1. clinteas says

    Yeah,good old times…..

    And 83 years later,after man has been to the moon,mastered the atom and can equip their citizens with sextuple cardiac bypasses, the republican VP candidate believes the earth is 6000 years old,man rode on dinosaurs and raped children should have their baby !

  2. Pierre says

    Maybe I’m getting old. When I was young, I didn’t care
    much about old pictures. I needed to see flashy/modern/
    sci-fi stuff. And now that I’m 40, I find myself fascinated by
    really old documents, like these marvelous photographs.

    Slightly off topic, but still interesting, is this
    post: Climate Change Deniers: “But They Are Scientists!”
    It’s about scientific denial, and I think most everything written
    there applies to creationism too, quite well. At least, to those
    ‘scientists’ who think creationism it true.

  3. Arbutus Grove says

    … and raped children should have their baby !

    Both sides of the abortion debate raise the issue of children conceived by rape as if it holds some special privilege in the discourse. This irks me, and I engaged in some discussion of it over at Richard Dawkins’ site recently. I feel compelled to respond here as well.

    In this case, unless I’m mistaken, clinteas characterises Palin as an especially egregious right-wing fiend because not only is she anti-abortion, but she does not privilege women who conceive as a result of rape.

    Over at the Dawkins site, a commenter insisted he was adamantly opposed to abortion because it takes a human life – except if the women had been raped. Then it’s “ok.”

    In both cases, I must respectfully challenge: what difference could the method of conception possibly make in the debate over abortion?

    On one hand, if you firmly believe abortion is wrong and should be prohibited because that is a human life, then to remain morally and logically consistent it should not matter how that life got there. It is a tragedy to be sure to bear an unwanted child conceived in violence – but that’s not the fetus’ fault. Is it a life or not? Does it deserve to be carried to term or not?

    The “except for rape” stance only seems to expose the real root of the anti-abortion stance: regulation of sex, particularly womens’ control over their own sexuality. Otherwise, why all the talk of the circumstances surrounding conception?

    As it happens – I am pro-abortion. That is, not only am I pro-choice, but I have also believe early term abortion as a positive option in the case of unwanted pregnancy. As soon as one starts questioning the reasons for that abortion we tread on very slippery moral ground. Who are we to to judge the worthiness of a woman when she seeks medical care? Her decision to carry a pregnancy or not should be made in an atmosphere of trust, knowledge, and compassion.

    That is not to say she should not be accountable. I am under no illusions that some people are reckless and irresponsible with their sexuality and therefore endanger their health, the well-being of their other children (if they have them) and the integrity of the relationship with their sexual partner (assuming there is one). However – those factors should not determine whether she is deemed “worthy” of receiving a medical procedure.

    My call to action is this: just as Prof. Dawkins wants us to wear an “A” and raise awareness of atheism as a valid, accepted world view; so should we raise awareness that abortion is not about how the fetus got there – it is about a medical procedure that should be available to any woman without regard to her “morality.”

    Palin is anti-choice – her parental consent law is one big one among many of the big ones on which to oppose her nomination and election. Full stop. It does not make it worse that she extends it to rape victims, it simply makes her more consistent than many others who are anti-abortion.

  4. Ichthyic says


    from the link you provided:

    In some cases it is a more elderly member of the department who has not kept up with their field, possibly because of diminishing abilities or just plain loss of interest. Typically these people are inflicted on the first year students or cross promoted into some marginal role until they get the hint and take early retirement to devote themselves full time to their paper clip collection.


    made my morning.

    wonder if Behe has read it?

  5. Malkara says

    My College Comp teacher has us watching “Inherit the Wind”, which is the film based on the trial. It’s pretty good.

  6. Dogheaven says

    I wonder what those guys in Dayton would have thought of these bikinis. Check it out
    Costello: Monkey to Man

  7. Rick Schauer says

    I feel, if the Scopes trial were taught well during secondary education history class, there would be hoards of secularists in the US. It really is an important, pivotal event in US history… albeit ignored.

  8. David says

    My hometown! I wish I could say that Dayton has changed since 1925. When I was in the only public high school there a few years ago the biology teachers skipped over the chapters involving evolution. When even a sticker in the books that said “evolution is only a theory…” Can’t say I was properly prepared for college level biology. It’s so sad that my high school isn’t much different than most in the rural south.

  9. Arbutus Grove says

    Thank you Arbutus Grove, I’m sure you have put eloquently the feelings of many.

    You’re welcome Geoff. I realized it was OT – but like I say – I felt compelled.

    On topic: I did look at the photos, they are quite interesting. Being Canadian, I have only passing knowledge of the trial, so I did a quick google search. The Wikipedia entry (yes, I am wary of the source) paints the trial as a kind of publicity stunt engineered by George Rappleyea, and upon reading the entry it appears Darrow did not deliver a focused and coherent defense based on the Establishment Clause of the American constitution. The entry also says it wasn’t until 1968 that creationism was banned in public schools. At the end of my long reading list are a couple of books on the subject.

    Can anyone then summarize for me the importance of the Scopes Trial of 1925 and recommend a good – trustworthy- resource for further investigation?

  10. John C. Randolph says

    The greatest thing about the Scopes trial was H. L. Mencken’s coverage of it. It was some of his best work.


  11. Tom G(ologist) says


    There are many scientists who maintain a proper scientific scepticism about the man-induced climate change armegedon campaign, but that does not make them equivalent to creationist scientists. NO scientist in only half her/his right mind would deny that the climate is changing. Change is the ONLY constant in Earth’s climate history. I suggest you do a LOT more research and you will find that the ‘consensus’ among scientists that the ‘debate is over’ and we are the cause, is about as valid as the DI claim the hundreds of scientist agree that darwinism is in trouble. There are many scientists on both sides of the climate issue and the debate is not just FAR from over, it has scarcely begun. And to make a correction to that statement, there is NO debate. There is only data – and the data do not support the CO2 – warming hypothesis very well at all.

    Now let’s hear the shouts that I am wrong – much like the shouts of creationists when a scientist says the data supports something they don’t like. If you don’t KNOW the actual data, really well, I caution you to tread carefully about making pronouncements based on what you have heard and not what you have studied.