Was the Scopes Monkey trial Held Under False Pretenses?

[newton3005]

There are two schools of thought of how man came into being. According to the Bible, God created man, end of story. Evolutionary theory includes the idea that, man evolved from the ape. Cannot man have come about by both having been created by the Almighty, and having evolved from lower species? If so, seems the Scopes Trial was held under false pretenses.

The Scopes trial came about because of the Butler Act which passed in Tennessee that prohibited the teaching of evolution. Ironically, Butler, whose name was lent to the Act, knew nothing about evolution. His complaint was that students who were taught evolution caused strife in their homes, ridiculing God to the parents’ dismay and calling the Bible nonsense. The idea that a Christian household could be so upset was unsettling to people like Butler. It is probable that some who were aware of the Law’s passing may have wondered if evolution was bunk, and held that creation was the only way that man came into being.

The Bible establishes that God created life, within the six days mentioned in Genesis 1. Within those six days he created vegetation, birds, fish, beasts and other animals. God, in Genesis 1:22, commanded the creatures of the air and the seas to multiply. He doesn’t say for other creatures, like livestock and those that walked the earth to multiply, but there is a strong inference that He had the same idea for these land-based animals. The Bible allows for those to so infer, by reason of Isaiah 1:18 in which He invites us to reason with Him. So, those that so infer may consider it unlikely that, for instance, the same lions that God created were then at some point in the den with Daniel; those lions came about when their ancestors multiplied.

God did not command HOW the animals were to multiply. So, that opens the door to the possibility that those animals evolved through multiplying, and in the process taking on traits that would enable them to survive better than their predecessors; God did command the animals to be fruitful in Verse 22, along with their multiplying such fruitfulness would imply self-improvement in regeneration via multiplying. This could be associated with Darwin’s theory of natural selection—the more fruitful of the animals survived better than their predecessors.

What about man, you ask? Yes, God created man, but was that the only man that came into existence? If we presume the translation of the Bible from Hebrew or Greek to be correct, Genesis 1:26 says “Then God said, ‘Let us make man IN OUR IMAGE, AFTER OUR LIKENESS.’” Why did not God say “Let us make man,” without the qualifier that man be made in the image of God and his angels? Again, to the extent that Isaiah 1:18 permits, could there not have been other men and women roaming around, who were not in God’s image?

How would you explain, for instance, the existence of Neanderthals, who were physically different than us? There is evidence that they walked the earth. Is it not probable that they started walking the earth before God created Adam and Eve, via the same process of fruitful multiplication that the beasts went through, which allowed for traits to change the physique and brains of certain monkeys to evolve so they could survive better, and so they evolved into Neanderthals through this process?

The Scopes Trial involved a teacher who violated the law by teaching evolution. Notably, Butler, from what we know, did not say that evolution didn’t exist. How could he have thought that evolution didn’t exist when he knew nothing about what evolution is? I tell you that evolution came into existence when God gave life on earth the ability to multiply and be fruitful. So, other people existed whom God did not directly create as He had with Adam and Eve.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Arguably, the majority of Christians the world over have no trouble accepting both Scripture and science. Viewing the two as incompatible is only the view of some Christians. Many of the most important contributors to our modern understanding of evolution and genetics have been devout, believing Christians. A modern example would be Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, one of the founders of the BioLogos Foundation, and a devout Bible-believing Evangelical.

The BioLogos Foundation exists to facilitate open dialogue about the intersection of faith and science in an honest way that seeks to be truthful to the science and faithful to Scripture.

BioLogos - God's Word. God's World. - BioLogos

Are science and religion at war? Many people today believe they are in conflict. BioLogos exists to show that you don’t have to choose between modern science and biblical faith.

biologos.org

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Diamond7]

A modern example would be Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, one of the founders of the BioLogos Foundation, and a devout Bible-believing Evangelical.

Everything was fine until Collins took a job as head of the NIH and the pandemic came along that he was at least partly responsible for, cover up or not. So that means theistic evolution took a big hit because he had become the main spokesperson for that cause. I did read his book about how DNA is the language of God. He is a leading expert on DNA.

