I found this film very moving and touching: and I find the debate of Faith. monumentally hilarious.
*ding*
On this side petty little cyphers, they love their quantities and facts- I'm sure they'll put up one stellar...sorry scalar fight, to bad they ain't got the measure for measure: They know their ABC & 123s and their autistic sentimentalities
With a whopping heavy morality add or leave a few apocrypha, the people going in circles, Faith is strength, and wondering were the wondering wander wanders, the truth weighing themselves down; being false to the word the Man gave 'em.
Thank the lord, they have that JC escape clause...owh, too bad, it only works if you believe in deed, not in word.
If you quibbling idiots knew anything about the humanity, you would hide from it in terror.
@dakotagerman1 In principle, yes. Intelligent Design could be an explanatory hypothesis. But so can literal, biblical creation. Both "explanations" make some testable claims. There just simply ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE that supports those claims. ALL the evidence points to the unintelligent process of evolution by natural selection. ID proponents, like YE creationists, simply ignore that evidence and pretend it isn't there. Michael Behe himself was even caught doing so in court during the Dover trial.
@F1NGER And what testable claims are made by natural selection that have been supported by evidence, may I ask? I was under the impression punctuated equilibrium was even tentatively suggested because there was a certain lacking amount of testable evidence and experiments on the matter of evolution via natural selection.
@Sickopath333 The testable prediction of natural selection (and sexual selection) is that organisms will, over successive generations, change according to environmental pressures. Some famous controlled experiments are Richard Lenski's long-term e-coli experiment, John Endler's guppie experiment, and the peppered moth study. There are also all the examples of animal and plant domestication as well as natural evolutionary events like the nylon bug, the stickleback, and ring species phenomenon...
@Sickopath333 ...Punctuated equilibrium was suggested to explain why evolution appears to happen in fits and starts in the fossil record. Fairly recent discoveries in genetics are shining light on why that would happen, showing that simple random mutation doesn't play as big a role as is traditionally thought. But the fact of evolution by natural selection is still overwhelmingly evident and is not under dispute by science.
People harp on this film because it doesn't follow the historical events, but the original play (and this film) have such great writing and scripting... the whole of hollywood could learn something from such a classic.
Also, Noah Beery, Jr. plays a nice little role. I love his face when the death of his son is brought up. As a humble farmer who has seen the light, Beery lifts me up, especially when he posts the value of his farm for Drummond's bail.
@dakotagerman1 You're right about everything except ID not being creationism repackaged. The repackaging was proven in court. Early versions of the ID textbook "Of Pandas and People," use the words "creationism" and "creator" which were -- after teaching creationism became illegal -- changed to "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer." One draft of the book even included "cdesign proponentsists." An apparent typo from when the editor tried to change "creationists" to "design proponents."
Dick York was well cast as Bertram Cates in this movie. He was a young and sensitive actor and you see this in all of his pre-Bewitched roles. He always played
"little" characters but made them quietly large by his naturalistic behaviour in the part. You can particularly see this in his two appearances in The Twilight Zone.
@LordZontar I hope all those who remember Dick York only as Darren Stephens will watch this film AND his "Twilight Zone" performances. He was a damn good actor:) --
@DreamsOfGabija Very true, life outside the box is hard, only because it's so much better outside the box and it makes me sad that so many people are still trapped inside. In the words of Dr House "You know, I get it if people are just looking for a way to fill the holes. But they want the holes. They wanna live in the holes. And they go nuts when someone else pours dirt in their holes. CLIMB OUT OF YOUR HOLES, PEOPLE!"
It is the speech-everyone to be-to act and to think of their own free will. No matter what their beliefs. Of course, if you insist that others must do what you think is best, then we have a problem. Words to live this life by.
I'm sorry, but this movie is an absolute PERVERSION of what really took place. In REALITY, things were quite the OPPOSITE from this film. The creationist (Bryan) had a kind character, & the evolutionist (Darrow) had a mean look. But in this movie, the CREATIONIST has the mean look while the evolutionist has the kind character. I don't understand why the present world enjoys twisted & distorting events to support their arguments.
Despite the fact that this piece of FICTION has strong ties to a real case, they are not one and the same. That said, the logic of the defense in this film is rather sound. The caricature of the majority of fundamentalists is also rather sound. It's not that we believe all christians are crazy nutjobs, it's that we believe that there is no place for religion in law. Religion deserves no favors, nor any restrictions from private life. It should be a separate entity.
