Talk:Scopes Trial

From Conservapedia

!

Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This is so atrociously biased that I need not say more than this.Alloco1 16:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Can you cite actual examples of bias or are you making things up?--Conservateur 14:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

there has in fact been a lot of dialouge left out, quote mining if you will. Albyiscool 12:02, 21 March

Can you cite actual examples of quote mining or are you making things up?--Conservateur 14:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The transcript conveniently leaves out the parts that appear in favour of Darrow, in an effort to make Bryan seem perfect. He may have been the better in the case, but not to the degree the article makes it seem. For a copy of the transcipt, google "scopes trial transcript." Choose the free one that says excerpts. It pretty much has the entire thing.--Fpresjh 15:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Contents 1 Gore? 2 Is there a cite 3 End of Trial 4 Well, well, another locked article with a significant bias 5 Featured article!? 6 Entire transcript 7 Ann Coulter is not a source 8 More on Gore

Gore?

It might be nice if there were some explanation for how Gore's loss is relevant here. I'm not necessarily saying it's not, I don't know either way, but the leap from TN views on evolution (which needs a cite) to Gore losing is a big one and it's not clear why that should be here.--Murray 11:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I deleted it, Asch keeps restoring it :-/ --AmesG 01:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Andy, the Gore line is shockingly irrelevant.-AmesG 12:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

It's completely relevant to the aftermath section, it is factual, it is not widely known, and it is undisputed. We report, the reader decides. Do not censor factual material that comply with our rules. This is not Wikipedia, where factual material disliked by liberals is censored.--Aschlafly 12:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Andy, prove that the Scopes trial had any relevance on the 2000 Election. And I do mean prove it. Form your thesis, and explain how, out of everything else that occured in the intervening 75 years, the Scopes Trial was the primary reason Gore lost. Heck, I challenge yo to prove it was even a remote cause. BTW, as my major was PoliSci, I seriously doubt that you can prove the connection. Prove me wrong. NousEpirrhytos 17:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Andy, can you actually show a correlation between Al Gore, evolution and losing the state in 2000? He represented TN in the Congress for close to 16 years. Did something change that you're privy to that validates the sentence being here?--Dave3172 12:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

How is Al Gore's loss relevant to the Scopes Trial? They DID both take place in Tennessee and relate to overall Tennessee politics. I could link you to good scholarly articles on Tennessee politics so you could paste a full treatment of the entirety of Tennessee politics in the "aftermath" discussion, if you want.

I have no problem with your statement about Al Gore, it just doesn't belong here. Practice good editing and put it in the Al Gore article. And I won't bring up the other problems with this article.--AmesG 12:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I wonder how many voters in Tennessee in 2000 said to themselves before pulling the lever, "Wow, I have the chance to help elect a Tennessean to the Presidency...if only he wasn't a Godless Evolutionist!" Certianly it belongs on the Tennessee page, the Gore page, the 2000 election page but here?

Then again, the Boss says it stays so it stays. If though, this is the tip o' the iceberg of "might makes right" then there might be porblems larger than this in Conservapedialand.

If you think this is the tip of iceberg, then you should go here.-AmesG 12:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly created this website, so we should defer to his judgment on whether Al Gore's loss in Tennessee in 2000 AD is relevant to the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 AD. It is not our place to question the Creator.--Conservateur 13:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Irony, I hope. NousEpirrhytos 17:18, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Are we really going to make a comparison between the "Creator" and a Webmaster? The point of a community-driven site is DEMOCRATIC (of the people; nothing about politics) INPUT, and the people have spoken - several times. Seriously, if the only purpose for this site is to trash other groups, nothing will be accomplished here. Facts are facts, and relevant is relevant - conservative and liberal play no part in that. Ignoring fact does not validate fiction. The Gore/2000 comment plays no part here, and some insecurities are being bared by this insistence to include it in this article. Take it to where it is valid information - there are several articles that fit.

Sounds a lot like "might makes right" to me -- no one is disputing that this mentioned fact (Gore losing his home state) is true, but there is a strong general consensus that it is irrelevant to the Scopes Trial. If that is going to be overridden, and the article locked, then I suggest contributors vote with their feet and simply stop contributing. What would be the point? Boethius 12:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I'm interested in your thoughts on how Al Gore was elected Senator (and later won TN's electoral votes for VP) in the first place if his failure to oppose evolutionary teaching was so important to TN voters.--Nomine Cervus 05:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Why was the reference to Gore's 2000 election loss removed? Aschlafly said it's relevent, and I don't think it's a good idea to subvert his authority. The information should be restored.--Conservateur 03:42, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Is there a cite

Is there a citation for the sentence "The textbook also featured the fraudulent Piltdown Man."? I believe the only use of Piltdown Man was in an affidavit by an (or two) "expert" witness. Piltdown was only "discovered" in 1912, the Hunter's Civic Biology text was published in 1914.

