Go read the complete transcript of the trial then watch the movie.
do some Studying Here good starting point
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness2.html
And if you want to really wake up then watch this ENTIRE series and don't whine about how long it is. Watch all 8 parts he goes through everything from the big bang to carbon dating.
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
Kent Hovind is as scientifically illiterate as they come, he describes the formation of a star when attempting to refute the big bang, and he thinks radiocarbon dating is wrong because it can't date dinosaur fossils, with no carbon in them.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.
I take serious offense at this callous and thouthless remark!
I am a religious person who holds a Ph D. I have been known to have reasoned, rational discussions with people about matters of faith.
Not all religious people hold to strict, literal Bibical interpretation. Many passages are symbolic and are meant to teach religious lessons, but are not exact truth.
Was there really a Prodigal Son? It does not matter. The point of the story is that if we are repentant, we can be frogiven. Here, the Father symbolizes God and the son is a symbol of Israel, which has abandoned God's law. Jesus is saying that God is ready to take them back. Whether this stroy actually happened is secondary to the lesson it teaches.
My good buddy gerald-flynn has a terrific post on this under the "religious people are funny" thread. Read it, please. I could not have said it better myself.
take serious offense at this callous and thouthless remark!
So you've watched a movie about why free speech and free ideas are important, and then you say that religion should be abolished? Hypocrite! "Inherit the Wind" doesn't just talk about evolution vs. creationism - it is much more fundamental than that, addressing First Amendment issues. I'll practice whatever religion I like, and I won't have the government regulate what I believe in - after all, I'd rather not live in a country like the former USSR.
shareI was thinking how amazing it is that different religions vary so much on how literally they take genesis. For example I was reading about Judaism, the first of the Abrahamic religions and whether or not they adopt a literal view. One person summed it up by saying "Most don't - even Maimonides said that the creation story was allegorical. There are some ultra-orthodox who do." Another gave a lengthy answer to the questioner. In it they offer a response from a Nobel Prize winning Rabbi, Issac Rabi who was asked about his success.
[...]every day when he came home from school his mother would ask him, "Did you ask any good questions today?" What he imbibed was that we ultimately gain more from questions than answers. Answers bring a subject to a close; questions open us up to ever more profound and deeper understanding. [...] From youth we explore the Torah, Talmud and commentaries with inquisitive minds encouraged to ask even when no clear response is in sight. To do otherwise would be to imply that our faith cannot withstand scrutiny, that our commitment to God is so tenuous that it is afraid of critical analysis.Recently I have been trying to educate myself about Hiduism. It's a vast and complex religion and not one I will fully grasp anytime soon. Making matters worse the miscomprehension about it is also vast (sometimes offered up by "scholars"). But as with Judaism, curiosity, philosophy, questioning, discovery and the ensuing expansion that results are key to human spirituality. They too accepted that other people could have also found a path to God love, kindness, the light, the source etc... enlightenment. In fact it's been said that sometimes when people who were on other spiritual paths, wanted to embrace Hinduism, they were actually discouraged as Hindus felt they might do better to stay on the path they were on. Not bc Hindus didn't believe they had a deeper, richer understanding but bc they felt changing course might dilute what knowledge the other person had and stunt their progress.
In Judaism, we are taught to think, to ask questions, and to be skeptical; we are encouraged not to accept things on faith, but to look for proof. ...
Hello, isn't this a bit off topic for the movie? The version I saw was about whether someone should be thrown in jail and/or be considered unfit to teach because he teaches evolution. Creationism is not on trial in this movie.
share[deleted]
hmm heres where you are wrong.
the movie is based on a play based on a trial.
the story is separated 2 times from the real thing.
the end.
As opposed to the New Testament, which is based on a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation . . . of a translation that is based on a story told by a guy who heard it from some other guys who said they was there.
shareWell gee, I guess all history is thrown into question then! My goodness, did I ever eat eggs for breakfast tomorrow? Well, this other guy says I did, but this other guy says I ate waffles! Which to believe?!
There is no "translation of a translation of a translation." Only a conspiracy theorist believes that even so many translations can change a story to the point where it's incomprehensible.
Er - this film is on in a minute here in the U.K. so i thought i would check it out on IMDB first - and all i find is the mental ravings of loony people ! Get a grip all of you , surely everyone in the 21st Century understands that organized religion is total *beep* designed for social control of the uneducated masses ! Do we not get an education now (ok in the U.S. it's awful but you're literate right?)Therefore books like the Bible & the Koran are infact propaganda of the highest order - not 'The Origin of Species' (Charles Darwin by the way)
That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . . .
I concurr with richimorton - I watched it in the UK last night - enjoyed it a lot - then come on imdb and find equivalents of the main characters in the film still playing it out now in the forum - how depressing.
Great flm though and I thught the ending with Tracy and Kelly aftermath conversation quite powerful showing that even pure rationality is a dead end too.
So you both saw this movie and did *not* see a lunacy of bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance?
On the part of the movie, that is. If you can look at this movie and say it's "great" for its message, I'd say you're just as pedantic and ignorant as the people this movie shows.
