The Scopes “Monkey Trial” Revisited – Part 2

A Retrospective on the Significance and Legacy of the “Trial of the Century”

🖨️ Print-Friendly PDF

— AN OVERVIEW —

PREFACE

• The historical and scientific context for the Scopes Trial of 1925.
• What were the main issues at stake in the trial?

PART 1

• The facts, the myths, and the legacy related to the Trial – and why it was so significant in subsequent American history.
• The value and necessity of Christian apologetics.

PART 2

• A contemporary update: The Sepocs Trial of 2025.
• How has American society and culture radically changed over the past century?
• The case for Intelligent Design.
• The Summa: “Follow the evidence wherever it leads to its logical conclusion.”

— PART 2 —
SCOPES 2.0: THE SEPOCS TRIAL OF 2025

The Times, They Have A-changed

Confronting the Education Establishment

The Scenario.

Imagine something similar to the Scopes Trial if it occurred today: Virtually the whole scenario would be flipped. As Bob Dylan sang some 60 years ago, “The Times, They Are A-changin’” – but it’s inconceivable that anyone back then had any idea just how radically things would change. Even the most radical proponents of social change would never have anticipated recent trends such as same-sex “marriage,” “transgender” ideology, or the redefinition of “equality” as “equity.” The times certainly have a-changed, but in many respects certainly not for the better.

I call this update “Scopes 2.0 – The Sepocs Trial of 2025” (i.e., “Scopes” spelled backward).

• The location is the “I. M. Woke Social Justice Center” in “Eutopia, California.”
• The defendant, John Sepocs, is a biology and natural sciences teacher and an assistant baseball coach at George Soros High School.
• The defense attorney is William Jennings Barr of the Alliance Defending Freedom.
• The prosecuting attorney is Karleen Marx.
• The judge is Ima Judge.
• The “jury” is composed of the men, women, “non-binary individuals” and “others” who form the Eutopia Unified School District Board of Education.
• The jury foreperson is the chairperson of the Board of Education, Randall Winebibber.

The Indictment.

Judge Ima Judge: Let us begin. Will the prosecution please read the indictment?

Karleen Marx: Your Honor, and ladies and gentlemen and those who identify as “other” or “non-binary” on the jury: The defendant, John Sepocs, is charged on three counts:

(1) Confusing students and violating a central principle of modern “progressive education” by challenging key tenets of standardized science.

(2) Violating state mandates regarding the separation of church and state by teaching an unauthorized and unscientific religious alternative to conventional Neo-Darwinian evolution.

(3) Refusing to address students by their preferred pronouns.

Your Honor, the charges against Mr. Sepocs are clear and unambiguous, and the prosecution argues that Mr. Sepocs’ contract with the Eutopia Unified School District should be terminated for interjecting – and even imposing – unauthorized religious views in his natural science classes at Eutopia High School.

First of all, for denying “settled science.”

Second, for misleading students by mixing true science with religion and pseudo-science theories.

And regarding the third count, “Failing to address students by their preferred pronoun,” that charge will be brought up at a later time as it is unrelated to science.

The state argues that Mr. Sepocs’ contract with the Eutopian Unified School District should be terminated for injecting unauthorized religious views into his natural science classes. On two occasions the principal of Soros High School met with Mr. Sepocs, but he refuses to abide by our stipulations. He argues that teaching only one view on a controversial subject violates the traditional ethical standards of quality public education. He also claims that it is “illiberal” to do so.

Deconstructing the Indictments.

Judge Judge: Thank you. That is direct and to the point. Mr. Barr, what is the defense’s position?

W. J. Barr: Thank you, your Honor. The charges against my client are erroneous, as I will explain.

Mr. Sepocs has a well-earned reputation among most of his colleagues and students as an admirable person and an effective teacher who is quite knowledgeable in his field. Mr. Sepocs is a true educator who simply teaches the two major views on human origins as accurately and objectively as possible: conventional naturalistic Neo-Darwinism and the traditional alternative, special creation, based on the most recent research that calls into question the validity of secularistic and random evolutionary theory. He simply presents the best arguments for both sides, and otherwise encourages students to research and determine for themselves which position is more plausible based on the scientific evidence and the basic principles of logic and reason. For that, he is in danger of having his job terminated.

Regarding Count #1 – The claim that Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is a “scientific fact” – that is factually incorrect. Many science professionals with the highest credentials – including many who hold no particular religious beliefs – challenge the scientific basis for conventional naturalistic/ materialistic evolutionary theory. I can provide the names of many if the court is interested.

Karleen Marx: I don’t think we’d be interested. I know a lot of educators, but I know of no one in the scientific community who disputes conventional evolutionary theory.

Judge Judge: Overruled. Perhaps there are some credentialed scientists who question certain aspects of evolutionary theory. Every profession has its dissidents. Please continue, Mr. Barr.

W. J. Barr: Thank you. As for Count #2 – “Violating state mandates regarding the separation of church and state” and confusing students by mixing true science with religion and pseudo-scientific theories,” Mr. Sepocs is being tried primarily because of his philosophy of science, although of course his philosophy of science is influenced by his religious beliefs.

