Inherit the Wind scene, creationism vs. evolution 

One of favorites too

The writing, cast and acting is top notch in this film, especially between the principle actors. There isn't a bad line between them.

One of the all time great movies

Such a great philosophical idea. It’s coming back around today with the invention of AI.

@@TylerDWard AI scares the hell out of me, particularly in its current form! But let's face it the criminal faction and there will always be a criminal faction will certainly take advantage of it in every possible way. The speed of technology has far exceeded human evolution.

perhaps the film is--but the real trial had a different agenda William Jennings Bryan was NOT necessarily against evolution. Bryan was a great populist and what he feared about Darwin was eugenics and social darwinism! If you read Darwin you will see the seeds of social darwinism in origin of species.

The error is to pin on Darwin what one should pin on Spencer. Scientific facts do not necessarily dictate human morality.

“Free to think” like a marxist or end up in a gulag or executed.

Actually, Bob McGahey, I think Bryan WAS opposed to evolution because for most of his life, he held to a strong fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Where the film was incorrect was in the scene where Brady (Frederic March) cites Bishop Usher's determination that God created the earth on a certain date in 4004 B.C. Bryan did not actually cite that in the trial. He probably did oppose Social Darwinism as well, but religion had become central to his public creed by the time of that trial. As for "The Origin of Species" planting the seeds of Social Darwinism, Darwin himself would have been aghast at how his explanation of biological evolution was applied for social, economic, and political purposes. Of course, he did not live to see the full flower of Social Darwinism, because he died in 1882.

Actually, Bob, I stand corrected. Bryan DID quote Bishop Ussher (spelled with two s') at the historic trial when Darrow asked him about the date of the Flood. However, I stand by what I wrote previously; Bryan did oppose evolution on religious as well as social and humanitarian grounds.

That one is a direct quote from the actual Scopes transcript (Darrow speaking)

So much of the text of this movie is still very valid in today's world.

​@@richardboettger6761 The only problem is that most of today's young people (especially here in the U.S.) don't believe in God and think it's only a fable or a myth about who started the world! What is it going to take for them to realize they're wrong? I won't go any further with this but I do believe because it's True!!!!!

@@scottmiller6495 That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I would ask that you try not to foist it on others though because frankly it's none of your business, and a true Christian would not try to force their own ideas off on others.

@@richardboettger6761 Ok.

Frederic March was my all-time favorite Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in the 1931 film. (Coincidentally, ten years later Spencer Tracy played the same role!)

Yeah I love old movies like this

The energy and the dialogue they presented in their portrayal in this scene at the stage of their lives is Spectacular. Till the end of their days, they were true natural experts of their profession.

4 Best Actor Oscars Between Them!

Yes, you are 190,% correct. And I just saw him the other day, in the 1933 comedy ' Design For Living' he was a very good looking. Gentleman with class,. Very likeable.

"There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns." Donald Rumsfeld Princeton University grad.

Zing.

Tracey was brilliant in this...because he meant every word of it.

Actually the movie isn't really accurate. Read this: Transcripts from Tennessee versus John Scopes, 1925 Excerpted from Famous Trials in American History history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111scopes.html

@@andrewjohn2124 Both the screenwriters and the playwrights that wrote the original theater play were explicit that this was not historical but simply used the trial as a basis on which to construct a story. It was more a commentary on the McCarthy era.

That's the only good acting in this movie everyone else is so fake and obvious

timeless, would you say?

Kurt Vonnegut said that Voltaire was the secular version of Abraham. So I guess Clarence Darrow was Samuel. Or maybe Nehemiah.

Idea greater monument than a cathedral? True. The advance of man's knowledge a greater miracle than all the sticks turned to snakes thru the parting of the waters? Now that's debatable. Advancements of man are truly amazing, but if a man raised his arms above a sea and asked God to part waters for him and all the waters of the sea parted before him, even Einstein would shit his pants.

@@PeterDB90 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. Proverbs 9:10

@@PeterDB90 Wrong. At least the second part. The sticks turned to snakes, etc. is mythology. The advance of Man's knowledge is not.

Gods word as the standard for creation is not Mcartyism but it is merely the absolute truth.

@@gigiis526 Look -- if you can't keep up, just stay out.

@@gigiis526 you can no more prove that to be true than you can prove the existence of fairies or goblins. You wish to believe in the Bible? That's fine. But don't state something is true that you cannot prove.

