Moving into the 1920s

At the beginning of the 1920s, Congress passed the 18th Amendment.   

This amendment established the prohibition of alcoholic beverages in the United States.  
Congress enforced this by declaring the production, transport, and sale of alcohol illegal.  

This amendment lead to a rise in criminals who wished to sell newly illegal alcoholic beverages to the general public for great profits.  Secret and hidden clubs and pubs began to arise and become popular.  

Gang fights broke up in order to fight for the selling of illegal alcohol.  

The 1920s were also time of movie production.  The early years brought silent movies while sound was added towards the end of the 1920s.  

The movement towards cities also grew fro the end of the world war.  Buildings and skyscrapers were able to be built due to the decease in the price of steel.  
There were many reasons to move out to the city in the 1920s.  

Innocent vs Guilty Notes

Sako and Vanzetti were both immigrants that came to the US for a better life.  When they realized that the US was not what they thought it would be, they wanted change, and they joined a group of anarchists the help promote this change.  Anarchists were not against violence, and Sako and Vanzetti participated in bombings against high power officials.  In 1920, Sako and Vanzetti were arrested for murdering two men in South Braintree Massachusetts, and a smaller crime of robbing a payroll truck.  Vanzetti was the only one tried for the robbery of the payroll truck, but they were both tried for the larger crime of murdering two men in South Braintree, Massachusetts.  In the murder, two men approached a manager and guard at slater shoe factory, these men then open fired, killing the manager and guard.  They then escaped with the payroll money.  Vanzetti had already been tried for the payroll truck robbery, and was found guilty, so he was already perceived as a criminal.  The evidence against Vanzetti was that his behavior showed guilt, eyewitnesses placed him at the scene, and his weapon was the bank guard's.  The evidence against Sako was the same, eyewitnesses, behavior, and his weapon.  The problem with this was that none of their evidence had proof behind it, and some of it was even false.  There were 10 eyewitnesses that placed Sako at a different location, and the evidence about the guns was later found to be false (but this was not brought up during the trial).  Even with this questionable evidence, both Sako and Vanzetti were found guilty and sentenced to death.

Scopes Trial

The Scopes trial was an interesting experience to have an formal argument on the subject on intelligent design. I learned how to be careful with what statements I make as a witness because the opposing Legal team could testify something out of my argument and make me seem as a supporter on their side. As a witness, I believe it is important to research the concept of the person ahead of time, so you have much more to say to the person in the other Legal team. Legal teams sometimes try to ask the same question, in a different from, to get you to say what they want to hear, like that you support their idea of not having intelligent design being taught. I also see importance to have communication between the Legal team and Witnesses, so both sides could be prepared to testify against the other Legal team. They could be prepared with information, or even questions that could be asked by the other Legal team. In the end, I thought this trail was useful to understand the concepts  I have just mentioned.

Innocent or Guilty notes

In the 20th century, there was a great conspiracy on who did a grand robbery, or heist, on two different places in America. Many people for years thought it was Socko and Berzanti, some Anarchist Italian immigrants, because they were in touch with the Anarchists that robbed from people. In their history, they seemed really innocent. Thye thought America was going to be great when they first came, but it wasn't. They thought the solution was to Anarchy. Once the two incidents takes place, Socko and Berzanti are taken into questioning because the witnesses identify them as guilty. They first were asked if they were Anarchist, and they said no, which was a lie. Then they describe what they were doing at time of both murders. Berzanti said he was with someone else and was approved by it later. However, Socko wasn't. Both recognized in both crimes. witnesses outnumbered 2 to 1 they DIDN’T do the crimes. Both were sentenced to 12 to 15 years. 1923, cut immigrants coming from southern or eastern southern. Wor was the lawyer for Socko and Berzanti, a very powerful lawyer. Lawyers noticed conscious of guilt between both Socko and Berzanti. Bercanti had an alibi or excuse for not being present in time of murder, but for some reason still charged. July 14, Socko was arrested and killed. Madiero was the real person who did the crime, and even tells Socko that.

