I should clarify: Haters of relgion that includes a God who actually made a difference in the world that's detectable. Although perhaps some, like Richard Dawkins, really hate every form of religion.\n\nThe preface to the play may say it wasn't intended as journalism, but to untold numbers of people, _Inherit the Wind_ is about the only representation of the Scopes trial they've ever seen. And this little review doesn't touch on just how far from reality it is.\n\nIt is noted that it was written when there was a lot of fear going around, and a lot of over-reaction due to that fear. Well, this dramatic production is full to the brim of this fear-sickness. It has lead to just the sort of thing it feared, only perpetrated against those who believe that scientists can recognize signs of intelligent design in nature (other than signals from aliens, as in the SETI program). \n\nSure, Judge Jones and others have ruled against ID, but how much of that has been from indoctrination by propaganda such as _Inherit the Wind_? The Kitzmiller decision seems to have been ghostwritten by Eugenie Scott. \n\nOne thing people were afraid of in the '20s and '50s was that teaching children they were apes with overblown brains and a hair problem would lead to misbehavior, and sure enough, we've gone from problems like talking and chewing gum in class to drugs, sex, and shootings. \n\nAnd it's not that Darwin's theory doesn't explain everything -- Darwin didn't even understand heredity. What's left of Darwinism is just that animals vary and some reproduce more than others, points perfectly compatible with ID and creation, too. \n\nRather than a theory, we have faith and a dogma: explain everything as (ultimately) nothing more than unguided interactions of energy and matter, or else. Thus, the right chemicals just happened to form at just the right time and place and come together in just the right way to create life. Then time after countless time, random forces altered (mutated) some life form in just the right way to give it a better reproductive success under the conditions it happened to be living in. This is not science, this is faith that nothing in the universe, including life, is any challenge at all to atheism. \n\n"Natural selection" is just a catchphrase like "abracadrabra." Are two things, thought to have split from a common ancestor fairly recently, found to be surprisingly different? "Evolution was accelerated by the pressures of natural selection" (Poof!). Are fossils interpreted as showing a rapid radiation right after an extincition? "Evolution was accelerated as niches opened up and less natural selection allowed more variants to appear" (Poof!). \n\nMeanwhile, people who are skeptical of a "theory" that can't demonstrate ANY siginficant point, doesn't explain a number of things, and yet at the same time seems to explain EVERYthing (when nobody is looking too closely), are still being demeaned, vilified and demonized by _Inherit the Wind_, PBS, Scientific American, National Geographic, and, it seems The Scientist.