Pretty much the entire movie is a falsification of what actually happened, and is only used as a compeletely one-sided argument against religious people while glorifying all Enlightened intellectuals. To take a little town and turn it into a backwards caveman community full of monsters is revisionist and utterly dishonest, both to the spirit of debate and the truth that can come of it.
The conversation at the end of the trial didn't really say anything. It was just a half-hearted attempt at showing a modicum of fairness. I didn't really see anything in this movie except what the director wanted us to see.
Your not really making any sense mate.......... I personally loved the bit where the religious nut says that the Bible was written by men but channeling the word of God - and then has to concede that that could also be said of Charles Darwin & his books ! Game set & match i think .
That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . . .
"There is no "translation of a translation of a translation." Only a conspiracy theorist believes that even so many translations can change a story to the point where it's incomprehensible."
He didn't say it was incomprehensible. He was outlining how slim the chances are that the Bible was anything near historically accurate. The proof of this lies in the fact that the New Testament was not even begun until 30+ years after the death of Jesus, and none of the people that wrote it ever met the man.
Also, the 4 gospels differ in many ways, and in some cases contradict each other. If there is a 'conspiracy', then it was by the the authors of the Bible, who conspired to make a book that is so illogical a 12 year old could see the inconsistencies.
Only a conspiracy theorist believes that even so many translations can change a story to the point where it's incomprehensible.A conspiracy theorist, or anyone who ever played a game of "telephone" when they were 10 years old. Or gossiped when they were 16.
Having just watched the movie on UK TV I can concur that it is not true to the actual events – how many films really are and this is a common method of employing creative writing to lift and propel a story.
Don't confuse this piece of entertainment with the real issue that people are still tenuously hanging on to old beliefs even in the face of insurmountable scientific evidence to the contrary.
That there is no point in arguing with foolish people whose evidence is completely false and really the worst example of non-witness hearsay.
Why is it that these foolish people always type in CAPITALS as though their "god" has commanded? – "watch this ENTIRE series..."
Why is it that their message is confused and grammatically challenging? – "do some Studying Here good starting point".
I think it's clear really!
The only "real issue" is that more and more people are just fine with twisting the truth to fit their agendas. As long as it gives a specific message (in this case, 'Christians are stoopid') then the truth is out the window.
If I made a movie showing the Holocaust as a wonderful thing that everyone should embrace, would that fit "creative writing" and "propelling a story?" Or is that certain occasion a sacred cow that should, for some random reason, be protected from revisionism, unlike the silly religious people?
What's the point of arguing about "false beliefs" when we twist our own beliefs like that?
As long as it gives a specific message (in this case, 'Christians are stoopid') then the truth is out the window.
[deleted]
Yes. This is nothing like the true story of Bert Cates and how he was defended by Henry Drummond and prosecuted by M.H. Brady, and... What? Those are made-up names because the movie is a fictional story inspired by an actual event? OH!
shareNext you'll be telling me ET was loosely based on another space creature entirely! Where does the madness end!?!!?!?!
Religion is the highest form of douchebaggery. Although, in all fairness...there are myriad other forms.
Well... have fun living in 1984, guys. At least it sounds like you're happy.
shareLentr, what you're focusing on is the veracity of the film, not so much the defense of "them religious folk." I agree with you that this movie doesn't portray the trial accurately, and that many people are convinced that it is. However, in your comments about the film, you come off in support of those that are religious, whom this topic-starter is. The problem is that your responders are attacking you, seeing you as a proponent of the religious. I don't know if that was your intention, but at no point did I ever read you attacking the scientists and defending the religious; only the film was your real topic. I enjoyed the film, but purely from an entertainment perspective. I know that it is fiction, and while parts of it may be true, I will not draw absolute judgements on the trial itself simply from having seen the film.
shareWell at least *someone* has some common sense around here.
I was never supporting the original poster, I was indeed attacking the falsifications this film is creating, making its point by twisting real peoples' lives. The people who attacked my comments are living out a form of douchebaggery themselves by saying that it's okay to twist the truth as long as it attacks the people they want it to. A movie should not be "based" off historical events unless it aims to accurately re-create those events. There's no entertainment in creating a lie so some director can say what he wants when a perfectly fabricated story would suffice. One reason I don't like movies like Braveheart and Kingdom of Heaven except for the fight scenes.
I wasn't trying to say anything about religion or evolution at all, just talking about the movie and how ultimately silly it is.
What's an example of a historically based movie that does not change the facts for dramatic purposes, or that is not "silly" ?
Try to list at least 3 or 4. I doubt anyone can do that.
And I'll be waiting with google to check your facts.
Uh, there AREN'T a lot of examples of a movie that doesn't change the facts for drama. You kind of just re-stated my point. I *did* just say I don't like a lot of historical dramas save for the bits I find entertaining, after all.
Your point is?
Give to Causes For Free: http://theanimalrescuesite.com
Let me see if I understand this......you can't even put together three complete sentences with anything even close to proper grammar and punctuation, yet you feel compelled to tell others to do some studying?
shareI love how the TC linked to Kent Hovind, who at this moment, is serving prison time for tax fraud. So much for Christian values.
shareThe biogtry of the left, or the "Politically Correct" is equally hypocritical as the bigotry of the right.
