> > > SUPPORT CREATION WIKI < < <
Donate -or- Patronize our Creation Science Store

Inherit the Wind is false propaganda (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jump to: navigation, search
Talkorigins.jpg
Response Article
This article (Inherit the Wind is false propaganda (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.


Claim CA045:

The movie Inherit the Wind, a fictional account of the famous Scopes trial, is misleading propaganda. It relies heavily on anti-Christian ideas, and it depicts evolution as being censored, when in fact evolution is doing the censoring.

Source: Nesselroade, Paul. 2003. Winds of change? Wedge Update (July 1),


CreationWiki response:

Nothing in Talk.Origins' "rebuttal" actually rebuts the claim.

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)


1. Inherit the Wind is fiction and was intended as such from the beginning. Like Arthur Miller's The Crucible, it was inspired by the events of the McCarthy era, particularly the suppression of ideas then prevalent (ClassicNote 1999). The authors tried to emphasize its fictionality by using fictional names for the characters. In the print version of the play, they write,
Inherit the Wind is not history. The events which took place in Dayton, Tennessee, during the scorching July of 1925 are clearly the genesis of this play. It has, however, an exodus entirely of its own. [. . .]
The collision of Bryan and Darrow at Dayton was dramatic, but it was not a drama. Moreover, the issues of their conflict have acquired new dimension and meaning in the thirty years since they clashed at the Rhea County Courthouse. So Inherit the Wind does not pretend to be journalism. It is theatre. It is not 1925. The stage directions set the time as "Not too long ago." It might have been yesterday. It could be tomorrow. (Lawrence and Lee 1955)
Unfortunately, the drama has been treated as history by others, particulary by the movie promoters. This does a disservice to both the history and the drama. The history is recorded elsewhere (e.g., Larson 1997). The drama is about attitudes and ideas. The fact that the drama remains popular through the decades shows that the ideas are still relevant today.

One wonders just what Talk.Origins is trying to achieve here. Creationists are not claiming that the film is a documentary; it is acknowledged to be a fictionalised account. But it is also undisputibly based on the real events in Dayton, as Talk.Origins' quote acknowledges. Nothing in this rebuttal point actually rebuts the claim that it is misleading propaganda.


2. Dramatic license with history is common in many other dramas, such as Bertolt Brecht's Galileo and the movies 1776, Spartacus, and The Passion of the Christ, to name just a few.

Inherit the Wind's use of "dramatic licence" is clearly done in a way to denigrate Christians. Again, Talk.Origins' response does not actually rebut the claim.


3. Creationism is a multi-million dollar business with numerous speaking, publishing, and other publicity outlets. Complaints that it is suffering from undue propaganda, much less that it is being systematically censored, are pure paranoia.

Talk.Origins just couldn't resist taking a dig at creationists. In saying this they ignore the fact that science is a multi-trillion dollar business with worldwide speaking, publishing, and other publicity outlets, including public schools where creationism is completely censored. And evolutionary research has major funding from governments, whereas the pittance that is available to be spent on creationary research is almost entirely from donations by supporters.

There are indeed efforts to censor creationism from the mainstream public. In most western societies, programs favouring creation simply don't get onto the mainstream media networks, but there is no end of programs favouring and even promoting evolution.

Personal tools