This allegation is a clear violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution regarding freedom of expression and religious liberty. The state’s charges against Mr. Sepocs violate a fundamental principle of education, which is a fair, honest and factual presentation of opposing views on controversial issues. Mr. Sepocs has always taught the standard arguments for the theory of evolution – but to his credit, he also challenges his students to reassess the conventional thinking when it comes to the arguments that allegedly support evolutionary theory. What Mr. Sepocs encourages his students to do is to think critically – which requires that they understand the arguments of both sides of an issue.

Furthermore, I would remind the school board that in the Scopes Trial of 1925 the most cited – and the most decisive – argument by the defense was the assertion that “It is bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins.” Mr. Sepocs agrees, which is why he believes that students should be exposed to both sides of the evolution debate.

Karleen Marx: I object! This quote is taken out of context. Clarence Darrow and the other defense attorneys were arguing that true science, rather than ancient religious mythology, should prevail, and that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is incontestable. It is, as we say today, “settled science.” All intelligent and well-educated people know and understand this!

Judge Judge: My apologies, Ms. Marx, but I will have to overrule your objection. In the interest of fairness, let’s hear the point that the Defense is trying to make.

W. J. Barr: Thank you, your Honor. And by the way, that quote is not taken “out of context,” and it is as relevant now as it was a century ago.

Now, if I may proceed: Mr. Sepocs’ character, as well as his professional conduct and expertise in his field of science, is exemplary. During his time at Soros High School, he has earned the respect of most of his colleagues and students for his character as well as his knowledge in his field of science.

The charges against Mr. Sopocs are reminiscent of the spurious accusations leveled against Socrates by the Athenian city council in 4004 BC. Socrates was charged with essentially the same offense: ‘corrupting the youth.’ But in reality, as most of us know, he was one of the greatest philosophers in history who was simply teaching his followers to question authority. (Not necessarily to reject authority, but to question authority.) In the process, he had a profound impact on Western philosophy and history through his student Plato, Plato’s student Aristotle, and countless other renowned thinkers to the present time.

Karleen Marx: Your Honor, we’re not interested in debating anybody’s ideas about philosophy or religion – we’re talking here about scientific facts! That’s what Mr. Sepocs is hired to teach, and that’s what’s at stake in this trial.

Judge Judge: Correct. Mr. Barr, do you have anything else to say?

W. J. Barr: Yes, as a matter of fact, I have much more to say. And let me add that as related to Count #3 – “Mr. Sepocs’ failure to address students by their preferred pronouns… as it is [allegedly] unrelated to science” – in fact, such a charge is related to science. It is a biological fact that sex is determined at birth based on one’s genetic makeup and one’s chemical and hormonal characteristics – not to mention one’s genitalia. And that is in fact “settled science.”

Karleen Marx: I strenuously object, your Honor! Talk about bigotry! As a women’s rights crusader for all of my adult life, I also uphold the dignity and the rights of transgender individuals. They have my deepest respect.

W. J. Barr: Even when biological males compete against biological females in women’s sports and win contests and trophies that should rightfully belong to girls and young women?

Karleen Marx: “It’s a matter of equal rights, Mr. Barr! Biological males who believe they are actually females and who are transitioning have every right to do so. I would remind you that this is a free country. If someone feels that he or she was born in the wrong body and needs to transition, no law should prevent him or her from doing so. To think and do otherwise is not politically correct!

W. J. Barr: Even if your moral code and ideology defy reality?

The Integration of Science and Philosophy.

Judge Judge: Okay, we need to move on. Your views, Mr. Barr, are not how we see things in progressive states like California. Is there anything else that you would like to say?

W. J. Barr: Yes – absolutely. To repeat the ACLU’s famous declaration a hundred years ago: “It is bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins.” But that is precisely the status quo in contemporary science education in most schools. What is at stake here is certainly credible science, but credible science cannot be separated from rational philosophy. The two disciplines are complementary, not contradictory.^[1]

Godless naturalistic and materialistic science – which is the only philosophy of science currently allowed in public schools – has absolutely no explanation for the origins of anything. For example: Although the reality of the Big Bang is generally accepted, it is beyond the purview of natural science as to What (or Who) caused this cosmic phenomenon. What or Who was responsible for the Big Bang? Science has no answer. In fact, most scientists show no curiosity regarding the Cause – they only study the physical and material Effects. But what was the source of the matter and energy that generated the Big Bang? Scientists have no clue. Furthermore, naturalistic science has no explanation for…

• The design and “fine-tuning” of the universe;
• The fundamental forces of physics: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces – forces that are critical to all interactions in the universe from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest celestial bodies.
• Also consider the chemical composition of the universe that eventually allowed for life to emerge on planet Earth – all of which absolutely defies “chance.”