Some of the most well-known authors on theistic evolution include Kenneth R. Miller, Francis Collins, John Haught, Alister McGrath, and Simon Conway Morris, among others. Chatbots will give you a summery of their books, but I have not looked into what they have to say about the subject.

 

[Diamond7]

There are two schools of thought of how man came into being. According to the Bible, God created man, end of story. Evolutionary theory includes the idea that, man evolved from the ape. Cannot man have come about by both having been created by the Almighty, and having evolved from lower species? If so, seems the Scopes Trial was held under false pretenses.

Yes, theistic evolution says God used evolution to create us. But there are a lot of theories. Some of them are proven to be true and some of them are shown not to be true. I think Science offers us a lot of evidence that the Bible is true.

 

[BobRyan]

There are two schools of thought of how man came into being. According to the Bible, God created man, end of story. Evolutionary theory includes the idea that, man evolved from the ape

Two opposing doctrines on origins -- one from the Bible and one from those who believe in evolutionism.

. Cannot man have come about by both having been created by the Almighty, and having evolved from lower species?

God could have written a Bible that says "I created man by having him evolve over millions of years from an amoeba" -- but not only did He choose not to employ evolution - He also chose not to write that He used such a thing in the Bible.

Rather God says that the same 7 day length that we see in Gen 2 for the creation of all life on Earth - is the same length of seven days in place at Sinai in Ex 20:11.

If so, seems the Scopes Trial was held under false pretenses.

The Scopes trial came about because of the Butler Act which passed in Tennessee that prohibited the teaching of evolution. Ironically, Butler, whose name was lent to the Act, knew nothing about evolution.

Ironically the Scopes trial was showcasing a "P.E. teacher" as if he were the biology teacher - and charging the P.E. teacher with teaching evolution in a biology class room. (Something the P.E. Teacher never actually did).

The FALSE pretense was then exposed such that the defense "plead guilty" before they could have their P.E. teacher cross examined by the prosecution - because they did not want it to come out - that they had contrived the entire event for the trial.

His complaint was that students who were taught evolution caused strife in their homes, ridiculing God to the parents’ dismay and calling the Bible nonsense. The idea that a Christian household could be so upset was unsettling to people like Butler. It is probable that some who were aware of the Law’s passing may have wondered if evolution was bunk, and held that creation was the only way that man came into being.

No doubt that part was indeed part of that rationale

The Bible establishes that God created life, within the six days mentioned in Genesis 1. Within those six days he created vegetation, birds, fish, beasts and other animals. God, in Genesis 1:22, commanded the creatures of the air and the seas to multiply.

The text informs us of each of the 7 days of creation in a time-boxed chronological sequence.

It has all plant life on planet earth created in a single evening and morning on day 3.
It has all birds and fish on planet earth created in a single evening and morning on day 5.
It has all land animals created on planet Earth in a single evening and morning on day 6.

And it says that the time frame for that Gen 2:1-3 seven days is the same as the seven days at Sinai in Ex 20:11

God did not command HOW the animals were to multiply. So, that opens the door to the possibility that those animals evolved through multiplying

Evolution is not a kind of reproduction. Rather God says that the animals that were fully formed would reproduce.

Moses was not a darwinist.
The readers of Moses' text at Sinai were not darwinists and had no incentive to inject darwinism into the text.

This is irrefutable.

Exegesis does not allow us to inject darwinism into the Genesis text.

What about man, you ask? Yes, God created man, but was that the only man that came into existence?

wrong question. The question is - what does God teach about origins in Gen 1 and 2? Does God claim that other humans already came about some other way - but then God created Adam and Eve in a single day?

Moses was not a darwinist. Darwinism cannot be injected into the text.

 

[Diamond7]

Cannot man have come about by both having been created by the Almighty, and having evolved from lower species?

Evolution is actually the best evidence we have for the Bible. People ignore genealogies, but the Bible is all about common ancestors. Adam & Abraham were the patriarchs for a lot of people today.

 

[The Liturgist]

Two opposing doctrines on origins -- one from the Bible and one from those who believe in evolutionism.


