If it’s Truth you’re interested in, the philosophy class is right down the hall. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/14 "2004-11-05T19:30:44Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Except that no other theory or fact mentioned in a science textbook merits a sticker. The religious motivation of this is pretty clear, and often comes up in the legislative debate. Oh, I quite agree with you, **Voyager**. I wasn’t agreeing with the stickers, I was just pointing out why this is fuzzy enough to make it to a U.S. District Court, rather than being thrown out at first base. > [@Voyager](#): > > If you mention creationism in a discussion of religions in a history class, fine. If you mention it while discussing the history of evolution as something most people used to believe in, like phlogiston, fine also. But then you have to talk about how creationism was falsified. Talking about it as if science consideres it a viable candidate for explaining the development of life and humans is not fine. You can’t lump creationism in with phlogiston theory for two reasons. Firstly, I don’t think anybody anywhere still believes in phlogistons, while many millions of people believe in literal creationism. Secondly, there was scientific method involved in coming up with the phlogiston theory. Crude, yes. Flawed, yes. But still scientific method. Creationism never claimed to be science-based. It has always been faith-based. If I was teaching an earth science class, I would most likely discuss all of the evidence that the earth is round, and then point out that there are still people (e.g., the [Flat Earth Society](http://www.flat-earth.org/)) who believe it to be flat. I see no reason to treat evolution differently. Were I teaching the subject, I’d explain all of the evidence that species evolve, and then point out that there are people (e.g., fundamentalist Christians) who believe otherwise. That would take up half an hour out of a full-semester course, and it would give the students some extra information about the world around them. That’s a good thing, right? If they asked for details about creationism, I’d direct them to their local clergy or to a comparative religion course. I don’t think public schools should _teach_ creationism, but what’s the problem with _mentioning_ it in the appropriate context (especially if it’s done inclusively, covering a wide variety of religions)? > [@tdn](#): > > Then the teachers can start the course by explaining to the kids what the difference is between a theory and a wild-ass guess. Shouldn’t _every_ science class start out that way? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/15 "2004-11-05T19:34:46Z")
> [@Papermache Prince](#): > > Using my amazing psychic powers, I’ll hazard a guess that what **Ravenman** is cleverly suggesting is that the people calling for the sticker would object _strongly_ to any sticker suggesting that the Bible is not a fact. Wow! That’s the most astounding cold reading I’ve ever seen! One hundred percent on the mark. You clearly have the Spirit working within you, and you should really look in to getting your own TV show. ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/16 "2004-11-05T19:49:41Z")
> [@Papermache Prince](#): > > Using my amazing psychic powers, I’ll hazard a guess that what **Ravenman** is cleverly suggesting is that the people calling for the sticker would object _strongly_ to any sticker suggesting that the Bible is not a fact. They may well argee to it, since it would appear to give equal weight to the bible and evolution as theories. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/17 "2004-11-05T20:01:34Z")
> [@yoyodyne](#): > > They may well argee to it, since it would appear to give equal weight to the bible and evolution as theories. Trust me, **yoyodyne** , the people who are putting these stickers on the books do not want the Bible and evolution to have _equal_ weight. As **Ravenman** intimated, they want the Bible to be promoted as 100% literally true and evolution to be promoted as an unproven theory. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2004, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/18 "2004-11-05T21:18:41Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > I don’t think public schools should _teach_ creationism, but what’s the problem with _mentioning_ it in the appropriate context (especially if it’s done inclusively, covering a wide variety of religions)? Exactly! ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/19 "2004-11-07T18:20:15Z")
Just to clarify: evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the origin of **species** , _not_ the origin of life. The origin of _life_ is explained by abiogenesis, whereby amino acids and complex organic molecules in comets are deposited on planets upon collision, forming spherical proteinoid structures in which further chemical reactions occur, eventually yielding RNA and the self-replicating molecule DNA. ---
**Author:** ![TLC1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@TLC1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TLC1)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174/20 "2004-11-08T12:58:10Z")
> [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > IMO, a state school forcing the teaching of religious doctrine is tantamount to establishing a state religion, and therefore a violation of the First Ammendment. I agree completely. The teaching of “Creationism”( if they must ), IMO, would be more appropriate in a philosophy or history class. This environment is more attuned to emotion and differences of opinion. To give equal status between Creationism and Evolution in the class room, is tantamount to forcing a “Flat World” concept to equal status in a Geography class. Evolution is a fact beyond any doubt. Why it is still an issue for debate is well beyond my comprehension. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/return-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/273174.md?page=2)