You would have to bc this scene looks like it could be about creationism on trial js

rhowar1, I'm glad you got the opportunity to play the role of Drummond. I dream of playing that role. I couldn't have done it when I was younger, but now that I am in Drummond's age range, I believe that I have the gravitas to do it.

Yes. I agree with you.

Actually, what's "forgettable" is the true factual history of the actual trial. You might as well be watching "Mary Poppins" or "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang". They're both as much a fantasy as this film. HELLywood's version of Creation vs Evolution.

H. L. Mencken, who covered the trial (character played admirably by Gene Kelly) would beg to disagree. Look up what he wrote about William J. Bryan, obituary the Baltimore Sun, 1925.

Mike K Spencer Tracy’s delivery gives me goosebumps every time I hear him say it

@@collinbarry-kamp4146 Me too. One of my all-time favorite scenes in one of my all-time favorite movies.

Mike K Nice dude! It’s my all time favorite movie!

The mind may be amazing but that is because God created it! But it is far from holy. There is only one that is holy and that is triune Lord

@@gigiis526 And just what is "triune" Lord? Apparently, Christians don't spell check.

Still top 250. If I had 100 movies to watch I probably would pick it. I have it on DVR. It is one that grabs your attention.

March was no slouch, either. This is one of my favorite movies...because of these two acting titans.

I totally agree, Inherit the Wind should have won Best Picture of 1960, it wasn't even mentioned or nominated in the awards ceremony, it is much better than Elmer Gantry! Spencer Tracy deserved an Oscar for his performance, again not even mentioned, what was the academy thinking that year? Are you kidding me!!!!!

Absolutely agree, Scott!@@scottmiller6495

@@scottmiller6495 This is probably my favorite film of all time but in defense of "Elmer Gantry" it's a truly great film as well.

Only one Spencer Tracy.

Same can be said for March. Two old pros at the top of their game!

There was even an Inherit the wind in 1988... seriously botched of this one

So true

boi

Except it's not a good book.

@@carealoo744 Greatest quote I've ever seen about the Bible was spoken by none other than Malcolm X, who said: "The one thing I know about the Bible is that most people don't know how to read it." THAT is 100% spot-on truth!!

"not the only book"... truth in that might still be found on what others have beared witness to. Reveling all things through nature is another language not yet entirely discovered. What a conversation that would be.

I share your view and am pessimistic about OUR future. Seems to me that as eyewitnesses to history pass away we get ever closer to repeating the past. Today we are subjected to many "stable geniuses", who have studied other "only I can fix it" types. They have history as their playbook and therefore less likely to make the mistakes of a Hitler or Mussolini. The opposition to them is less ruthless and self righteous and unwilling to engage in the manner necessary? I hope I am wrong.

100% This. IF your belief system is so weak that it must extinguish the abilities of other human being to think for themselves, it is something to get out of as fast as you can.

Yeah, the problem is, a whole lot of religious people actually considers free thinking as an attack on their belief system. See, if you're dependent on your faith, any suggestion that things might not be the way you believe them to be is a threat. This has always been true for royalty, extremist governments, monetary systems, and so on.

@@jorgesegniniaguirre orange man too

@@jorgesegniniaguirre I’m not Christian, I’m Conservative, and you’re brainwashed. All of you liberals are brainwashed. You voted in vaccine tyranny, called us all Nazis for six straight years, publicly shamed us for our beliefs, burned down cities when you couldn’t have your way, forced pedophile agendas on kindergarteners, and you have the AUDACITY to say you stand for justice? FOH! You’ve been the Nazis all along and the democrats you vote for are openly destroying this country!

Some people would definitely abandon the poetry of holy books and embrace atheism. However, the vast majority is able to somehow smash Religion and Science together, cherry picking useful or beautiful passages from holy books and disregarding passages they don't find useful, beautiful or relevant. Even professional scientists can be religious people, which tells me that Religion is not driven by rationality or evidence or scientific formalism... definitely not!... but driven by emotions. People resort to Religion due to indoctrination since early age and because Religion can be comforting, serving as an emotional support, or source of hope or even relief from desperation.

Like many of the highest educated, truest agnostics or atheists, Drummond would of course have read the Bible. But that's true: I do not think Drummond is even trying to suggest people shouldn't have faith or religion -- only that they have no right to legislate that opposing viewpoints be ILLEGAL. Even to this day, religious right-wing people cannot fathom this concept. All who oppose them must perish, must be burned as heathens and apostates, must die to the glory of their God.

