 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
This section at the end of the fifth paragraph is clearly contradictory:
"... the author of the law, a Tennessee farmer named John Washington Butler, specifically intended that it would prohibit the teaching of evolution. He later was reported to have said, "No, I didn't know anything about evolution when I introduced it. I'd read in the papers that boys and girls were coming home from school and telling their fathers and mother that the Bible was all nonsense." After reading copies of both William Jennings Bryan's lecture "Is the Bible True?" as well as Charles Darwin's Origin of Species and Descent of Man, Butler decided evolution was dangerous."
He cannot have not known anything about evolution when he introduced the Bill if he read two of Darwin's books before deciding that Darwin's ideas were dangerous - which would presumably be what motivated him to present the Bill. Butler was actually in his second term when he introduced the Bill, because he wasn't entitled to present a Bill during his first term (as he had wanted to). Unless the source of the report of his alleged lack of knowledge can be produced and corroborated it seems to me that this is nothing more than highly partial newspaper reporting, designed to make the people of Tennessee look like ignorant hicks, of a kind that was widespread at the time. Unless there are any objections I would like to remove the "didn't know anything" quote. Arthur 18:58 October 11, 2005
To me it appears to be fundamentally contradictory to say that the author of the law specifically intended that it would prohibit the teaching of evolution, and then apparently in support of that statement to quote him as having said, "No, I didn't know anything about evolution when I introduced it." How can he have specifically set out to prohibit the teaching of evolution if he knew nothing about it - and in fact his statement starts with a "no" - is that not a denial of that proposition? Unless of course he simply wanted to ban anything that he knew nothing about. No state congressman (not just a farmer, by the way) could be that ignorant, not even in Tennessee.JohnC (talk) 08:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was an Education Act in Britain in 1944 that is also commonly known as Butler Act. Im no experienced Wikipedian, so can someone please either link to this page or make a new disambiguation?
The first line sounds, at first glance, as though it forbad the teaching of the literal translation of the bible. Suggested revision I suppose. I would do it, however there are a lot of the brackets, and I hardly know what those are. Also, I'm not entirely clear on the law itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.178.39 (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear contradiction within the first paragraph? It says the butler act did NOT prohibit the teaching of evolution, however when you read the act it clear states that it prohibits it. I'm going to change it so it says it DOES prohibit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The White Alchemist (talk • contribs) 14:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Prohibiting public school teachers to deny the Biblical account of man’s origin" is appalling English. Try "from denying" instead!JohnC (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which version of the Bible did the Act make specific reference to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalzalahbuttsaab (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image Image:Tennesseestateseallrg.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that the Butler Act only outlawed the teaching of human evolution is a common claim on creationist websites. It is also in contradiction to the article on the Scopes trial. I believe that this article is in need of the attention of an expert historian. Fkohn (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Possible bias. According to the souce (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/tennstat.htm) provided on the page, which (according to this page) has the whole Butler act, the text only mentions "...any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." This seems pretty clear, unless I'm missing something...
According to this page the date the act was struck down is May 18
If you go to wiki page for the Governor it has a slightly different date.
Does it look like two different dates are being listed or am I misreading this badly? Gunnerclark (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References