Karleen Marx: Your Honor, this is unbearable and a waste of time! Neither you nor I nor anyone in this courtroom should be subjected to this kind of propaganda. Mr. Barr and his client, Mr. Sepocs, are obviously Christians, but a venue such as this is all about the rule of law. Furthermore, this case is about scientific facts, not someone’s bizarre ideas when it comes to so-called “philosophy.”

W. J. Barr: Your Honor, I’m not arguing religion right now. I’m merely making the case that true science cannot violate the simple laws of logic.

The Case for Intelligent Design.^[2]

Judge Judge: Mr. Barr, I’m going to give you a pass right now, but if you stray off into the Bible and religion, I will intervene and shut you down.

W. J. Barr: I understand, your Honor. And I am confining my arguments to science and logic – or simple “common sense.” But please keep in mind that secular humanism, a godless orientation, is also a “religion” as recognized by the U. S. Supreme Court in the 1962 case of Torcaso v. Watkins. So when my arguments have theological connotations, please keep in mind that secular arguments also have a religious context.

The best explanation for the evidence related to Big Bang cosmology, the amazing design and fine-tuning of the universe, the fundamental forces of physics, the chemical composition of the universe, and the alternative to naturalistic/materialistic pseudo-science, is the scientific theory associated with Intelligent Design (ID) – which should be acknowledged universally as a credible alternative to mainstream materialistic scientific theory.

Karleen Marx: Objection, your Honor. Intelligent Design has been thoroughly refuted by the scientific community. It is a pseudo-scientific theory. Any article on Wikipedia, for example, that refers to Intelligent Design labels it a “pseudo-scientific theory!”

W. J. Barr: Yes – when it comes to Wikipedia, it is very biased against Intelligent Design theory. But I would remind, or perhaps inform, the court that one of the principal co-founders of Wikipedia, Mr. Larry Sanger, has become one of the foremost proponents of Intelligent Design. In fact, it was the arguments put forth by ID that led Mr. Sanger, a lifelong agnostic, to come to belief in God and eventually to become an outspoken Christian. But I’ll refer to that a little later in my defense.

Judge Judge: I will let you proceed, but if you start pushing Christianity, I’ll bring this whole hearing to an end. I consider myself to be a very “spiritual” person, but I do not identify with any particular religion. They are all just alternate paths to “God” – or to some transcendent Force.

Karleen Marx: I agree, your Honor! We’re on the same page when it comes to religion.

W. J. Barr: Okay. I do not find that to be surprising.

So anyway, as I was saying, Intelligent Design is not “pseudo-science,” and its critique of Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory should be taken seriously. As defined by one of its foremost proponents, the mathematician, philosopher and theologian William Dembski, ID is “the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence.” In other words, patterns in nature that indicate intentionality and purpose rather than randomness and purposelessness. This would include, for example, the laws of physics. To quote the former atheist and philosopher-turned-theist, Antony Flew, “The important point is not merely that there are [laws] of nature, but that these laws are mathematically precise and universal.” [Antony Flew, There Is a God (HarperOne, 2007), p. ?] Also consider the phenomenon of DNA. In the words of Microsoft founder Bill Gates, “DNA is like a computer program, but far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”

It is important to note that ID is a scientific theory that explains the arrangement of materials within our universe, our solar system, and on planet Earth. It is not a theological doctrine of creation per se. Nonetheless, it is compatible with the biblical account of creation.

Stephen Meyer, a philosopher of science and a founder of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, provides a formidable case for ID in Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. In his book, Meyer argues that non-intelligent causes are incapable of producing any kind of highly functional complexity. Intelligent causes can produce all kinds of complex, sophisticated mechanisms – everything from ancient Roman water and sewage systems to medieval cannons to modern automobiles and computers – but unintelligent causes have no potential to produce anything that requires complex functionality.

So what should we make of such phenomena? According to the physicist Brian Miller, “The most obvious conclusion about our universe is that it was created by a transcendent mind who designed it for the purpose of supporting life.” Likewise, the same principle applies to all life forms – including human beings. John West, an author and vice-president of the Discovery Institute, has noted: “As Stephen Meyer points out, the modern version of the design inference is not an argument from ignorance [such as in the ‘God of the gaps’ hypothesis], but an argument from knowledge. It is based not on what we don’t know about nature, but about what we do know.” [The Magician’s Twin, p. 164.]

Long before the emergence of a systematized Intelligent Design theory in the late 20^th century, other philosophers and scientists, including René Descartes (1596-1650) and Isaac Newton (1643-1727) were comparing the mechanical perfection of the workings of the universe to that of a clock, designed and created by God. Perhaps most notable was the philosopher and Anglican clergyman, William Paley (1703-1805). In his 1802 book, Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Paley argued that any kind of complex “design,” such as a watch, implies an intelligent designer. Also consider the philosopher Alfred Edward Taylor (1869-1945), who in his 1945 book, Does God Exist?, declared that nature reveals “anticipatory design” for which random evolutionary processes cannot account.

Karleen Marx: Your Honor, I thought we were not going to be subjected to all this hypothetical God-talk about “anticipatory design” and other such conjectures. Mr. Sepocs is on trial for confusing students by mixing science with the Christian religion and pseudo-scientific theories associated with Intelligent Design. This needs to end before the jury gets totally confused!