--Cracker^talk 01:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Very good point. The reality is this: Professor Cole and Professor Newman (two potential witnesses the court refused to allow to testify) mentioned Piltdown Man in their affidavits, but in neither case did they show much enthusiasm. Piltdown Man is not in the textbook. (Note, this is from [1], a site devoted to trashing Civic Biology.

Andy, you need to retract the statement if you wish Conservapedia to be "accurate" (not that this article is very accurate anyway, but...) NousEpirrhytos 17:31, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Can we also describe the Butler Act in more detail, adding that it made it unlawful "to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible?"--TheRearAdmiral 14:43, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

End of Trial

My understanding has always been that the judge considered the whole Darrow/Byran exchange pointless and called it to a halt. So rather than Darrow ducking out, the judge stopped it b/f he could be examined by Bryan.

Also, this whole article needs to be re-examined. The bias is overwhelming.--Dave3172 11:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Your understanding is based on the erroneous liberal spin. In fact, everyone was stunned (including the NY Times) that Darrow reneged on his deal to take the stand.

So I would assume your understanding is based on the erroneous conservative spin? Opacic 09:38, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Everything in the content page is well-supported. There is enormous liberal misinformation about the trial that has misled everyone who fails to look at the facts.--Aschlafly 11:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Andy, with all due respect, I can't agree with you. I've read in multiple places that Raulston cut off Bryan's questioning and didn't allow the cross-exam. He decided the whole sequence wasn't germane to the trial. So Darrow didn't "chicken out" Further, Darrow called for a guilty verdict not to "save his own skin" but so he could appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Again, my issue isn't with the fawning pro-Bryan tone. It's with the blatant mis-statement of fact. It should be corrected.--Dave3172 12:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is Darrow asking for a guilty verdict. [2]

I am frank to say, while we think it is wrong, and we ought to have been permitted to put in our evidence, the court felt otherwise, as he had a right to hold. We cannot argue to you gentlemen under the instructions given by the court--we cannot even explain to you that we think you should return a verdict of not guilty. We do not see how you could. We do not ask it. We think we will save our point and take it to the higher court and settle whether the law is good, and also whether he should have permitted the evidence. I guess that is plain enough.

I am not sure that Darrow's motives can be deduced from this. I guess that you are questioning the sentence, "To save his own skin, Darrow handed over his client!" It is certainly very rare to ask for a guilty verdict like this. RSchlafly 13:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree; it is rare. But if you look at what Darrow says towards the end: "We think we will save our point and take it to the higher court and settle whether the law is good, and also whether he should have permitted the evidence." Darrow is asking for a guilty verdict so he can appeal it. Hardly the act of a "chicken."--Dave3172 16:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

That isn't Darrow "asking for a guilty verdict." He's claiming that the Judge has not allowed the defence to present the arguments they had wanted to use, that absent those arguments only a guilty verdict is possible, and that the only way around the Judge's decisions is appeal to a higher court. Tsumetai 10:05, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

But there is still no rational reason for giving up a chance at jury nullification, or jury confusion, in favor of one's client. Moreover, Darrow weakened his appeal by asking for a guilty verdict. There may not be another example of a (competent) defense attorney ever asking the jury to find his client guilty. It makes absolutely no sense. It is equivalent to an American football player handing the ball to his opponent. It never, ever happens, and should never happen. Darrow did it, obviously, to avoid taking the stand as he had promised.--Aschlafly 10:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I have to point out, again, that Darrow didn't dodge his cross-exam. Circuit Attorney General Arthur Thomas Stewart decided to stop Bryan from cross-examing Darrow and got Judge Raulston to throw out Bryan's testimony. [3]

You can also look at the original NYT article [4] where it clearly says that the AG and the judge put a stop to the cross-exam. On the basis of this being noted in two separate locations, including the 1925 NYT story, I'm asking you to remove the statement that Darrow ducked the cross-exam.--Dave3172 12:14, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the site from which the partial transcript comes does describe it as Darrow asking for a guilty verdict, so I'll withdraw that objection, since presumably the author had access to the full transcript. Tsumetai 10:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Darrow did say that he wanted to preserve some evidentiary issue for appeal. I'm not sure what that issue is, because the 2-1 appellate decision doesn't even appear to mention it. (I just skimmed it briefly.) It looked like Darrow was trying to have scientists give expert testimony that the Bible is wrong, even tho they are not really Bible experts. RSchlafly 11:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, lookee who it is...anyway...the purpose of asking for a guilty verdict was to open the case up to appeal (where the verdict was oveturned). NousEpirrhytos 17:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

<reduce indent>If you read about halfway down in the appeal, you'll find:

"The argument is that the theory of the descent of man from a lower order of animals is now established by the preponderance of scientific thought and that the prohibition of the teaching of such theory is a violation of the legislative duty to cherish Science"

Perhaps that's it. Tsumetai 12:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Plays are not nominated for Academy Awards. Movies are.

