creo/evo creative movies/books/plays

I thought I might reply to the mention of "Inherit the Wind"... a typical Hollywood production, this film bears little resemblance to actual history.

Well, quite a bit of both the background and courtroom scenes were invented, actually.

• Scopes was never imprisoned, and indeed his sponsors at ACLU did not seem to care (according to Scopes himself) whether he had actually taught evolution. They only wanted him to stand trial. Nor was Scopes even a biology expert, but rather a substitute teacher.
  ​
• The transcript and film differ somewhat in their representation of William Jennings Bryan. He had prepared excellent arguments, was polite to members of the court and never went into a frenzy of religious hysteria at the end.
  ​
• He had indeed read the Origin of Species and had been a significant figure in the creation/evolution debate for some time.
  ​
• According to the newspaper man, H. L. Mencken, relations between evolutionists and creationists in the town where this took place were very amiable.
  ​
• The reverend and his daughter were completely fictional. It seems odd to portray Christians as raging intolerant fundamentalists if the movie was intended as an unbiased presentation of the facts.

All in all, if you compare the Scopes trial with Inherit the Wind it becomes clear that the latter is a vitriolic distortion of the facts.

Well, actually I think the Scopes Trial was in Tennessee.Bryan was also a diabetic and his doctors had admonished him to stop working so hard. This could have been a factor in his death. Another one might have been that Darrow prevented him from presenting a final statement on creation by stipulating that Scopes be found guilty.
The problem with Inherit the Wind is that, while much is fictionalised and, as you said, biased, because it refers to a real event your average man in the street would probably take it at face value.Regarding your last statement, I think people who completely follow the Bible would be opposed to racism, at least if they believed Colossians 9:9-11: Your percentage was rhetorical, wasn't it?

'Fundamentalist' has become an emotionally loaded term for a Christian who is narrow-minded and intolerant. But remember, what it actually means is merely someone who believes in the fundamentals of their faith. Since the Bible tells us to follow the words of God, and God (in particular incarnated as Jesus) told us even to love our enemies as ourselves, then anyone who calls themself a Christian and engages in these acts as a matter of principle must by definition not be a Christian. Biblical literal fundamentalists should not be tarred with the same brush as people who call themselves Christians but show otherwise by virtue of their actions.Let's not forget that these ideas also extend to the religion of atheism. (You don't have to believe in God to be religious, or have a faith, do you?) Prominent followers of atheist and humanist philosophy such as Stalin and Mao Zedong have killed millions in their pursuit of power. The violent Reign of Terror in revolutionary France was oriented towards creating a purely atheist nation/government, even to the point of deleting the Biblical seven-day week in favour of a ten-day 'decade'.[This message has been edited by defenderofthefaith, 03-11-2004]