Judge Judge: I would be inclined to agree with you, but I would like to hear more about ID. I’ve heard it referenced occasionally, but I know little about it. Mr. Barr, you may proceed.

W. J. Barr: Thank you, your Honor. There is much more to be said on the subject. Among the various components of the ID argument, two in particular should be emphasized.

First is the issue of specified complexity. Unlike any mountain whose shape was formed naturalistically over eons of time, the images on Mt. Rushmore provide evidence of Intelligent Design. Obviously, these images were shaped and formed by an intelligent being, a master artisan and sculptor, for a specific purpose. Since 1950, when the molecular biologists Francis Crick and James Watson first discovered the incredibly complex structure of DNA, the implications have confirmed the belief that only a transcendent divine source could have created life.

In 1998, William Dembski of the Discovery Institute applied the concept of specified complexity in nature to the origins of life in his book, The Design Inference, in which he argued that specified complexity cannot be explained by Darwinian evolutionary processes. As he put it, “In reality, the only plausible source for specified complexity is intelligence.” [William A. Dembski, “Specified Complexity,” in Dictionary of Christianity and Science (2017), p. 639.]

Second, please consider the implications of the concept – and the reality – of irreducible complexity. Consider a common mechanical mousetrap. It is composed of several parts – all of which are essential if the machine is to function as a mousetrap so as to achieve its purpose. In that sense, the mousetrap is irreducibly complex: remove any part, and it no longer functions as originally designed. The same principle applies to the various components of biological systems. The elimination of one or more of the “parts” will shut down the system altogether.

Darwin’s theory of evolution by random variation and natural selection, in which, in his words, “numerous, successive, slight modifications” occurred over eons of time, is simply untenable. Natural selection cannot possibly “work” until all the necessary “parts” in a molecular system are in place and functioning. As the biochemist Michael Behe has noted, “Molecular machines are composed of proteins and/or nucleic acids… that contain hundreds or thousands of amino acid or nucleotide residues…. When considering proposed evolutionary explanations, all such features must be accounted for.” [Michael J. Behe, “Irreducible Complexity,” in Dictionary of Christianity and Science (2017), pp. 390-91.]

Imagine, if you can, how phenomena such as eyes or wings, or any complex biological organs and systems could possibly have “evolved” naturalistically over eons of time. To say the least, such a preposterous “leap of faith” defies credulity. As John West explains, “Irreducible complexity is simply the ‘fine-tuning’ argument applied to biology. Just as the laws of nature are finely tuned for the existence of life, many systems in biology seem to be exquisitely fine-tuned for their functions.” [The Magician’s Twin, p. 165.]

Karleen Marx: “Ahh – seem to be!” That’s mere conjecture. Your Honor, we are not evolutionary scientists and experts in microbiology. We need to trust the experts in this field!”

W. J. Bryan: But as I mentioned, many experts dispute evolutionary theory. We need to be open-minded and listen to the arguments of its critics. To do otherwise is close-minded and illiberal.

Judge Judge: Please continue.

W. J. Barr: Thank you. There are, of course, multiple other problems with Darwinian evolutionary theory, of which I’ll note three of the most obvious. First, there is no evidence supporting the theory of naturalistic abiogenesis – the presumption that non-living matter somehow evolved over millions of years into living life forms. In reality, living things come only from other living things through reproduction – i.e., the natural process of biogenesis. As the biochemist Fazale Rana and astrophysicist Hugh Ross recount in their book, Origins of Life, beginning in the 1950s with the experiments of the chemist Stanley Miller, “many scientists predicted the origin of life problem would be solved in the next few decades.” However, more than fifty years later, “scientists stand no closer to understanding life’s beginning than they did [then].” [Origins of Life (NavPress, 2004), pp. 24, 25, 27.] Even Wikipedia, which consistently slanders Intelligent Design theory as “pseudo-science,” acknowledges that “the challenge for abiogenesis researchers is to explain how such a complex and interlinked system [as life] could develop by evolutionary steps, as at first sight all its parts are necessary to enable it to function…. [T]he transition of non-life to life has never been observed experimentally, nor has there been a satisfactory chemical explanation.”

Secondly, the “Cambrian explosion” confirms the emergence and diversification of new and more complex life-forms when they first began to appear in the fossil record during the Cambrian geological period, some 540 million years ago. According to the biologist Darrel Falk:

The history of life is characterized by episodic “mini-explosions” in new body forms…. [T]he different animal forms that arose at that time were very different from each other, and almost without exception, no other major innovation in animal body plan was ever developed again. Today, and apparently for the last 500 million years or so, it appears that genetic changes… that would bring about a major change in morphology… have not occurred….

One of the current mysteries in biology is what was different at the time of the Cambrian explosion, such that genetic change enabled major new body plans to be developed. The mystery associated with the rapidity and uniqueness of the Cambrian explosion has caused many Christians to propose that God’s design activity is especially apparent during this period of time. [Darrel R. Falk, “Cambrian Explosion,” in Dictionary of Christianity and Science (Zondervan, 2017), p. 79.]

