Tie A Converse Double

Creationism evolves


The film from which this image is "Inherit the Wind " in Italian "... and Inherit the Wind! , 1960, Stanley Kramer. This historical film is the translation of an authentic and notorious trial, held in the hot August of 1925 in the town of Dayton, Tennessee, and known to history as the "trial of the Apes." I do not know whether the name is derived only by the topic of debate, or even the fact that the crowd of fundamentalist Christians who came brought with him to assist, by way of demonstration, including some specimens of chimpanzees, who probably was not among the less intelligent present. The accused
was John Thomas Scopes, a teacher of physics, called to substitute in place of a professor of biology (and dean of the school) sick, not even explained in the classroom, but simply assigned the reading of a chapter of the book which talked about of evolution as a reality check for an exam.
so doing had violated the Tennessee law, which came into force in March of that year, called the Butler Act, which declared "unlawful for any teacher of any university, school master and all other public schools of the State (...) , to teach any theory that denies the story of Divine Creation of man as is taught in the Bible and teach instead that man is derived from a lower order of animals. "
The lawyers who took to the field were among the most famous in America at that time to defend Clarence Darrow (Spencer Tracy movie), and William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution, already more time presidential candidate and U.S. Secretary of State under President Woodrow Wilson, at the time of World War I, the following was enormous, national newspapers gave wide coverage to each other and the process was broadcast in the United States .
Scopes had violated the law and was sentenced, but the judge inflicted paltry fine, plus that was later canceled.
version epic and heroic film of the story, Scopes was persecuted, Darrow defended him beating the prehistoric Bryan, and the sentence was inconsistent and not applied the triumph of reason sull'oscurantismo.

In fact, the game shares underlying the process was such that its outcome was in fact a defeat mocking and burning.
The Butler Act violated the principles of freedom of expression and academic freedom, and it was clearly written in favor of particular religious groups, so it was unconstitutional from the top down, so kerosene; was approved by negligence of the opposition, and Governor Peay of Tennessee to the counter as if to spite the Senate that would have avoided the embarrassment of his mouth, thinking that anyway would never have been applied (the same lawyer Bryan had lobbied in the drafting of the law because it did not include penalties, to make it a harmless statement of principles).
The American Civil Liberties Union offered to give support and sustain the legal costs for any teacher who had defied the law absurd. The intention was to test the law in the urban environment conducive to Chattanooga, but Rappaleya George, a prominent businessman from Dayton, found it striking that a process would provide cheap publicity to his tiny town, so the alternative to liberal ideas Scopes was approached to offer themselves as guinea pigs (the teacher and principal owner was one of the most conservative families in the county and never could afford) for the "process-test". Scopes deliberately violated the law and invited his students to testify against him, Bryan volunteered his services to the charge and did the same Darrow for the defense, but the purpose of both was to obtain a conviction symbolic Bryan to defend the law as a safeguard of Christian principles, but not punitive for the freedom of teachers to be able to use Darrow to the Supreme Court and demonstrate the obvious unconstitutionality of the law to obtain the cancellation, the entirely predictable outcome. The ancient Bryan was actually defeated and humiliated in the process, and the judge sentenced Scopes setting of its own fine of $ 100, a figure well small to have threatened the credibility of the Bible.
But the Tennessee law required that fines of $ 50 should be determined by the jury and not by the court, and therefore the penalty was annulled. Deleted the sentence, you lost the opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Butler Act remained in force until 1967: all for an error of $ 50 in the Judge Raulston quantify the fine.
Also, Bryan's lawyer, ridiculed the hearing came, unwittingly taken the measure that allowed him to immediately regain the prestige lost, he died in Dayton a week after the trial, and in honor of the Bryan College has remained the major fundamental institutions of the town.

shelved forever the possibility of banning the teaching of evolution in schools, were the most bigoted of rural America, the blind defense of the biblical creation went on winding roads in 1973, yet passed the Senate in Tennessee (and not far: 69 votes to 16) the "bill on Genesis" which prescribed two remarkable things: 1) in all the textbooks should have been exposed to the statement that any idea about "the origin and creation of man and His world (...) is not represented as a scientific fact. " The Bible, however, was considered a work of reference and not a book text, and thus exempt from that statement, 2) should be granted equal time to teaching evolution and creation.
The law was unconstitutional because it burnt out after a few years, but the false liberality and apparent impartiality of the "equal time teaching" spread to contaminate the school curricula of many other states along the 80 (at that time Ronald Reagan was able to demonstrate his abysmal ignorance by raising doubts about the validity of evolution in a series of rallies in front of his fundamentalist groups likely voters in Dallas, at the dawn of its long and disastrous presidency).