@snoman99991 Having government not based on religion does not mean the government should tell students their religion is wrong. Is it that crazy to just teach students the facts and let them decide what to believe?
The government isn't telling anyone they're wrong. The government has a responsibility to protect education. That means in a science class, you teach science! Having a basic education in science opens many doors for students in college. Because of how important science is to your education, we should be giving kids a leg up whenever we have the opportunity. If kids want religious studies, they should seek out the church to do so. I've known many devout teenagers. They do it.
I myself was once a devout Christian as a teenager. I went to my church every Sunday for services and to participate in a service-based youth group. The program itself was the reason so many kids went back. I'm sure you are a passionate believer, because the very reason you are responding to me is why I did when I was faithful. But you have to know that a good church community is what brings people in. You can't scare kids into faith in school. Let them love god on their own.
I no longer have that faith. I have my own reasons, as does any atheist who deconverted. That doesn't mean we never knew. It disgusts us that you want beliefs irrelevant to the study of biology being wedged into the curriculum. If you want to have religious studies offered as courses in high school, that's not even offensive. When kids can choose to participate in religion it becomes a freedom. You are restricting freedoms by asking children to decide in their science class.
It's a pleasure to see reality for myself. The very welcoming community that is online atheism had a profound impact upon my arrival at nontheism. While I probably never spoke with you prior, thank you. We all have a hand in making this world a better place.
@snoman99991 the movie ignored a point that in this period, many if not most atheists believed in some wierd form of Social Darwinism, which preached the anti-Jesus message of might to the strong, death to the rest. Im not excusing religious fundamentalism, but it's obvious that many Christians were scared of urban change, of nascent ubernationalism and fascism, and were, in some ways, kinder people than the atheists who supplanted them.
Social Darwinism has literally nothing to do with what Darwin taught though. Darwin gave us the elegant explanation of natural selection. That has nothing to do with socio-economics, particularly in context. Christians feared that the discovery of natural selection would lead many to believe that Eugenics was a good choice, as it would seem to follow naturally. However, humans are guided by ethics and understand as a species that it isn't our domain to control life like that.
@snoman99991 Inherit the Wind was never intended to be a historical play about the Scopes trial; Lawrence and Lee used elements from the Scopes trial to write a play that was really a slam against McCarthyism.
This movie is annually shown at secular schools & colleges, to make students think that creationists are not trustworthy. That's not education, that's INDOCTRINATION, Soviet-style!
But of course, that doesn't make it impossible. See the important point of logic is that we cannot prove nor disprove the supernatural. We can know that it is incredibly unlikely, but to outright prove or disprove it would be fallacy.
That said, that would be an extraordinarily complicated way to create everything.
This movie got me through my year at a religious college, where people were constantly telling me what they were telling Bert. This scene gave me the strength I needed to transfer out of that place. Thank you so much for posting this.
Bravo, Kramer. Bravo, Tracy --
EvaHartwig 3 months ago
stan kramer was a very underrated director this movie is the greatest diamond that ever came out of hollywood
cyberyanmar 4 months ago
I found this film very moving and touching: and I find the debate of Faith. monumentally hilarious.
*ding*
On this side petty little cyphers, they love their quantities and facts- I'm sure they'll put up one stellar...sorry scalar fight, to bad they ain't got the measure for measure: They know their ABC & 123s and their autistic sentimentalities
MeneerTiki 7 months ago
on the other side,
With a whopping heavy morality add or leave a few apocrypha, the people going in circles, Faith is strength, and wondering were the wondering wander wanders, the truth weighing themselves down; being false to the word the Man gave 'em.
Thank the lord, they have that JC escape clause...owh, too bad, it only works if you believe in deed, not in word.
If you quibbling idiots knew anything about the humanity, you would hide from it in terror.
MeneerTiki 7 months ago
@dakotagerman1 In principle, yes. Intelligent Design could be an explanatory hypothesis. But so can literal, biblical creation. Both "explanations" make some testable claims. There just simply ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE that supports those claims. ALL the evidence points to the unintelligent process of evolution by natural selection. ID proponents, like YE creationists, simply ignore that evidence and pretend it isn't there. Michael Behe himself was even caught doing so in court during the Dover trial.
F1NGER 10 months ago
@F1NGER And what testable claims are made by natural selection that have been supported by evidence, may I ask? I was under the impression punctuated equilibrium was even tentatively suggested because there was a certain lacking amount of testable evidence and experiments on the matter of evolution via natural selection.