In addition, and as a matter of great consequence, there is no evidence in the fossil records supporting the theory that random genetic mutations led to macro-evolution (i.e., trans-species evolution) – either in regard to human development or in the case of any other living species.^[3]

All arguments that life formed naturalistically fail scientifically – just as they also fail philosophically (and theologically). All of this correlates with the fundamental “first principles” of classical philosophy from the time of Aristotle (384-322 BC) to the present – whether theoretical philosophy related to physics, mathematics and the metaphysical realm of reality, or practical philosophy as applied to history, economics, ethics, or politics.

As Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-74) emphasized in his writings, God is the “necessary Being” and the “primary cause” of all that exists. It is perfectly reasonable to believe in God through natural theology – the insights gleaned from the realities of the natural world. As the apostle Paul noted in Romans 1:18-20: “The wrath of God is being revealed against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what he has made, so that men are without excuse.”

Karleen Marx: Your Honor, please strike this Bible verse from the transcript. It is irrelevant. The apostle Paul knew nothing about cosmology, geology, physics, or anything else related to modern science! Furthermore – and if there is in fact a “God,” it would be sacrilegious to call him “wrathful.”

Judge Judge: Objection sustained. Mr. Barr, your religious views are irrelevant, and we do not take the Bible as an authority on science.

W. J. Barr: I was merely making the point that Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest thinkers in world history, was very much in sync with what the apostle Paul wrote regarding God’s self-revelation through nature – what is often called “natural theology.” But please let me make my point. In his magnum opus, Summa Theologiae, Aquinas set forth “Five Ways” that our study of nature leads us to belief in God as the necessary Being behind the universe.

Karleen Marx: Your Honor, I’m not interested in what some medieval theologian had to say, and I doubt that anyone on the jury is interested. Who cares about what they thought back then? Gag me – or I should say, “Gag Mr. Barr” – with a spoon! Those people knew nothing about modern science!

Judge Judge: Please, Ms. Marx. I understand. But let’s allow Mr. Barr to continue, whether his views are valid or not.

W. J. Barr: As I was saying, Thomas Aquinas made the point that it is perfectly reasonable to believe in an infinite and omnipotent divine Being such as is revealed in the Bible. Here are his arguments:

(1) The law of motion. Everything in motion has been set in motion by something else. God is the original “Prime Mover” of everything that is in motion.

(2) The law of causality. All things in this world have their respective causes, and nothing is its own cause. God is the ultimate “First Cause” of every effect. (Thomas adapted this principle from the philosophy of Aristotle.)

(3) The law of contingency. This is in keeping with the theological principle of aseity: God is the original, self-existent, and “Necessary Being” from which everything else comes. Nothing in this world exists because of itself.

(4) The law of perfection. All things are measured by a standard of perfection. According to Thomas: God is the “Perfect Being”… “which is to all [other] beings the source of their being, goodness, and every other perfection.”

(5) The law of design. Often referred to as the “teleological argument,” this holds that all things in the universe have a design and purpose toward which they move. This purpose is something which they could not do of themselves or through blind chance. Furthermore, every design must have a designer. For Thomas, God is the omnipotent and omniscient “Designer” “by whom all natural things are directed to their end.” As cited above, Scripture affirms that “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made….” (Rom. 1:20).

Now, none of these arguments is conclusive in and of itself, but cumulatively they constitute a formidable case for a Creator based on the principle of abduction: a plausible explanation or conclusion based on the most logical assessment of the known facts and observations. Abduction is sometimes described as the “inference to the best explanation.”

A further word of caution: although the evidence for Intelligent Design refutes mindless naturalistic materialism, it does not necessarily make the case for biblical theism. The case for the God of the Bible and the case for Jesus Christ rely on different apologetical arguments and evidence. Nonetheless, it correlates consistently with Thomas’s “five ways.”

Conversely, the theory of naturalistic evolution is not just pseudo-science – it promotes a particular theological system – atheism, or at least agnosticism.

The Cult of Scientism.

The unacknowledged problem with a purely naturalistic and materialistic view of science is that of “scientism” – the belief that current scientific hypotheses and naturalistic theories should be accepted as the ultimate authority on all the wonders of the universe and everything in it. As such, modern science has become a form of secular religion for many; it is essentially the deification of science. However, even science is subject to the philosophical laws of logic and reason.