On display here is an astonishing amount of bigotry from the PC. This film has NOTHING, repeat NOTHING to do with the reality of the events of the Scopes trial as the OP was trying to say. It seems that most who post here have seen the film and just assumed it was an accurate portrayal of the events. (Did you know that Scopes was the football coach? He knew nothing of Evolution?)
The film is bloated, heavy-handed, and very bigoted to the left; it is veritably a work of fiction, and as such fails miserably as the religious folks are depicted so astonishingly poorly that one feels no sympathy for them whatsoever, destroying any real drama in the film. Yikes.
An excellent source for understanding the trial is the transcript. Since most of you I'm sure are too lazy to do that, you can go here:
http://www.themonkeytrial.com/
You mean to say that you felt no sympathy whatsoever for Brady? I certainly did. I feel that they created a dynamic that they set out to create with Drummond as the hero and Brady as the villain turned sympathetic figure. While no part of me feels an affinity with the Christian religion every time I see Brady slump to the floor I get a heavy feeling in the pit of my stomach, and if I were more emotionally inclined I am sure the waterworks would start. How is that not a successful depiction of a character?
I felt that there was intense drama and its merits as a film are numerous, hence why it is still receives such acclaim half a century after it was made.
While I agree it is clearly a film created for, and by the left you are forgetting its context. This film was made at the end of the 1950's, a time when the left was just establishing itself as a viable force. They were fighting against numerous other forms of bigotry- racism, sexism, conservatism etc. I would not call it propaganda, but this film certainly was a chance for the left to speak to their own.
As for the fact that Scopes was a football coach... is that really relevant? The teacher's knowledge of evolution was not put on trial, his right to teach it was. If you forget what the trial was about what Drummond (And I mean Drummond, because we are talking about the movie) was arguing for the right to individual thought. The right to make up ones own mind. Apply that to any situation, any area of contention and it becomes an admirable endevour.
The nuanced nature of the characters in this film far surpass any of the movies of this era. "Political Correctness" or "PC" is not what is driving this film, despite your claims. In fact this film predates said movement, so that would be impossible. The screenwriters clearly felt that they were telling an important story. That's right, a fictionalized account of a story.
'Cause we all end up in a tiny pine box, A mighty small drop in a mighty dark plot.
On display here is an astonishing amount of bigotry from the PC. This film has NOTHING, repeat NOTHING to do with the reality of the events of the Scopes trial [....] The film is bloated, heavy-handed, and very bigoted to the left; it is veritably a work of fiction [....]Except that Tennessee did in fact have a law in place at the time that forbade the teaching of evolution. And Scopes was in fact tried and convicted of violating that law.
Move along. Nothing to see here.share
Seems you haven't understood the film. Its purpose was not to give a historically accurate account, it only used the original story as a backgound.
« Et moi, je lui ferai porter la sienne comme Saint Denis »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no "translation of a translation of a translation." Only a conspiracy theorist believes that even so many translations can change a story to the point where it's incomprehensible."
He didn't say it was incomprehensible. He was outlining how slim the chances are that the Bible was anything near historically accurate. The proof of this lies in the fact that the New Testament was not even begun until 30+ years after the death of Jesus, and none of the people that wrote it ever met the man.
Also, the 4 gospels differ in many ways, and in some cases contradict each other. If there is a 'conspiracy', then it was by the the authors of the Bible, who conspired to make a book that is so illogical a 12 year old could see the inconsistencies.
=====
Wow you need to get some facts straight here.
The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John in the NT are all written by four of the original Twelve Disciples of Jesus Christ who were with Him during His three years of teaching.
And all the books that follow are written by them or others who encountered Christ.
And there is no contradiction in the four Gospels.
And if you wish to try to "point" them out I will be glad to show you the error of your thinking. And of course they differ they were written by 4 different men with 4 different personal backgrounds and the told of their experience s with Christ as they saw it.
Just like you would tell someone your interpetation of how a ballgame or a road trip went and your friend sitting next to you would tell a different story cause he would have been paying attention to different things than you.
Or is this too logical for you to understand?
[deleted]
"The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John in the NT are all written by four of the original Twelve Disciples of Jesus Christ who were with Him during His three years of teaching."
Woah, you had better check again. I could have sworn the 12 apostles were called Simon (Peter), Andrew, John, James, James, Bartholomew, Judas Iscariot, Thomas, Matthew the Levi, Simon the Zealot, Philip, and Jude (Thaddaeus).
Not a Luke or Mark among them, I'm afraid. Many scholars believe the apostle Matthew was martyred. The only one that there is a possibility wrote a gospel was John, and even then we have no evidence it was the same fellow.
Bigoted to the left?
The film gave Brady and his loons more sympathy than they deserve. And even today these people are the living embodiment of everything that is destroying America -- ignorance, fear, hate, intolerance, and a rejection of facts and logic.
[deleted]