Sickopath333 6 months ago
@Sickopath333 The testable prediction of natural selection (and sexual selection) is that organisms will, over successive generations, change according to environmental pressures. Some famous controlled experiments are Richard Lenski's long-term e-coli experiment, John Endler's guppie experiment, and the peppered moth study. There are also all the examples of animal and plant domestication as well as natural evolutionary events like the nylon bug, the stickleback, and ring species phenomenon...
F1NGER 6 months ago
@Sickopath333 ...Punctuated equilibrium was suggested to explain why evolution appears to happen in fits and starts in the fossil record. Fairly recent discoveries in genetics are shining light on why that would happen, showing that simple random mutation doesn't play as big a role as is traditionally thought. But the fact of evolution by natural selection is still overwhelmingly evident and is not under dispute by science.
F1NGER 6 months ago
@dakotagerman1
Well, we can't take any chances, can't we?
TheVoiceOfReason93 10 months ago
"What kind of a life could we have if I give up now?"
Dark Age, Theocracy, Witch-Burning, and a f***ing Holocaust, that's the kind of life you would expect, if we give up.
Like it or not, Science must prevail, even if it means the whole world must burn with one final war between Reason and Fanaticism. Take a side.
TheVoiceOfReason93 10 months ago
oh my, thank you for sharing. those words gave me chills.
CeaselesslyCurious 1 year ago
Thank you for the upload, an amazing speech!
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
she's hot
oweenacow 1 year ago
People harp on this film because it doesn't follow the historical events, but the original play (and this film) have such great writing and scripting... the whole of hollywood could learn something from such a classic.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
Also, Noah Beery, Jr. plays a nice little role. I love his face when the death of his son is brought up. As a humble farmer who has seen the light, Beery lifts me up, especially when he posts the value of his farm for Drummond's bail.
SSArcher11 1 year ago
I love the camera effect around 1:59-2:13...it's incredible.
DisneyBlackJet 1 year ago 2
@DisneyBlackJet I love it too. I would love to use that walking pan some more, it is an amazing effect. My hat's off to the camera man and director.
UraniasDaughter 1 year ago 2
@dakotagerman1 You're right about everything except ID not being creationism repackaged. The repackaging was proven in court. Early versions of the ID textbook "Of Pandas and People," use the words "creationism" and "creator" which were -- after teaching creationism became illegal -- changed to "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer." One draft of the book even included "cdesign proponentsists." An apparent typo from when the editor tried to change "creationists" to "design proponents."
F1NGER 1 year ago
Dick York was well cast as Bertram Cates in this movie. He was a young and sensitive actor and you see this in all of his pre-Bewitched roles. He always played
"little" characters but made them quietly large by his naturalistic behaviour in the part. You can particularly see this in his two appearances in The Twilight Zone.
LordZontar 1 year ago 14
@LordZontar I hope all those who remember Dick York only as Darren Stephens will watch this film AND his "Twilight Zone" performances. He was a damn good actor:) --
stevevandien 1 year ago
This scene speaks to every atheist/agnostic out there.
I dare for any agnostic/atheist to look me in the eye and say they never felt this way
DreamsOfGabija 2 years ago
@DreamsOfGabija Very true, life outside the box is hard, only because it's so much better outside the box and it makes me sad that so many people are still trapped inside. In the words of Dr House "You know, I get it if people are just looking for a way to fill the holes. But they want the holes. They wanna live in the holes. And they go nuts when someone else pours dirt in their holes. CLIMB OUT OF YOUR HOLES, PEOPLE!"
FGP02 1 year ago
I would really love to watch this movie fully. It seems so....inspiring.
mikeJRthe2nd 2 years ago 4
@mikeJRthe2nd it's a great movie, it's based on a play
trojansfan87 1 year ago
It is the speech-everyone to be-to act and to think of their own free will. No matter what their beliefs. Of course, if you insist that others must do what you think is best, then we have a problem. Words to live this life by.
davesdatingtips 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm sorry, but this movie is an absolute PERVERSION of what really took place. In REALITY, things were quite the OPPOSITE from this film. The creationist (Bryan) had a kind character, & the evolutionist (Darrow) had a mean look. But in this movie, the CREATIONIST has the mean look while the evolutionist has the kind character. I don't understand why the present world enjoys twisted & distorting events to support their arguments.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Despite the fact that this piece of FICTION has strong ties to a real case, they are not one and the same. That said, the logic of the defense in this film is rather sound. The caricature of the majority of fundamentalists is also rather sound. It's not that we believe all christians are crazy nutjobs, it's that we believe that there is no place for religion in law. Religion deserves no favors, nor any restrictions from private life. It should be a separate entity.
snoman99991 2 years ago 27
@snoman99991 Most intelligent comment I've ever seen on YouTube.
willibro151 1 year ago
@snoman99991 Excellent comment.