One of the most perceptive critics of scientism was C. S. Lewis, one of the most perceptive and influential thinkers of the 20^th century – and I might add, one of the great Christian philosophers and apologists. Early in his career, Lewis came to realize that scientists often asserted authority in areas for which they had no requisite education or expertise – including philosophy, morality, and even public policies. [Ref. John G. West, The Magician’s Twin, cited earlier.] Consider, for example, the following absurd affirmations of faith from some of the most influential proponents of scientism:

• Carl Sagan: “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be…. “As science advances, there seems to be less and less for God to do…. Whatever it is we cannot explain lately is attributed to God…. And then after a while, we explain it, and so [there is no longer any reason to believe in God].”
• Victor Stenger: “So where did the laws of physics come from? They came from nothing.” [God: The Failed Hypothesis (2007), p. 131.]
• John Post, former Vanderbilt University philosopher: “There can’t be a cause of the origin of the universe, since, by definition, the universe contains everything there is or ever was or will be.”
• George Wald, a 1954 Nobel Laureate from Harvard: “Given enough time… the impossible becomes probable.”
• Richard Dawkins: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good; nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” [The God Delusion]
• Also note this astonishing, not to mention self-refuting, declaration from Charles Darwin himself: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [On the Origin of Species (1859)]

More than 20 years later, in a letter written in 1881, Darwin admitted to sometimes thinking that the universe “is not the result of chance,” and he added: “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” [Quoted in John West, The Magician’s Twin, p. 131.] ^[4]

In the early 2000s, Antony Flew (1923-2010), a renowned professor of the philosophy of science and one of the most influential proponents of atheism in the world, announced that he had recently come to believe in an eternal, infinite and omnipotent God. In particular, Flew was primarily convinced by the arguments put forth by advocates of Intelligent Design based on the biological information encoded in DNA.

Karleen Marx: I’ve heard of Antony Flew, and many of his colleagues believed that late in his life he was suffering from dementia and senility – or maybe he was just afraid of dying, so in desperation he claimed that he now believed in God.

W. J. Barr: Sure – he had been a lifelong atheist, as were most of his friends and colleagues. But listen to why Flew became a theist. As a student at Oxford University, Flew often attended the Socratic Club debates led by C. S. Lewis, who emphasized Socrates’ famous dictum, “Follow the evidence wherever it leads to its ultimate conclusion.” This became Flew’s guiding motto for the rest of his life, as he noted many years later: “The Socratic principle I saw exemplified there – of following the evidence wherever it may lead – increasingly became a guiding principle in the development, refinement, and sometimes reversal of my own philosophical views.” [There is a God, p. 42.] As he explained in his final book, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007), until recently he had argued that the default position for all serious thinkers was that there is insufficient evidence to believe in God. However, in recent years the arguments for the existence of God have become overwhelming considering recent scientific discoveries and the arguments put forth by proponents of Intelligent Design theory. In his book, Antony Flew focused on three phenomena in particular:

• The existence of the universe: How did everything – both chemical and physical – come into existence?
• The intricate “fine-tuned” laws of nature; and
• The phenomenon of life: How did life originate from non-life?

Even more astonishing to Flew was the mystery of human life:

• What natural process can explain the phenomenon of human consciousness, including self-consciousness – and the fact that we are conscious of being conscious?
• What natural process can explain the phenomenon of human thought, of understanding, of discerning meaning – even regarding things that have no physical characteristics such as love, liberty, truth, and beauty? “The power of thinking in concepts [such as these] is by its very nature something that transcends matter.”
• What natural process can explain the phenomenon that “the cells in your body keep changing and yet ‘you’ remain the same”?

Pondering such mysteries is what led the physicist and cosmologist Brandon Carter to propose the “anthropic principle” in the mid-1970s, a critique of the “random universe” theory in favor of the theory that life – especially human life – was “pre-planned” from the very first nanosecond of the cosmos based on the “fine-tuning” of the universe and our solar system. As Patrick Glynn later emphasized in his book, God: The Evidence: “Far from being accidental, life appeared to be the goal toward which the entire universe from the very first moment of its existence had been orchestrated [and] fine-tuned.” [God: The Evidence (Forum, 1997), p. 8] However, the atheist position is that at some point in the history of the universe, the impossible and the inconceivable just naturally happened. This might be the very definition of “absurdity.”

Antony Flew summarizes the issue this way: “Take your pick: God or [the] universe. Something always existed…. I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable [i.e., unchanging], immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being.” [Antony Flew, There Is a God, pp. 163, 165, 177, 155]

Karleen Marx: Please, your Honor. This is all too much. I can’t focus this long, and I’m sure that nobody on the jury can, either. Have mercy on us and cut this off. Other than Antony Flew, I’ve never heard of these other people whom Mr. Barr has referenced. And all I know of C. S. Lewis is that he wrote children’s stories about Alice in Wonderland – or was it Mary Poppins? Anyway, who cares about his opinions on matters such as these?

Judge Judge: I understand, Ms. Marx. Are you finished, Mr. Barr?

W. J. Barr: Just one more reference, your Honor, for the benefit of those on the jury who have the capacity to focus.

I’ve mentioned that after a lifelong pursuit of following the evidence to its logical conclusion, Professor Antony Flew, perhaps the most acclaimed atheist in the world at the time, became a theist – a believer in God – on the basis of the evidence put forth by the proponents of Intelligent Design. In a similar vein, the former philosophy professor, agnostic, and co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger (b. 1968), recently wrote an article that went viral on the Internet entitled, “How a Skeptical Philosopher Becomes a Christian.” [https://larrysanger.org/2025/02/how-a-skeptical-philosopher-becomes-a-christian.] Sanger describes how from the time he was a teenager in the 1980s to his recent Christian conversion, “I was driven by a personal truth-seeking mission, a mission both moral and epistemological.” He goes on to write, “I honestly did not understand why most people [including most philosophers and scientists] were uninterested in the questions I was asking.”

