You Know what I don't know what to think any more?

Question

One of my favorite plays/movies is Inherit The Wind in which a man is put on trial for teaching evolution in an community that has found it unlawful to teach anything that goes against divine creation. Of course the prosecution has an absolute christian on their side and the defense has somewhat of an agnostic
on their side. But anyway the prosecution's front man dies in the end and the agnostic at the very end takes the bible and Darwin's origin of species and puts them together and walks out of the court room. Of course symbolizing that both could possibly coexist. So what I wanna know is it could it actually happen where evolution and creationism could coexist in the real world.

Ok I know the basis of inherit the wind i am a drama major but I think that the producers and director did what they did to make it artistic and make people think. And they never claimed that everything that happened in the movie happened in real life. They BASED it on some true events not the entire thing they were trying to stick with the art of it.

Please do not talk about the validity of the movie I am trying to talk about a philosophical question here please stick to the question, can evolution and creation coinside?

Answer 1

I think both "sides" are right in ways. I believe that God created the universe billions of years ago, and that evolution (not adaptation) occurred over those billions of years (to God one our days is as a thousand--it's our perception of time that muddies the waters). Still looking for real philosophical/linguistic research for lots of questions. The answers are not printed in "plain English" (hope you know what I mean) -- the Bible is meant to be studied and examined for a lifetime.

BTW Darwin was a somewhat religious man, and it pained him to print On The Origin of Species--it was just his observational research that led him to his theories on evolution.

Answer 2

God could of created evolution... let me explain
In the bible it talks about God creating the earth in 7 days, the heavens, the earth, the skies the sea the fish the birds the animals and humans. It may be possible that the 7 days could actually mean the millions of years it took for evolution to take place. If you know what I mean...
Its highly unlikely, but possible

Answer 3

I think God became more of and artist after creating the animals. He used the monkeys as a base to create man, worked through the cavemen era and look at us now! Then he started working on intelligence! LOL - Nancie

Answer 4

Evolution = Scientific Method = Logical

Creationism = Religion = Illogical

Answer 5

They already do and there is great debate between the two.

Inherit the Wind was a poor interpretation of what actually happened. Read some history about it.

Answer 6

No. Creation is a belief that some simply do not have. There is no science involved so these subjects should not be classed together.

Answer 7

We all came from God's creation. How He did it is just opinion. Just because we know some of the tools that God uses doesn't make it any less His creation.

Answer 8

Ask the Romans....competing 'beliefs' always leads to bloodshed. History is loaded with examples. So, while your question is endearing, the real world has no place for it.

Answer 9

I think they can, and I think you were smart to pick up on that symbolism in the movie.

Answer 10

No, they can't.
Plus, Inherit the Wind is a fake. Here's why. This is to my old high school teacher. He took it off the course.

