Film Analysis: Inherit The Wind

1150 Words3 Pages

The film Inherit the Wind is about the fierce opposition between religious fundamentalism and freedom of thought. The movie revolves around the Scope 's monkey trial held in 1925 when a teacher was accused of breaking a state law by teaching his students the theory of human evolution. In a more emotional manner, Inherit the Wind presents a version of that event making emphasis on opposing nature of argument between reason and arbitrary. It is important to explore the film 's primary patterns and characters as well as evaluating the arguments representing fundamentalist 's and evolutionist 's sides on the level of their objectivity and reasonableness. It would be reasonable to say that there are four main characters in the film. The first …show more content…

First, the biblical argument seems entirely inappropriate when it comes to the legal case exploring the scientific theory. Those, who stood on the side of fundamentalism failed to present a logical and reasonable evidence to support their argument as well as instead of conveying people that their side is right, tried to blame the opponent in heretism. Further, one should say that appealing to one 's emotions is inappropriate for the matter when scientific argumentation and methodology is essential. Therefore, it would be reasonable to say that fundamentalist 's argument is weak, having neither logical nor evidential basis. Moreover, Brady, who was an apologist of the Bible, did not even read The Origin of Species failing to understand the evidential essence of the counter-argument. In contrast, one should say that Drummond presented a logical and reasonable argument providing textual support as well as pointing out on the inconsistencies in the opponent 's argumentation. One can say that the director of the movie depicted Drummond as being on the side of truth while fighting against an unhealthy and unreasonable fundamentalism. From a personal perspective, one should say that the only weakness in the defense team argumentation lies in the fact that The Origin of Species did not include enough evidence to state that humans evolved from apes. It is only a statement resulted in making a parallel between evolution in the animal kingdom and transition from animals to humans. Therefore, calling themselves a people of science would be inappropriate. Instead, one should call Drummond 's side a people of logic and

Open Document