I do have the facts?
Facts are demonstrable. You have yet to demonstrate anything supporting your claim that apes are less intelligent than the animals you listed.
Upvote
0
I do have the facts?
You wroteI must have missed the part where I said that Scopes was jailed or suffered any of the things you described?
He was accused of violating the law by teaching evolution. That was the point of the entire trial. My entire point is that creationists are trying to stop the teaching of science in science class, and the Scopes Monkey Trial is a perfect example. I find it hard to believe that ED has never heard of creationists trying to have evolution removed from science classes.
I was referring to the very real one where a public school teacher was arrested for teaching evolution.
You wrote
According to the developmental psychologists I spoke of, we are hard wired to look for purpose, and that predisposes us to look for something or somebody who gives things their purpose.
The suggestion has been made that if children were cast away on a desert island shortly after birth, and they somehow managed to survive, by the time they were ten they would have worked out their own religion.
Yes. You have to be arrested on charges before you can be on trial. That's how those things work.
Notice how you have to try and distract the entire conversation away from creationists banning the teaching of science.
Bryan strenuously opposed the teaching of evolution in the public schools.
Bryan did not oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools. For a number of reasons noted below he did oppose teaching the evolution of mankind (one species) as scientific fact and especially in the manner in which evolutionary theory was practically being applied in his day.
As Bryan wrote in the New York Times:
The only part of evolution in which any considerable interest is felt is evolution applied to man. A hypothesis in regard to the rocks and plant life does not affect the philosophy upon which one's life is built. Evolution applied to fish, birds, and beasts would not materially affect man's view of his own responsibilities. . . . The evolution that is harmful . . . is the evolution that makes [man himself] a descendant of lower forms of life. (Feb. 26, 1922)
LOL. It was more like a friendly debate than a real trial. As noted Scopes was not arrested.
Hollywood version :
vs Reality
I pretty much agree in regards to how we are likely hard wired through the evolutionary process.
Acquiring knowledge of the world we live in, that was not available before can have an impact on each person's ability to relent to this "hard wired" hypothesis.
Reality: creationists created laws that banned the teaching of evolution in science class.
That is what you are trying to distract people from.
You also realize you can have a trial without being arrested.Being arrested and being in jail, are two different things.
You don't seem to care about the truth.
You don't seem to care about the truth.
You also realize you can have a trial without being arrested.
We are not hard wired to try and figure out how things work. We are hard wired to look for purpose in things. Achieving the former does not militate against the latter.
The truth is that creationists have been trying to remove evolution from the public school science classroom for over a century.
It was a friendly debate which that small town welcome as it draw attention toward that small town. Even Scope spoke about of how friendly everyone was.What was Scopes put on trial for?
No one was trying to remove evolution even in the 20's.
Depends on the person.
Some people are more hard wired to figure out the; what, where, when and how and these would be those that have dominant "analyzer" type personality traits. Those traits are driven both by genetics and life experiences. These types of people typically roll over every rock and are less likely to believe in something without thorough review and evidence to support the belief. You find a lot of these people in the areas of science and medicine.
A trial means a prosecution is taking place. How does one go forward with the prosecution of a defendant, without the defendant being charged and arrested for a crime?
Please explain to me, how a trial is held to prosecute an individual, when that individual has not been charged with a crime and arrested?