The movie Inherit the Wind is based on the famous Scopes trial of 1925, which set up William Jennings Bryan against Clarence Darrow in a trial over the teaching of evolution and creation in the public schools. I found a few sources that point out that the movie does not follow the original trial. Even though some parts of the trial were taken word-for-word from the original trial transcript, most of the movie displays its characters in a melodramatic way.
I must first point out that the priest, Mr. Brown, and his daughter, Rachel, are completely fictional. There is no mention of them in the original trial. The presence of Rachel only makes the movie more dramatic by showing that she is in love with a man who has different views than she does.
Not only is the movie historically inaccurate, but also rather biased. The preacher, a dramatic character, is portraying Christianity as a whole in an uncomplimentary way. In turn, the people of the trial who do support the evolution are portrayed to be highly educated people who must suffer the abuse of fundamentalist Christians around them.
The movie begins with a long repeating chant of Old Time Religion as some undercover men intrude Scopes’ classroom and arrest him for teaching evolution, which was, back then, against the law in Tennessee. In the real case no one intruded Scopes’ classroom and he was not a biology teacher. He was a substitute teacher, filling in for Mr. Ferguson, the real teacher. He did not have a degree in science; in fact he had an undergraduate major in law from the University of Kentucky. Scopes was hired to teach math and coach the football team. He never insisted that he taught evolution in school. In Sprague de Camp's book, The Great Monkey Trial there is a recorded conversation between Scopes and reporter William K. Hutchinson which occurred during the last days of the trial. Scopes said: "There's something I must tell you. I didn't violate the law ...I never taught that evolution lesson. I skipped it. I missed the whole lesson about Darwin and never did teach it. Those kids they put on the stand couldn't remember what I taught them three months ago. They were coached by the lawyers.” (de Camp, page 432)
Throughout the film William Jennings Bryan is portrayed as closed-minded, intolerant, and hypocritical. As the trial progresses, Bryan becomes obsessed with prosecuting John Scopes and keeping evolution out of the schools. Even Bryan's wife gradually comes to realize that her husband is a religious zealot and seems to regret that she didn't get to know the agnostic Clarence Darrow a little better in their younger years. In real life through his lifetime Bryan fought for some of the most progressive legislation of his time, including the popular election of senators, an income tax, requirements for the publication of the circulation of newspapers, and the creation of the department of labor. He was a well-liked lawyer for his time.
The Christians in the movie are displayed to be threatening to the trial. In the original transcript of the trial, Darrow says: “I don't know as I was ever in a community in my life where my religious ideas differed as widely from the great mass… I have been treated better, kindlier and more hospitably than I fancied would have been the case in the north." (transcript, pages 225-226).
In the movie Darrow objects to the announcement of an evening prayer meeting at the end of the first day of the trial. No such announcement was ever made during the trial but Darrow and the other defense lawyers repeatedly objected to the opening of each session of the court with prayer as it still is in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Closer to the end of the movie Darrow gets Bryan to admit that he does not intend to read Darwin’s book and opposes its use in the classroom. In real life, Hunter's Civic Biology was used in that class, not the Origin of Species.
In the movie, Rachel Brown is called to testify and is mistreated by Bryan. He loses his temper and badly scares her by making her repeat her private conversation with Scopes. Darrow decided to leave Rachel alone and not question her. In the real trial no women were questioned. Bryan did not lose his temper as he was a high-class lawyer respected all around the country. Darrow, however, often interrupted and insulted judge Raulston.
In the movie, Darrow calls to testify a few expert scientists. The judge appears to be favoring the other side and all Bryan has to say is “objection—irrelevant!” In the real trial Bryan received the right to call to the stand and examine scientific witnesses. Darrow, on the other hand, opposed the questioning of the experts. He was afraid that the dry facts of the scientists would only create more disagreement in the count room. However, there was plenty of other scientific evidence presented at the trial, including that of Dr. Maynard Metcalf. The movie does not show any scientific evidence presented at all.
In the movie, the part where Darrow talks about the length of day, Bryan admits that he takes every word in the Bible literally. In the real trial, Bryan says "I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there; some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: 'Ye are the salt of the earth.' I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people." (transcript, page 285)
While talking about Cain’s wife, Darrow asks Bryan if sex is sinful, to which Bryan replies positively. Nothing about sex was discussed in the original trial. Hollywood could not resist adding that element to the movie, as it is known to add it to all the rest as well.
Bryan also comically claims that the earth was created at 9 o'clock in the morning on the 23rd of October in 4004 BC. From the trial transcript: Darrow: “Mr. Bryan could you tell me how old the earth is?” Bryan: “No sir, I couldn't.” Darrow: “Could you come anywhere near it?” Bryan: “I wouldn't attempt to. I could possibly come as near as the scientists do, but I had rather be more accurate before I give a guess.” (transcript, page 296)
At the end of the movie Bryan attempts to give a final closing argument to the jury and recites the names of all the books of the Bible. After he does so, according to the movie, he dies in the court room. In the real case neither Bryan nor Darrow attempted to make a closing speech. Most importantly, Bryan did not die in the courtroom from madness. He died five days later of an unknown cause in his sleep.
In conclusion, the writers of Inherit the Wind never intended for the movie to be historically accurate, nor did they attempt to portray the characters in an accurate way. The plot was simply “spiced up” by incorrect information to make the trial appear more dramatic. I find this movie absolutely inappropriate to be used as an educational documentary and be treated and taught as though it were the real trial. The movie is highly misleading and causes people to make incorrect assumptions about the trial and the cause in general. I do understand that Anthropology is an elective course, but I also believe that it should be treated as a serious subject. Any teacher of a social studies class should have better and more current material at hand.