from defeat to defeat, creationists persist in groped to pervade the teaching school science with their religious doctrine, in forms more and more strips, and a new awkward attempt to blend took place at the dawn of this century with the attempt to introduce "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution in science texts and programs school (without explicitly naming the Creation). The reference is still the intellectual William Paley's Natural Theology, one of the most authoritative texts pre-Darwinian 's 800, and then abused with the famous clock metaphor: the existence of a complex mechanism and refined as a clock implies mind of a watchmaker, and thus the complexity of living beings ... and so on. Metaphor recovery purposes confutatorio by Richard Dawkins reductionist iron in the title of his 1986 book "The Blind Watchmaker" (and paraphrase is a paraphrase of the title of the blog of Zoology "The watchmaker shortsighted that are among my favorites on the right).
The Intelligent Design hoax crashed against a court in 2005 in the Kitzmiller trial, in Pennsylvania, Judge Jones ruled that "intelligent design is not science and can not be separated from its creationist, and thus religious assumptions; and therefore violates the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Crafted out of the classroom and ended up in the attic even intelligent design, the new strategy for groped at least leave the door open the teaching of Creationism Science is even more subterranean: the ultimate proporrre is the teaching of "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution, in order to stimulate "critical thinking and analysis of the students on the theories taught." On the surface, this language should be embraced with favor, also proposed legislation on the teaching of "strengths and weaknesses" have been presented in several states do not wish to promote any religious doctrine. But the fact that proponents refer to such laws Discovery Institute, which had been the most militant supporter of Intelligent Design, the Family Action Council, and the Christian Focus on the Family that qualifies its members as "Supporters of biblical values" and "official of the deity" leaves little doubt about the real aims. Currently, the ambiguous language in the definition of curriculum evolution seems to have made its way into Texas and Louisiana, and apparently already dead in committee in Oklahoma and New Mexico, while it may have to have a good chance of passing the parliamentary scrutiny, yet Once in Tennessee, where the law for the teaching of "strengths and weaknesses" was presented in February.
The main proponent is David Fowler (Family Action Council), which explicitly states that his bill aims to protect those who want to teach the concept of Intelligent Design, which was declared unconstitutional a few years ago. When asked about being a creationist who claims that the Earth is only a few thousand years, Fowler says that "this is not relevant", but states that "... these evolutionary scientists have become the modern equivalent of those who tried to silence the teacher John Scopes in 1925, claiming to restrict even an objective discussion of strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. "

What Women Get Jealous

Critics and good men like busted

Talvolta non riesco a capire quanto la critica di Aldo Grasso, dalle pagine del Corriere, sia efficace e sui contenuti o sia solo succube del ricatto del contenuto. Finché parla dello strumento televisione propone spunti interessanti, talvolta, però, la sua critica pare fiacca e sfuocata. Come nel caso di Saviano .
Io ne condivido lo stimolo di fondo: credo sia reale incorrere nel rischio di imbarcarsi in un ruolo che, più che essere di salvatore, esclude gli italiani dal proprio impegno civico e li ingaggia in una lotta personalistica. Grasso ha colto il campo della questione, ma non ne ha colto i termini corretti: non è vero che Saviano si propone come Gesù; inoltre le sue pause restano oggetto of satire, but not critical, because it breaks alongside the content of the arguments, for now impeccable. If the stories are rhetorical, you may notice that the rhetoric hints when Saviano speaks of himself (but, again, is the way to be rhetorical, not the content, not the reasoning) and not when he speaks of mafia or machine mud. The distinction that grease can not do is between the content of the reasoning of Saviano and the way they are presented. And then, not on content but on something of an accessory.
The confusion of his critics, however, gives way to the right side, which now can attack Saviano because they are afraid of the arguments, because they are afraid the ability move to the commitment of those who prefer sleeping brain. The blurring of indistinction
between rhetoric tone and content of reasoning is, however, that the same Saviano says about the car of the mud. What is a case, I do not know. That the Courier is losing its editorial independence, seems to me that the laws sull'accumilo information that this government wants to adopt, make realistic and disturbing.

Saviano Yet one can criticize, although it is something else than Labor. And without that criticism is at odds with the ' praise that I have done recently. Because the risk is always to empower him to distinguish those now we are awakening the conscience and that, accordingly, we fall asleep again. However, latent risk is remote and quite distinct from itself as Savior. Of the two, but perhaps not the grease can say is that Saviano will become a television personality, confined there by the interest of the mafia.
Then it will be important for us to fight against this "famous" segregation to TV critics in some ways much worse than the 41 a un'ergastolo ...