StudentOfObjectivism 10 months ago
@snoman99991 Having government not based on religion does not mean the government should tell students their religion is wrong. Is it that crazy to just teach students the facts and let them decide what to believe?
thedarkyobo 10 months ago
@thedarkyobo
The government isn't telling anyone they're wrong. The government has a responsibility to protect education. That means in a science class, you teach science! Having a basic education in science opens many doors for students in college. Because of how important science is to your education, we should be giving kids a leg up whenever we have the opportunity. If kids want religious studies, they should seek out the church to do so. I've known many devout teenagers. They do it.
snoman99991 9 months ago
@thedarkyobo
I myself was once a devout Christian as a teenager. I went to my church every Sunday for services and to participate in a service-based youth group. The program itself was the reason so many kids went back. I'm sure you are a passionate believer, because the very reason you are responding to me is why I did when I was faithful. But you have to know that a good church community is what brings people in. You can't scare kids into faith in school. Let them love god on their own.
snoman99991 9 months ago
@thedarkyobo
I no longer have that faith. I have my own reasons, as does any atheist who deconverted. That doesn't mean we never knew. It disgusts us that you want beliefs irrelevant to the study of biology being wedged into the curriculum. If you want to have religious studies offered as courses in high school, that's not even offensive. When kids can choose to participate in religion it becomes a freedom. You are restricting freedoms by asking children to decide in their science class.
snoman99991 9 months ago
@snoman99991 ... I no longer have that faith. I have my own reasons, as does any atheist who deconverted. That doesn't mean we never knew ...
Welcome to the side of reality.
DarwinsFriend 7 months ago
@DarwinsFriend
It's a pleasure to see reality for myself. The very welcoming community that is online atheism had a profound impact upon my arrival at nontheism. While I probably never spoke with you prior, thank you. We all have a hand in making this world a better place.
snoman99991 6 months ago
@snoman99991 Indeed and pushing the rock of fear off your chest is truly liberating!
DarwinsFriend 6 months ago
@snoman99991 the movie ignored a point that in this period, many if not most atheists believed in some wierd form of Social Darwinism, which preached the anti-Jesus message of might to the strong, death to the rest. Im not excusing religious fundamentalism, but it's obvious that many Christians were scared of urban change, of nascent ubernationalism and fascism, and were, in some ways, kinder people than the atheists who supplanted them.
dchris1990 5 months ago
@dchris1990
Social Darwinism has literally nothing to do with what Darwin taught though. Darwin gave us the elegant explanation of natural selection. That has nothing to do with socio-economics, particularly in context. Christians feared that the discovery of natural selection would lead many to believe that Eugenics was a good choice, as it would seem to follow naturally. However, humans are guided by ethics and understand as a species that it isn't our domain to control life like that.
GotTonkaed 5 months ago
@snoman99991 Inherit the Wind was never intended to be a historical play about the Scopes trial; Lawrence and Lee used elements from the Scopes trial to write a play that was really a slam against McCarthyism.
shanedk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This movie is annually shown at secular schools & colleges, to make students think that creationists are not trustworthy. That's not education, that's INDOCTRINATION, Soviet-style!
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Didn't God invent evolution? It all makes sense in my head.
DanielCiurlizza 2 years ago
it might make sense to you, but you can't prove it, and that's the point. =P
Valkes 2 years ago
Yeah... you're absolutely right.
DanielCiurlizza 2 years ago
But of course, that doesn't make it impossible. See the important point of logic is that we cannot prove nor disprove the supernatural. We can know that it is incredibly unlikely, but to outright prove or disprove it would be fallacy.
That said, that would be an extraordinarily complicated way to create everything.
snoman99991 2 years ago 2
Do you trust delusional people? That's what I thought.
snoman99991 2 years ago
This movie got me through my year at a religious college, where people were constantly telling me what they were telling Bert. This scene gave me the strength I needed to transfer out of that place. Thank you so much for posting this.
RaseyAngl 2 years ago 3