@@richardgomes5420 No, there is quite a bit of evidence both historical and Biblical that the Bible wasn’t meant to be taken literally. The reason this isn’t commonly known or accepted is because there have been several Christian leaders and theologians who rejected the notion in favor of a literal interpretation but just like in this trial said Christians can’t answer some of the simplest questions about the very obviously poetic and allegorical language in the Bible.

@@tylergannon7398 Can you provide some links to the evidences you mentioned, please? Thanks

The word yom (יום) is used almost exclusively to refer to regular day, similar to how we understand a day. A day according to the Bible is defined in Genesis 1 as a light to dark sequence. In prophetic passages יום is used on occasion to represent a season, such as "the day of the Lord" which is a reference to the time of the apocalypse. But this is nothing indicative of long geological ages. Such a belief is a wishful attempt to harmonise the text with a fully naturalistic interpretation of origins.

But as you said in the beggining, "yom is used almost exclusively to refer to regular day". So that means that it could have another interpretation.

At the time in Tennessee (my home!) young earth creationism was taught in public school AS SCIENCE and fundamentalist Christians did not want evolution to be taught, as it obviously contradicted their religious belief. Even Scopes initially lost the battle to teach evolution in science class. It was ruled much later again that teaching evolution in science class violated the rights of Christians, who believed every creature was handmade by God less than 12k years ago. So while sure, YOM can mean anything from a blink of the eye to a day to a century, it was the Christians then who insisted it meant solely "day".

Right, but biblical literalists insist it was 24 earth hours.

Some biblical scholars suggest that a "day" - before there was a way to calculate such a thing - was equivalent to 1,000 years according to how we measure days now.

Even if you replace Muslim or Hindu for Christian Pascal's wager is pointless

You believe in Zeus you just don’t know it.

@@Diamondraw4Real "Even if you replace Muslim or Hindu..." Yeah, that's what I said. Pascal's wager is dumb AF.

No you can not he's my favorite actor

GodsFavoriteBassPlyr I agree with you about Spencer Tracy he was probably one of the top five actors ever and Frederik March is just as awesome this was such a brilliant movie and this was a fantastic scene

I cant imagine it would be any better than this.

I like how a devout Protestant such as Mr. Bryan would quote a Catholic Bishop (Which Darrow was a Catholic).

@@hansstrudel9614 Actually Ussher was an Archbishop of the Church of Ireland, which was part of the larger Anglican Communion.

@@friscowolf2917 Protestants in Ireland? IMPOSSIBLE

@@hansstrudel9614 Before the Republic .... They had control!

@@hansstrudel9614 Darrow was agnostic.

I can't disagree with you. Spencer Tracy is the all time greatest actor along with James Cagney. But a close second is Spencer Tracy's almost 8 minutes soliloquy in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner go on with the late Great Katharine Hepburn

@@robertlongwill8856 also his closing monologue in Judgment at Nuremberg

@@rossrivero7516 oh my God yes I haven't seen that movie for years I think I will go try and find it. And thank you for the reminder. Spencer Tracy is one of the greatest actors of all time. He could do everything. And Katharine Hepburn was his equal.

@@robertlongwill8856 definitely

Probably not the same family, but good one. Cheers!

I don't think you understand the context of Pascal's Wager nor the meaning of it. If you have time please read this short article. www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm

Also, part of his dislike of evolution came from the prevalence of the idea Social Darwinism during that time period, which misread Darwin in order to justify economic inequalities.

That seems to be the Mindset of Every Republican in Congress!

@@jamesalexander5623 😂

Michael Garfield Oscar Ńüñêz

today actors are rewarded for ability to adjust to special effects. In old days great actor should be a special effect itself.

The Tracy version of Jekyll and Hyde suffered from it being made during the reign of the Code and MGM's generally wholesome approach to film making (though it is not without its sinister sexual innuendoes). March's had the advantage of pre-code (and his scenes with Miriam Hopkins are very pre-code) and Paramount's more artsy approach to film making at that time.

coming form a guy with a username of poop fingers

One says things have evolved by the hand and design of God. Evolution just says it evolved and doesn't really have anything to say about God's role in it. If you want to see the evolution of animals and plants and man as the work of God, you are completely free to do so.

@@brendanmcnally9145 Evolution is a demonstrable fact. Creation is not.