Similar to Antony Flew, Sanger found the arguments put forth by Intelligent Design advocates, such as the phenomenal “fine tuning” of the universe, to be absolutely compelling. In addition, he acknowledges that Thomas Aquinas’s “Argument from Causality” established that there was a first cause of the universe, the “Argument from Contingency” concluded that a necessary being exists, and the “Argument from Design” supported the case for a “cosmic designer.” As he concluded, “The arguments taken together are far more persuasive than I had [previously] understood…. Taken together, the arguments point to a necessary being that exists apart from space, time, and matter.” Sanger goes on to comment:

Science says the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. But whatever had a beginning has to have had an explanation. As this is the beginning of matter itself, it cannot have a material cause; thus it must have an immaterial cause.

Furthermore, even if we had a perfect scientific explanation of each of these things, the conjunction of the facts in our explanations seem to be driven by a purpose…. [C]ertain incredible leaps [in the evolution of the universe] seem designed to lead life on earth ever onward to greater awareness and knowledge, culminating in [humanity]. If the very emergence of order seems to exhibit ends or purposes or designs, we may hypothesize a designer who created the order of the universe.

As Einstein said, “God does not play dice;” rather, all the physical laws and constants, as well as the initial conditions of matter and energy, were chosen with the purpose of bringing about the incredibly rational universe we see before us.” [https://larrysanger.org/2025/02/how-a-skeptical-philosopher-becomes-a-christian]

In summary, let me just reiterate that everything that exists must be uncaused, self-caused, or caused by another Force or Thing or Person. To re-emphasize a previous point: Most of what we believe is based on the principle of abduction: What is the most plausible and probable conclusion based on the most logical assessment of the known facts and observations? We believe in God because the rationale and the evidence are overwhelming.

• The Source of all that exists must be self-existent, eternal, infinite, and omnipotent.
• The Source must have a mind and will.
• Therefore, the Source must have personhood. We (human beings) have personhood, and

Effects cannot be greater – or more complex – than their Cause.

Please also note that Christians do not believe that everything that exists requires a cause – but only that everything that begins to exist requires a cause. The entire universe – including humanity – had a beginning. God, however, is by definition self-existent and eternal. Therefore, God is the great uncaused Cause of all that exists. As the very first verse of the Bible (Genesis 1:1) declares: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

Karleen Marx: I would ask the stenographer to strike that reference to the Bible. That is totally inappropriate!

Judge Judge: Sustained. Yes, please remove that from the transcript.

W. J. Barr: My point is as simple as it is obvious. Science is essential for studying how things work, but it can never answer why anything exists or the ultimate origin of anything that exists. Christians cannot explain where God came from – but we don’t consider that to be problematic for believing in God. Something – or more correctly, Someone – must be self-existent and eternal. Serious and thoughtful students need to know and understand both (or all) sides of any important and controversial issue. In the case of Christian students, they should never fear views and opinions that contradict Scripture. And this is why apologetics is so essential. As we read in 1 Peter 3:15 – and my apologies for citing the Bible – we must “always be prepared to give the reason [i.e., an explanation and a defense] for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

Karleen Marx: Objection, your Honor! There he goes again, quoting something from the Bible!

Judge Judge: Objection sustained. Mr. Barr, you must try to control yourself.

W. J. Barr: Well, in summary, just let me say that there is no rational or defensible reason – other than anti-religious bias – for schools to teach only one view of origins, naturalistic evolutionary theory, to the exclusion of Intelligent Design and special creation. As Stephen Meyer and others have urged for the past thirty years, “Teach the controversy.” Teach both views honestly and fairly, and encourage students to “follow the evidence wherever it leads to its logical conclusion.”

John Sepocs has an excellent reputation, both personally and as a teacher. He should be acquitted of these charges, and the administration at George Soros High School should issue a formal apology for the way he has been discriminated against due to his scholarly and Christian convictions.

Judge Judge: Thank you, Mr. Barr. I have found some of your comments to be quite interesting. I cannot refute the arguments you’ve put forth, but personally, I prefer not to believe in God. For me, I prefer to live my life on my own terms. I am “the master of my soul” and unaccountable to anyone or anything other than the good people here in Eutopia.

Ms. Marx, do you have anything further to say?

Karleen Marx: Your Honor, Mr. Barr’s comments have only confirmed in my mind that we do not need, and do not want, a religious fanatic such as Mr. Sepocs teaching and indoctrinating our students. We trust that the jury will do the right thing and find him guilty. He should be terminated and his teaching license revoked.