Well, well, another locked article with a significant bias

Why wasn't this included? Q--When was that Flood?
A--I would not attempt to fix the date. The date is fixed, as suggested this morning.
Q--About 4004 B.C.?
A--That has been the estimate of a man that is accepted today. I would not say it is accurate.
Q--That estimate is printed in the Bible?
A--Everybody knows, at least, I think most of the people know, that was the estimate given.
Q--But what do you think that the Bible, itself says? Don't you know how it was arrived at?
A--I never made a calculation.
Q--A calculation from what?
A--I could not say.
Q--From the generations of man?
A--I would not want to say that.
Q--What do you think?
A--I do not think about things I don't think about.
Q--Do you think about things you do think about?
A--Well, sometimes.

Or this... Q--Mr. Bryan, do you believe that the first woman was Eve?
A--Yes.
Q--Do you believe she was literally made out of Adams's rib?
A--I do.
Q--Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife?
A--No, sir; I leave the agnostics to hunt for her.
Q--You have never found out?
A--I have never tried to find
Q--You have never tried to find?
A--No.
Q--The Bible says he got one, doesn't it? Were there other people on the earth at that time?
A--I cannot say.
Q--You cannot say. Did that ever enter your consideration?
A--Never bothered me.
Q--There were no others recorded, but Cain got a wife.
A--That is what the Bible says.
Q--Where she came from you do not know. All right.

Source: [5]

Featured article!?

My stars.-AmesG 00:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Entire transcript

I apologize for the length of this, never mind it won't paste correctly. However, i ask the mods to either show the entire transcript, or simply cite a link to the entire transcript, since it is painfully obvious taking select items out of context can mislead readers about the degree of accuracy in the viewpoint presented. The website is Scopes Trial Transcript--Fpresjh 19:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

That would be a wonderful idea. Let the reader, who is presumed to be reasonably intelligent (or at least smarter than a gerbil) make up his/her own mind. NousEpirrhytos 07:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Ann Coulter is not a source

Anymore than Al Franken would be an acceptable source. Please pull all material cited to her. She's not an academic. She's a pundit. Like I said, just like Franken, or Jon Stewart. No better as a real source. Thank you.-Speaker 01:15, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I respect your opinion, but disagree in part. When Ann Coulter is describing history, she is a source. When she is interpreting it, she is not (unless her interpretation is either identified as such in the text of the article, or backed up by the likes of Larson, who won a Pulitzer prize for his Summer For the Gods book on the Scopes Trial.) Even though I do not agree with you, I am open to reconsidering, especially if others agree with you. Coulter, unlike Larson, is not a respected historian afterall. So far, however, I have not injected any of Coulter's characterizations of the Scopes trial that is not shared by other disinterested parties like Larson. And besides, I think her book is good reading regarding the Scopes Trial, and should be mentioned on a conservative Encyclopedia. If conservapedia does not wish to honor Coulter with citations, perhaps Conservapedia would want her listed in a See Also section. Or perhaps not. If you remove Coulter as a source (and I am not by any means instructing that you should not), the sentences she is cited on do not require any changing whatsoever. I would agree that any aspect of the trial on which Coulter is the sole source should be identified as such in the article proper, and not left as an exercise to the diligent reader to determine. Pending further discussion, or action on your part, I will leave Coulter as a source for the time being. HeartOfGold 01:59, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

• Coulter, a practicing Attorney is more of an academic than Franken, an actor/comedian. She is a proper source as a writer with a well researched book, touching on this topic. Good work HeartOfGold! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 07:42, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, then her academic works would perhaps be better sources, but Godless is not that. It is an opinionated diatribe, and nothing more. If we can't cite Court decisions (since they just represent the judge's "opinion," according to Aschlafly, which is crazy hilarious) I fail to see how there's any reason that Coulter's book falls on the right side of the opinion/fact line. Unless it's just a partisan judgment, but I doubt we have yet fallen that far.

HoG, I'm glad she's not that important to the article. I think she'd be a fine "See Also," but her flame-job in Godless is hardly fact.-Speaker 08:31, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

As an Australian, I know next to nothing about Ann Coulter, although I have heard of her in recent times and realise that she is on the conservative side of the fence.