@@DrownedInExile Absolutely. Science and evolution only deals with what can be proven. Creation-heads only deal with matters of faith and not whether or not anything can be proven. Apparently they don't like being called on that point.

Burt Reynolds mentioned that he was one of them.

If it's a claim built around evidence, then it's an hypothesis. It graduates to become a theory if it survives enough rigorous testing that the scientific community can reaffirm its accuracy with a high degree of certainty, having directly tested to see if any central aspect of it is falsifiable.

sure, through compartmentalization. if you reject every part of religion that contradicts scientific knowledge you're gonna end up nonreligious

Which was also the point of Contact (1997). When Jodie Foster the agnostic scientist realizes that, it is one of the most poignant moments on film. Much like this movie …

Vlasko60 Personally, I once wanted to convert to atheism, but my two problems were this. 1. I as a human am terrified of a death that is just forever darkness and nothing. I know there is little evidence to support any afterlife or reincarnation but ignorance is bliss. 2. I do believe in the Big Bang but believe it to be divine. Why? It is my opinion that the universe we live in and the planet we live on are simply too beautiful to have been created by one big accident. I don’t however believe in the creation story and the idea of Adam and Eve.

@@conner-manradio 1. Your being terrified of death does not alter the nature of death. It sounds like you're in denial. I believe in life before death, not after death. 2. While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there is plenty of misery, sickness, and death in the world. Also most of the matter in the universe is tied up in black holes. I don't personally think black holes are beautiful, but you may think so.

Lol no it's not at all. You jst made that shit up. It was the most useless statement of all time. It doesn't change anything how many people choose to have faith or for your point why thay choose to that faith. When it comes to numbers it would take a world wide event to have an impact mabey a clear as day UFO event in the middle of London or LA. Or the t,o,e, being discovered. So just because u don't have Faith you think its stupid that a certain amount of others do. Go and listen to cold play

It forfills the 16 basic human desires perfectly when sex is culturally tabooed

Vlasko60 Here’s your answer. Because both believers and atheist (most of them, but not all of them) got it all wrong. I’m a Christian, I believe in God but also I believe in evolution and the Big Bang... but, How is even that possible? Well, both of them are not disconnected from each other. I believe that God created Biology, Physics, Mathematics, etc. And he can use them to create a domino effect for His purpose. But many people believe that everything has to be “black and white”, when you actually do your research you will find out that most things are like a giant puzzle, you have to connect different things for you to have a NEW perspective and grow up, and most people live in their own world and don’t care for other vital and interesting topics. I want Christian people to find the love of God in science, to do questions about things and do research, and to atheist understand that not because you don’t believe in a God you are “superior” to other people, because we humans still have MUCH more things to Learn.

HI It is the only book mapping our exact history from it's Beginning to it's everlasting Outcome, 6000 years of the history of death, to be followed by the thousand year reign of the resurrected Christ, from Jerusalem, which is about to break forth on us, check out Book of Revelation and many End Time vids on You Tube. Shalom to you in Christ Yeshua.

Plot twist: It isn't really a good book.

@@Warhero1171 I guess it can be considered as we consider Greek literature with its mythology. Hebrew bible may be seen as Hebrew literature with Hebrew mythology.

@Rizal Disraeli Ramos It's also the book that teaches us to discriminate against nonbelievers and homosexuals. Christianity and Islam are contradictory. They claim to have an all loving god that sends people to hell if they make one minor infraction. They claim that anyone who doesn't believe in God will burn in hell for eternity. Decent human beings don't massacre entire cities in the name of God, or burn thousands at the stake. Religion is foolish, but religions such as Christianity and Islam are detrimental to humanity. Secular humanists manage to be far more decent than religious people, while denying the existence of God.

Rizal Disraeli Ramos w

Well written.

Me too-it's one of my absolute favorite religious-themed movies.(I think of it as that.)

Those that love darkness hate the light and they hate the truth that comes from God who created light! You suppress the truth because you love your wicked sin. God ststates that you a a fool because creation proves there has to be a creator! Nothing can come from nothing. Basic law of physics.

J w, I feel sorry for your dad!

You don't know how to use an apostrophe so...

@@gigiis526 God told you that? Are you a prophet? Well then hallelujah! Let us have a book of GiGi! Slip you in neatly between Numbers and Deuteronomy!

You voted for vaccine tyranny like the little Nazi liberal that you are. Nice job.