Antithesis to Scopes Monkey Trial

I wrote this October 7, 2005, as one of my first speeches for my speech and debate club. It is so short! I haven't worked on it much since then, so it is still pretty rough, and I am trying to turn it into more of an essay. It is an informative/opinion piece right now. There are several things in here that need help.

Antithesis to Scopes Monkey Trial

The Scopes trial of 1925 was a debate about teaching any aspect of the theory of evolution, according to www.wikipedia.org. This trial, often called the “Scopes Monkey Trial”, seems to be the antithesis to today’s trial. While the trial in 1925 was opposed to evolution and in favor of the teachings of the Bible, the Kitzmiller and others versus Dover Area School District trial is in favor of evolution and opposed to the theory now primarily called “Intelligent Design”. In the past, it has been referred to as Creationism. The Wall Street Journal’s article “Scopes, 2005: ‘Design Theory’ Faces Legal Test” reports the facts mentioned, unless otherwise noted.

With the help of the ACLU and eleven parents of schoolchildren in Dover, Pennsylvania, a federal lawsuit has been filed against the town’s school board, with the accusation of violating the principle of the separation of church and state. Teachers are required to read the following statement to biology classes:

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact...Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

The trial is slated to last five weeks, and it will not be televised. The Seattle-based Discovery Institute is the leading supporter of intelligent design. "We don't say God designed," said John West, associate director for the institute's Center for Science and Culture. "It's not about trying to reconcile science with some religious text. It's about this longstanding question in biology about the appearance of design." I believe that it should be trying to reconcile science with the Bible. When the idea of evolution was first introduced as a new theory, it was frowned upon. Now, with a theory that brings creationism back into the picture, people are opposing what the original belief was, when scientific evidence shows that this theory could be true.

Most mainstream biologists are critics of intelligent design and say it is “religion masquerading as science” which is, essentially, the latest evolution of creationism. Christian educators and intelligent design supporters were bolstered in their efforts when President Bush said that both sides of the debate should be taught.

"It is a legitimate controversy among scientists and credible scientists believe that intelligent design is a better explanation for complex biological systems than we have seen," said Richard Thompson, defense attorney for the Dover school board and chief counsel with the non-profit Christian law group, the Thomas More Law Center.

The impressionable students in schools should be taught both sides of the debate. Logically, that is the correct thing to do. Culturally, it should be the correct thing to do, according to our president. Biblically, God’s word should be taught, for that is the truth, yet the unwillingness of Americans to accept the truth keeps them blind.

Hehe! I knew you would post some of your writing today.

Pretty good. You cited your sources (always a good thing) and put it in a clear, concise matter. Again, that is good. There are few writers (much less, essayists) who seem to be able to write an argument without resorting to cumbersome methods.

The problem with this arguments is it's mostly an attack. For instance, if I were to outline your paper, I would say there were a lot of rebuttals. You're arguing for Creationalism, which is fine. Except, all you do is attack the other side without supporting your own. See? For instance, I read a lot of political papers, and one argument I consistantly come across is that President Bush is a bad president. The argument is made against President Bush, but it never has any alternative. It just is overwhelmingly negative.

Another view to look at it is the storyteller's view. When you are writing a story, you don't just create a really evil dude and then a shallow hero. No, you have to make the hero less shallow, and ONLY then will the story get anywhere.

To expand your paper, I would read in more about what people say about creationalism and then put in it your article. Remember, attacking is only one part of an argument. You also have to support your side.

And that's the other thing. Generally, when you have a speech or persuasive essay, you begin it by telling the reader what the conflict is. Why? Because we're humans and we love conflict. That's why fictional stories are so fun to read. When writing (or speaking) persuasively, you have to make it as bearable as you can, so you have to emphasis the conflict straight off.

For example, I was writing a story that seemed to go on and on and on. Why? Because I forgot one stinking sentence that said, "Oh, and by the way, this is where our plot is heading."

This is called the thesis statement, and it is important! It gives the whole argument direction and, if you ever get lost, all you have to do is look back at your thesis statement and get unlost. It's usually put in the beginning of an essay. Mind you, you don't have to say up front, "OMG, I TOTALLY BELIEVE IN CREATIONALISM!" What you need to do is set up the story/essay.

So, there you go. This is such an interesting debate topic... I'm glad you chose it.

I agree with Snoink, though I've never been able to pinpoint it as well as she did just now. I think it's because I'm blinded by my love and ridiculously high opinion of you.

I think a little more organization would really help you to move readers' reactions to this essay from "It was okay" to "Wow, she made some really good points, I'll have to think about this." Maybe a more in-depth discussion of the Creationalism viewpoint versus Evolution would behoove you as well.

But either way, I'm quite impressed with your mad skills of conciseness. They spit at my verbosity and then laugh.

Thank you so much! I really appreciate it. Your comments are very helpful, and I'll be working on this piece as soon as I feel ready to attack it .