Inherit the Wind—Evolutionary Propaganda
|
Author: Paul G.
Humber, AB, MS, BD |
Essays by Author |
Inherit the Wind is a fictionalized version of the Scopes
Trial of 1925, disclaimers to the contrary. Liberals who squirm under the
pressure of biblical morality seem to find solace in this bashing of
Bible-believers.
The sad
thing is that the play grossly misrepresents the historical personage, William
Jennings Bryan. The fact that “Brady” is Bryan finds support in a personal
letter written to me by Kirk Douglas.[1]
(Kirk Douglas played the part of Brady in the AT&T production of Inherit the Wind aired on national
television more than once years ago.)
Douglas
wrote: “To add to your argument, I might also include the fact that William
Jennings Bryan said that he would be willing to pay the fine imposed on the
young man.” The fictionalized version, however, portrays a vindictive person:
“Brady. (Thundering.) Your Honor, the prosecution takes exception! Where the
issues are so titanic, the coon must mete out more drastic punishment...to make
an example of this transgressor! To show the world.”
Douglas
continued. “I might also say that Bryan did read ‘Darwin’s Theory of Evolution’
(sic). The opposite point of view was expressed in our movie for dramatic
purposes.”
This last
sentence of Douglas is sad. Harvard’s Stephen Jay Gould, in an article entitled
“William Jennings Bryan’s Last Campaign” (Natural
History, November, 1987), credited Bryan for fighting against a legitimate
concern and quoted Bryan: “I learned that it was Darwinism that was at the
basis of that damnable doctrine that might makes right that had spread over
Germany” (p. 22). Gould would not himself want to blame Darwin, but he was
affirming Bryan’s concern.
A lot of
white supremacy jargon and implied action were floating around in the 20’s, and
Bryan was fighting it. Eugenicist Henry Fairfield Osborn, for example (featured
by The New York Times in opposing
Bryan, July 12, 1925) wrote in a book dedicated to John T. Scopes, “The ethical
principle inherent in evolution is that only the best has a right to survive.”[2]
Hitler himself could just as well have said these words.
In The New York Times article referred to,
entitled “Osborn States the Case for Evolution,” Osborn cites the Piltdown race
as evidence for evolution, but we now know that The Piltdown Man was a hoax.
Here is the
text of the letter I had sent to Kirk Douglas (to which he responded):
Several months ago, you had an
article published (I believe it was in Parade Magazine) entitled, “Let’s Leave
Make-Believe at the Movies.” In it you spoke of a quiet inner awareness that
says there must be a higher power responsible for the perfection of the
universe we live in and that we’re doing so much to destroy.
Most of us also sense that there is
such a thing as fairness. You and I both know that your role as Matthew Brady was
meant to parallel closely William Jennings Bryan. In this case, it’s hard to
view Inherit the Wind as pure make-believe. Was it really fair to Bryan to
characterize him as viewing sex as sin, even original sin? I believe there is
no reference to sex whatever in the actual trial, and the Christian church,
represented in some measure by Bryan, believes original sin to be disobedience,
not God-created sex between husband and wife. This latter is actually a gift
from God. I’m concerned that both Bryan and the Christianity he represented
(have) been unfairly tarnished by the Inherit the Wind production. Now don’t
get me wrong. I’m not trying to blast you, but I would like, perhaps even as a
friend, to encourage you to see things from a different perspective.
Another example might be helpful. The
where-did-Cain-get-his-wife issue seems also to be a red herring. Consider
Genesis 5:4 where it is clear that our first parents had “sons and daughters.”
This is made explicit, and it is obvious that Cain married a sister. This would
have had to be true even in an evolutionary setting, assuming that the evolving
of humans was not a common occurrence. The business about 9 a.m. on October 23,
4004, (BC) is also misleading. Bryan made it explicit during the trial that he
did not know how old the earth was.[3]
Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, in an
article entitled, “William Jennings Bryan’s Last Campaign” (Natural History,
November, 1987), affirms that “Bryan ... had correctly identified a problem!”
(cf. p. 26). Bryan was aware that evolution was being used to justify German
supremacy and various social evils. I’m attaching an article I wrote showing
the poisoning effect it had on Stalin. The same God that has touched our “inner
awareness” (as you put it) also holds us responsible for the way we represent
or misrepresent our fellow human beings. He does not want us to bear false
witness against our neighbor even if he has passed on to the next life.
If you agree with some of these
concerns, perhaps you would be willing to respond. For example, is it not very
important to remind the public and even to stress that looking at Inherit the
Wind can be misleading about the facts of the actual trial? If you agree with
me in this, would you be willing to let me quote you in an article I might
write?
Our Creator is very loving and
forgiving. He forgives me because of what His Son did two thousand years ago on
a cross. I don’t know if you have experienced the same love and forgiveness,
but I know it’s available to all who come to Him in humility and faith. Many
great men, including William Jennings Bryan, have done this to their eternal
joy. I hope you get to meet him in heaven.
Hoping to hear from you. . . .
Sincerely, Paul G. Humber
Kirk
Douglas did respond, apparently agreeing in some measure with my concerns. He
even added arguments I had not mentioned and did not discourage me from quoting
him. Since his performance was public and he freely submitted a letter, even
after I had indicated a desire to quote him, I am taking the liberty of sharing
the contents of the document sent to me. It is possible that even he valued an
opportunity to set the record straight. My personal view is that the producers
carry greater responsibility for foisting untruths on others in the guise of
quasi-history, besmirching Christianity in the process.
You may
view Kirk Douglas’ response by clicking here.
Conclusions
I’m not
quite sure how Mr. Douglas was able to judge the former presidential aspirant as
gluttonous. The impression that I get from pictures is that Bryan was not fat.
He was healthy looking and not thin; he may have been somewhat overweight. I
hope this was not the basis for judging him gluttonous, however.
As stated
above, perhaps the saddest part of Mr. Douglas’s letter is the phrase, “The
opposite point of view was expressed in our movie for dramatic purposes.” Shame
on AT&T for foisting misrepresentations on the public! Is this not a
deliberate example of running down Bible-believing Christians? True, as Mr.
Douglas stressed, the production was of a fictional character. However, Kirk
Douglas himself, perhaps inadvertently, admitted (in his third paragraph about
the historical Bryan), that he was portraying him. The antecedent was and is Bryan
not Brady!
Presumably,
millions across the nation witnessed this dramatization. Untruths, however,
need to be exposed for what they are! Some producers apparently care more for
money and attention than truth, but we must protest falsehood. Americans who
see deception as a freedom, apparently do not know what real freedom is.
Proverbs
11:29a reads, “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.” What
may be in view here is one in some position of authority who withholds proper
nourishment and pleasures from those under his care (family or servants). That
person shall “inherit the wind.” He will be pushed further and further back,
away from any position of authority or influence. Those in charge of television
and television productions are in positions of influence. They have
responsibilities to be fair and honest in their dealings with people.
Far better
it would be for media persons if they would emphasize what is honest and true.
They should attend to another portion of Scripture: “Finally, brethren,
whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just,
whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of
good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy;
meditate on these things” (Phil. 4:8).
Return to the top of this Essay
This page last updated 01/30/2007
Back to the Revolution Against Evolution
home page
The Creation Bookstore
Revolution Against Evolution TV Show
Creation Essays
Seminars and Class Schedule
Online Books
Other online resources
Frequently Asked Questions
The Amy Foundation Website
Mount Hope Church
The Revolution Against Evolution has had over one million visitors since 4/28/97.
. 
. Contact rae.org or send comments
about this page HERE.