Judge Judge: Understood. The jury should retire now to the adjoining conference room and render its verdict. Keep in mind that the eyes of the entire Eutopian community are on you. You must uphold the values that have made us the envy of our entire state.

The Verdict.

The jury meets for seven minutes – two minutes shorter than the original Scopes’ trial jury met, and returns to the courtroom. Judge Judge addresses the jury foreman, Randall Winebibber.

Judge Judge: Mr. Winebibber, have the men, women, “non-binary individuals” and “others” who form the Eutopia Unified School District Board of Education reached a decision?

Chairperson Winebibber: We have, your Honor. But first, I would like to share my own thoughts on this matter. I have them here on my smartphone, and this should take no more than about half an hour.

Judge Judge: Uh, Mr. Winebibber, that won’t be necessary. Feel free to post them on the school board’s website, but we need to wrap this up before Happy Hour ends at the local Hooter’s.

Chairperson Winebibber: Well, okay – if you insist. I am disappointed to say that it appears that we have a hung jury. One member of the school board, who in the past has admitted to being a church-going Christian and who, in his words, is “well-versed in Christian apologetics,” has dissented from the majority and refuses to convict Mr. Sepocs. I don’t need to name who he is – I’m sure that most of us here today already know. But as a result, we cannot render a verdict.

Judge Judge: That is both regrettable and, I would say, unforgivable. Mr. Sepocs, you will be reinstated, but I would remind you that you will be under intense scrutiny even more than in the past. You are obviously not a “team player,” and you need to adapt yourself to the values and priorities of Soros High School and the vast majority of residents here in our community.

Anyway, thank you all for coming, and let us now go our own separate ways in a spirit of unity. May the Force be with us all. Court is adjourned!

The Aftermath.

In response to the court decision in this trial…

• The local chapter of Hellraisers for Social Justice at GSHS organized mass protests to disrupt John Sepocs’ classes and harass the teacher;
• Community activists protested outside Sepocs’ home, harassing and intimidating his wife and children;
• Nearly 90% of the faculty at GSHS signed a petition calling for the termination of Sepocs’ contract for “teaching views on evolution that challenge ‘settled science,’ causing unnecessary controversy and disrupting the unity and damaging the academic reputation” of GSHS and the Eutopia Unified School District;
• He was replaced as the assistant baseball coach by the coach of the JV girls’ cheerleading squad;
• His membership was revoked in the local Eutopia Bicyclists Consortium to Save Planet Earth (EBCTSPE);
• He was barred from the local World Gym;
• His library card was revoked; and
• He and his wife were often denied service at the local Starbucks, and employees at the local Ben & Jerry’s refused to serve his children any flavor other than vanilla.

Most regrettably, Sepocs’ pastor at Inclusive Community Church, formerly a friend and supporter of Sepocs, suggested that given the controversial nature of the trial and the negative publicity the church had received as a result, it would be more “Christ-like” if Sepocs no longer taught Sunday School and voluntarily resigned from the church’s Advisory Board.

However, within a year, Sepocs sold his house in Eutopia and moved to Destiny, Florida with his wife and family where they bought a nicer and less expensive home, and where he was hired to teach Natural Sciences and Biology and serve as the chairman of the Science Department in Phillip E. Johnson Memorial High School.^[5] He was also hired as the head baseball coach.

1. Note: Christian apologetics confirms that the Bible is divinely inspired revelation. As such, it is not only our ultimate authority on theology and morality but also on philosophy as it sets forth a worldview that is coherent, consistent, and comprehensive. ↑
2. In this article I capitalize the term “Intelligent Design” as it applies to contemporary ID theory for the purpose of emphasis and so as to associate it specifically with its primary founders and proponents such as those listed below beginning with Charles Thaxton, Michael Denton, Phillip Johnson, et al. ↑
3. Prominent proponents and organizations associated with various forms of Intelligent Design theory include:
   • Charles Thaxton, The Mystery of Life’s Origin (1984).
   • Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985).
   • Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial (1991).
   • Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton, The Soul of Science (1994).
   • Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (1996).
   • William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (1999).
   • Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (2000).
   • Jay Richards, God and Evolution (2010).
   • Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (2009).
   • Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (2013).
   • Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe (2021).
   • The Discovery Institute.
   • Reasons To Believe.↑
4. Whitwell Elwin, the reader selected by Darwin’s publishing house to review the original manuscript of Origin of Species, probably would have agreed. He found the work to be “a wild and foolish piece of imagination,” and added: “At every page I was tantalized by the absence of proofs…. It is to ask the jury for a verdict without putting the witnesses in the box.” [Quoted in Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002), 75-76, 112-113. See also The Correspondence of Charles Darwin: Volume 7, 1858-1859, eds. Frederick H. Burkhardt and Sydney Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 289-290.] ↑
5. Phillip Johnson, a graduate of Harvard and the University of Chicago, taught law for more than 20 years at the University of California at Berkeley. His book, Darwin on Trial (Regnery Gateway, 1991), was one of the first to critique Darwinian evolutionary theory and helped launch the Intelligent Design movement. ↑