Personally, I don't like absolutely ruling anybody out as a source; some sources need to be treated with a lot more caution than others, but each case should be considered on its merits. If someone has a specific issue with using Ann Coulter (i.e. for a specific reference), that should be raised, but to suggest that we should "pull all material cited to her" simply because "[s]she's not an academic" is going overboard.

Philip J. Rayment 09:55, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

She does have an entry here that sums up her not-entirely-unbiased views. - BornAgainBrit

Oh, I forgot Americans dont understand the british deliberate understatement: Coulter is to evolution as Phelps is to homosexuality. That about sums her up. - BornAgainBrit

Okay, I've had a quick read of the article about her, and one thing is clear. The comparison to Phelps is nonsense. Coulter clearly has the support of other people opposed to evolution. Phelps does not have the support of other people opposed to homosexuality. Philip J. Rayment 19:26, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Is Coulter even needed as a source here? It appears the 2 things that have been attributed to her have also been credited to Larson. --Colest 10:01, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

We have a standard for Conservapedia:Sources. Would you like to find a better source than Coulter's book? --Ed Poor 10:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused what that sources link has to do with this, Ed. Also, the items sourced to Coulter's book are sourced to another author in this article. So removing the Coulter source wouldn't violate any policy outlined in that link. I'm simply suggesting that if there is an objection to using Coulter as a source, removing her from the article doesn't change the article's substance. --Colest 10:14, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but this article is not just biased, but so wildly inaccurate as to be an embarrassment. It was not "unprecedented" to ask for a guilty verdict. Nor was it a surprise. A guilty verdict was always in the ACLU's game-plan, as they wished to challenge the Constitutionality of the law in the higher courts. Nor did Darrow refuse to be examined. He hadn't finished his examination of Bryan when Judge Raulsten decided to disallow all such testimony. All this is well-established, and the cartoonish version of the trial described here only makes Conservapedia look like a propaganda site with no concern for accuracy. --Scopesfan

Do you have any sources to back you up? If something was not unprecedented, where is the precedent?

The ACLU challenges the constitutionality of laws all the time today, but it never asks for a guilty verdict. Do you have any other example where the ACLU asked for a guilty verdict? Any proof that people in the courtroom were not surprised by Darrow asking for a guilty verdict? Newspaper accounts did say that it was a surprise, and it goes against what the ACLU has done in every other case.

It is true that the judge ultimately ruled that Bryan's testimony was inadmissible, but only after listening to it. It is reasonable to assume that he would have done the same for Darrow's testimony. RSchlafly 15:19, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Certainly, I have a source, which I gave in an attempt to fix the errors on the page (the repair was removed, as lies that make one feel good appear to be more valuable than the truth on this "encyclopedia".) I recommend the book "The Great Monkey Trial," by L. Sprague de Camp, which quotes heavily from the trial transcript. William Jennings Bryan's testimony was not over, and the judge ruled against further testimony by lawyers in the case. Darrow did not refuse to testify--that's arrant nonsense, and so blatantly so as to make this page look like wish fulfillment. I see, however, that the dedication to falsehood on this page is insurmountable. Even Wikipedia is better than this! User:Scopesfan

Larson, who was no friend of Creationism but tries to keep an even hand, only mentions the judge barred further examination of Bryan, and he too quotes transcripts. You better have extremely specific trial quotes that showed information that he missed. You also may not be aware of the newspaper wars that Bryan and Darrow were having from well before the trial. Darrow would taunt Bryan with a problem from a literal Biblical view and ask Bryan to answer it. Bryan would say he would, as long as he could then ask a question of Darrow. Darrow never responded. Darrow was much better at being the prosecutor than wanting to be on the hot seat himself. Learn together 16:50, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Scopesfan, you have so far failed to substantiate any of your assertions. I believe that you are wrong on all counts. RSchlafly 17:07, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Scopesfan, some evidence that I would like to see before believing you, is where the judge disallowed Darrow from testifying. I can't see it.

Personally, I find it reasonable to believe that perhaps it was the ACLU's game plan, but again, I'd like to see the evidence.

Philip J. Rayment 23:33, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't find it reasonable that a guilty plea was the ACLU's game plan. The ACLU challenges the constitutionality of laws all the time, and it never asks for a guilty plea. It would be extremely unusual to have such a game plan. Who knew about this game plan? What evidence is there for it? I'd have to see some pretty good evidence, considering that there are more plausible explanations. RSchlafly 01:39, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

More on Gore

I removed it again, without realizing there had been a previous discussion. While I certainly loathe Gore, the addition just doesn't belong here. If the boss wants to override me, fine, but other than that, the content simply belongs in a different article. HeartOfGold 20:42, 17 May 2007 (EDT)