1. tsmith
  2. New Scopes documentary

New Scopes documentary

By tsmith on April 11, 2006.

I don't watch a lot of TV, but I'm always up for a good documentary. The History Channel this week is running a series, 10 days that changed America. According to the website,

The History Channel selected 10 teams of award-winning documentary filmmakers to spotlight "10 historic events that triggered seismic shifts in America's political, cultural or social landscape." The programs, including the one filmed in Dayton, include archival footage, reenactments, historic artifacts and interviews.

On Wednesday, April 12th, they'll air "Scopes: The Battle over America's Soul" (9PM EST). Should be interesting; I see that Answers in Genesis is already complaining about it.

Tags
Intelligent design/creationism

More like this

I like how AiG first complains that in the website for the movie says the Butler Act outlawed evolution when it really only outlawed the teaching that man was a part of evolution. Then in their Note 1 they mention that oh yeah, the website did make that clear after all. :)

P.S.: Buy thier new book on the subject now!!

I love watching Nova and The History Channel with my 12 year old son! So in your face AIG!

That's cool. I just watched Inherit the Wind this past weekend.

I don't know if you heard, but from this comment by Randy Olson over at the Loom, apparently someone is planning on making a pro-ID telling of the story. How lovely.

I've been contacted now by a major Hollywood production company who is in casting for a movie titled, "Monkey Trial,"Â which is going to be a re-telling of "Inherit the Wind,"Â from the pro-I.D. perspective, to be directed by Mel Gibson's producing partner who was involved with a little movie called, "Passion of the Christ,"Â so brace yourselves evolutionists.

Someone should do a documentary on the EvsA Supreme Court decision. I would love to hear the prosecution lawyer ask the creationist on the stand if he had ever had papers he submitted for publication rejected.

The answer would be even better: "No".

In one fell swoop, the prosecutor destroyed any notion in the courts mind that creationists produce creation "inspired" research that is simply 'rejected' out of hand by scientific journals. It's a beautiful moment in the trial and not remembered terribly often for what it meant.