God could have written a Bible that says "I created man by having him evolve over millions of years from an amoeba" -- but not only did He choose not to employ evolution - He also chose not to write that He used such a thing in the Bible.

That seems to me to be an argument resting on a logically fallacy. By the same argument I could claim geocentrism, because God did not inspire St. Moses to explicitly describe the layout of the Solar System. Indeed the Roman Catholic Church, which has since made amends through the excellent work of Roman Catholic priests, monks and nuns in diverse sciences, and the Vatican Observatory, engaged in such a fallacy when it placed Galileo under house arrest for advocating heliocentrism in the 17th century; a century earlier, the conduct of the Roman Catholic Church towards Copernicus and in response to Copernicus was rather better, while both Martin Luther and John Calvin hurled verbal abuse at Copernicus.

We of course now have established Heliocentrism as the truth beyond the shadow of a doubt, and in no respect does it threaten our theology (the objection involving the Sun standing still in Joshua is irrelevant, since that was a Holy Miracle, and God, being omnipotent, can make the cosmos be whatever

God does not explain how He created the universe, and indeed such explanations if provided in the past could have either caused confusion, or worse, led to the development of dangerously advanced technology before the Incarnation of Christ and the spread of Christian culture. I shudder to think what would happen if the ancient Assyrians or Babylonians or Persians or Greeks or Phoencians or Romans, or worse, the Hindus or Buddhists, had advanced knowledge of electromagnetism, as this would lead to quantum mechanics which would lead to nuclear weapons, and other horrors such as chemical weapons, since chemistry and electromagnetic theory developed in parallel, bolstering each other (since it is the number of protons and electrons in different elements that determine their chemical properties and reactivity with other elements.

Rather God says that the same 7 day length that we see in Gen 2 for the creation of all life on Earth - is the same length of seven days in place at Sinai in Ex 20:11.


Ironically the Scopes trial was showcasing a "P.E. teacher" as if he were the biology teacher - and charging the P.E. teacher with teaching evolution in a biology class room. (Something the P.E. Teacher never actually did).

The FALSE pretense was then exposed such that the defense "plead guilty" before they could have their P.E. teacher cross examined by the prosecution - because they did not want it to come out - that they had contrived the entire event for the trial.

No doubt that part was indeed part of that rationale

The text informs us of each of the 7 days of creation in a time-boxed chronological sequence.

It has all plant life on planet earth created in a single evening and morning on day 3.
It has all birds and fish on planet earth created in a single evening and morning on day 5.
It has all land animals created on planet Earth in a single evening and morning on day 6.

And it says that the time frame for that Gen 2:1-3 seven days is the same as the seven days at Sinai in Ex 20:11


Evolution is not a kind of reproduction. Rather God says that the animals that were fully formed would reproduce.

Moses was not a darwinist.
The readers of Moses' text at Sinai were not darwinists and had no incentive to inject darwinism into the text.

This is irrefutable.

Exegesis does not allow us to inject darwinism into the Genesis text.



wrong question. The question is - what does God teach about origins in Gen 1 and 2? Does God claim that other humans already came about some other way - but then God created Adam and Eve in a single day?

Moses was not a darwinist. Darwinism cannot be injected into the text.

Genesis 1 actually coincides with what science says about the formation of the cosmos and the progressive evolution of different life forms on Earth with such remarkable accuracy that it should be regarded as a holy miracle.

By the way, I find myself baffled by the inconsistent approach to literalism that the SDA apparently embraces. For instance, what our Lord says in John 6 about the Eucharist, and at the Last Supper, or for that matter the statements of our Lord contrary to Annhilationism, is not taken literally, and the Real Presence is rejected, and at the same time certain Old Testament scriptures are taken in a literal manner which does not seem to be Christologically-oriented.

I would argue that all exegesis of the Old Testament must at least partially use the Alexandrian method, on the basis of the ending of the Gospel According to St. Luke, when our Lord opened the Scriptures, and showed the remaining eleven disciples that the entirety of Scripture was about Him.