Inherit the Wind

The situation of a teacher who is judged and arrested for his supposed failure at teaching students ethical principles is found. Yes, I understand. It is hard to believe that any law would prohibit some sort of teaching, but during those times this actually happened. We are talking about the 1920's, when this novel takes place. Inherit the Wind narrates the story of a science professor, Bertram Cates, who is accused for teaching his students the theory of evolution. It comes to be that creationists were against Darwin's theory for it challenged existing ideas such as creation from Genesis and it opposed the teachings from the Bible itself.

Henry Drummond, Cates lawyer, represents the case in the trial and supports the theory of evolution of man by arguing on freedom of thought. He doubts on the Bible's accuracy and justifies evolution for it has been scientifically proven. He believes religion should not interfere and not permit these types of lessons since religion is a topic that one can freely chose to believe in or not. "The only way to get onto a hilltop and observe back to know where we came from is to abandon faith by using our unique ability to reason." If you yet haven't noticed, I am definitely on the side of evolutionists.

One of the principle things that Drummond states is that God did not create men, but that men created God. I think that this is true since for there to exist God, you must have faith in him and for one to believe in God, you must create a conceptual image of him. Every human being believes in that individual God that makes up your relgion, and since religions and believes vary, there is no justification of why God created men if they not all believe in him. After saying this, there might be many questions on who Satan is. But Drummond answers to this as well. Since men created God, and bless him as the good, they might have as well created another being to which they would blame for evil. This lawyer says that "the devil comes from men's own hell".

I come to believe that there are various parts in the Bible in which it contradict itself. It has some absurd events and facts that are just so unbelievable that they end up supporting Drummond's doubt on the realistic accuracy of the Bible. To say that people lived for around eight hundred years is indeed unconvincing and much less after taking into account that it was during those times. "And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died." (Genesis 5: 8) Nowadays, a maximum lifespan is of a hundred and twenty years old and there is much more technology and advanced medicine and even with that, people now live less than in the old times. How is that possible? How can someone live for more than eight hundred years? Those survival techniques must have been extremely fancy and influential but not even that convinces me of such incredibly expanded life spans.

"And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch". (Genesis 4: 17) Up until that point of Genesis, the only beings alive were Adam and Eve which bared only two sons, Cain and Abel. So how is it possible that Cain knew his wife? Where does his wife come from anyways? Did a cloud give birth to her? Again, this is another example that puts in test the real accuracy of the Bible, but this single story with these characters isn't over yet. “And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.” (Genesis 4: 18) It had been clearly stated in the trial by Harrison Brady, the Bible's defendant, that having sex was considered a sin. So why did all these faithful beings sin? If this i supposedly a sin, then how are we suppose to multiply?

Science and religion should not be kept apart and the teaching of both should be held, for "science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind." (-Albert Einstein) I found Drummonds position much more realistic than that of supporting the Bible due to my believe in the theory of evolution. I think it is ridiculous to forbid the teaching of science and if it really was a sin, they wouldn't teach science as a school subject nowadays. Overall, I don't think that one should replace the other for they both play a very influential role in life.

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition;
religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish....
We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be." (-Pope John Paul II)