"In fact, he determined that the Lord began the creation on the twenty third of October 4004 B.C. at uh... 9 A.M." 😂😂 "Is that eastern standard time? Or rocky mountain time?" 😂🤣🤣
After finding the actual transcript of the Scopes Monkey Trial online years ago, I was surprised to discover that the line where Brady says "I do not think about things I do not think about" (and Drummond's brilliant response) is actually taken verbatim from the trial! That is hilarious! And the bit about the "days" in the bible being of indeterminate length seems helpful in explaining the extreme age of the universe, but when you look deeper you see that it has its own problems: If the sun was not created until the fourth "day" - AFTER the plants and animals were created - then how could they exist and thrive without the sun? No, the writers were definitely thinking of normal days when they wrote that. It also shows that they did not know the importance of the sun. They seem to think that the sun is just a small bright thing that comes out _during_ the day, not that it actually CAUSES the day to happen, or they would have had the sun created right at the very beginning.
I don’t wanna get into an argument just a discussion if that happens. But what about the light that was created on the 1st day and that wasn’t the sun since that was created on the fourth day?
@@gmg9010Right, but it shows that the people who wrote that thought that light was created separately from the sun. In other words, they didn't understand that it's the sun that creates light.
@@JustWasted3HoursHere yes but they wouldn’t of understood what we now call the Big Bang which what I tend to think the first light was. Some people interpret it to be basically Yahweh’s essence but I think of it in I guess you’d say a more scientific way.
Jesus is the truth and he is alive today . Darwin was a lying con man , snake oil salesman , perverted finch molester and the son of the devil , and he and his psuedo science lies are dead . There sure as heck ain't no apes turning into humans today , because it never happened in the past either . I urge everyone to grow up and question the ridiculous belief of Darwinist evolution , please do not be blinded by the devil .
Ironic that a man named Clarence Darrow, (Drummond), defended Charles Darwin in court. His opponent, William Jennings Bryan, didn't seem to be against the teaching of science, for he released this press statement after the trial, which reads as follows: "Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher of morals. It can perfect machinery, but it adds no moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of the machine. It can also build gigantic intellectual ships, but it constructs no moral rudders for the control of storm-tossed human vessel. It not only fails to supply the spiritual element needed but some of its unproven hypotheses rob the ship of its compass and thus endanger its cargo. In war, science has proven itself an evil genius; it has made war more terrible than it ever was before. Man used to be content to slaughter his fellowmen on a single plane, the earth's surface. Science has taught him to go down into the water and shoot up from below and to go up into the clouds and shoot down from above, thus making the battlefield three times as bloody as it was before; but science does not teach brotherly love. Science has made war so hellish that civilization was about to commit suicide; and now we are told that newly discovered instruments of destruction will make the cruelties of the late war seem trivial in comparison with the cruelties of wars that may come in the future. If civilization is to be saved from the wreckage threatened by intelligence not consecrated by love, it must be saved by the moral code of the meek and lowly Nazarene. His teachings, and His teachings alone, can solve the problems that vex the heart and perplex the world." - William Jennings Bryan, the Scopes trial.
This film made a big impact on me when I first saw it on tv decades ago. It's still an example of very good acting. BUT, it is so heavy handed about it's message it's hard not to think it's silly. The actual Scopes trial was nothing like this scene. It had to do with what schools boards could control in the classroom. The legal case was all a set up and began the ACLU. It's a Stanley Kramer movie so you know what political outcome we're going to see.
Two giants of the ancient art of acting grappling for dominion over the other. Tracy was loud and proud. March stubborn and unbending. In a more subtle way March's performance is just as brilliant. Watch the scene where he says to his wife, "They laughed at me mother. I can stand it when they laugh at me." So heart rending it makes you cry. Acting 101. A master class by the two greatest actors of their era. Maybe any era.
0:17 Um... No, it's not. Not according to Bible. Maybe according to what the scenarist thought that would be convenient if Christians believed in, but not according to what Christians do believe in. Same old pattern... Puff, there goes the whole discussion. One can't argue with one's own, false and bias notions. But the very problem of imaginary antinomy of science and faith is purely artificial, so why should I be disappointed at this turning out to be a piece of offensive, absurd propaganda?..
The play wasn’t really about evolution and creationism, but McCarthyism and freedom to think. Though some Christians do misguidedly think that sex was the Original Sin, or at least that it came from it.
@@VideoMask93 Religion and McCarthyism have a special link. And yes it was also about religion retarding the advancement of man. Eve did eat an apple. She ate from the tree of knowledge and as a nun once told me, "Once you lose your faith you can''t get it back!" Right, because you cannot unlearn what you have learned. It is this that frightens Brady more than anything because it threatens to free people from his grip. You should read Orwell's Notes On Nationalism in which he points out that religion is in fact one of the branches of that along with many others.
@@berniestarzewski5482 I would disagree with that nun who said you can't get faith back-I know quite a few people who have reverted to Catholicism after an irreligious period.
@@VideoMask93 They may have simply yearned for the simple lack of conflict but nobody can unsee what they have seen. Some people just need the structure.