Lewis Wolpert notes

Another guy that was one of the ones who supported intelligent design is Lewis Wolpert. He was born with a South-African Jewish family and actually born in America. He was a very intelligent person that went to University of Witwatersrand (BSs), Imperial College London, and even King’s College London (PhD). What he becomes after his colleges is an Emeritus Professor of Biology, developmental biologist, author, and broadcaster. He is recognized for elaborating ideas of positional information and value. He also discovered Hox gene codes in flies and vertebrates has largely vindicated Wolpert's positional-value concept, while identification of growth-factor morphogens in many species has supported the concept of positional information.“I would teach the world that science is the best way to understand the world, and that for any set of observations, there is only one correct explanation. Also, science is value-free, as it explains the world as it is. Ethical issues arise only when science is applied to technology – from medicine to industry." was one of his famous quotes. He intended audience of his book was the general public. He said he thought the general public needed to understand that people are a society of cells, particularly if they wanted to understand humans. Wolpert also believes that one very important and so far unsolved question in cellular research is the origins and evolution of the first cell, as well as the question of cell behavior, which in his opinion would be useful for the study of illnesses such as cancer or Alzheimer's. Wolpert has debated Christian philosopher William Lane Craig about the existence of God. In the late 1960s Wolpert proposed the illustrative French flag model, which explains how signaling between cells early in morphogenesis could be used to inform cells with the same genetic regulatory network of their position and role. On 15 January 2004, Wolpert and biologist/parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrakeengaged in a live debate regarding the evidence for telepathy. It took place at the Royal Society of Arts in London. He also was vice-president of the British Humanist Association. His wife was an Australian writer and critic, Jill Neville. He is working on a book exploring the evolution of sex and gender in humans, to be published later this year. He explains that the brains of men and women are largely similar but their relative differences influence specific behavior in each.

Micheal Behe notes

One of the guys in the Scopes Trail that supported intelligent design is Michael Behe. Michael was born in January 18, 1952. He was a very famous and successful American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate. Some of the things he was known for in his profession was that he was known for argument for irreducible complexity. He liked to question things. One of the big things he argues is that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design. Behe is testified in the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that the idea of intelligent design is religious in nature. He believes there is evidence at a biochemical level that there are systems that are "irreducibly complex." These were systems could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures. Behe also believed in evolution. while evolution can produce changes within species, there is a limit to the ability of evolution to generate diversity, and this limit (the "edge of evolution") is somewhere between species and orders. Darwinian evolution actually exists but plays only a limited role in the development and diversification of life on Earth. This all Behe was a scientist in.

Scopes Simulation Notes and Paragraph by Cooper Cornell

Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools?

For Intelligent Design

Against Intelligent Design

Intelligent design should be in schools because everyone deserves to see all viewpoints and make their own opinion of how life is created no religious affiliation WITNESS: Michael Behe a supporter of intelligent design: he says that life is too complex to be completely explained by evolution. Michel us biology to give evidence that there must be an intelligent designer. There is an extent to which natural selection can evolve things no evidence that shows how natural selection is evolving things Michael Behe finds evidence in bacteria for intelligent design Vance: Mason Reynolds: is an advocate for intelligent design because it is an compromise for the conflicting sides evolution and god creating life intelligent design has nothing to do with religion and its somewhat up for interpretation Bryan: expert on irreducible complexity: an idea that everything must start from somewhere and it must be a working thing from the start. all the components must be there This is related to ID in that both are ideas that are challenging evolution things do not need evolution to work they already work there must be an original creation to evolve we had to start from somewhere and something created that Lewis Wolpert: W/O ID we wouldn't have the ingenuity that we have today Wolpert has a debate with a strong religious believer he believes science is the answer we advance with intelligence

religious affiliation is the theory that things cannot be explained by evolution, there is a higher power involved making this a religious matter Michael Behe’s evidence is not super solid believe in learning from observation you can't observe intelligent design you cannot witness a higher power and there is not proof of a higher power designs evolve over time Will Altinger is an expert on a textbook called OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE -it is a school level textbook that claims to give evidence about intelligent design it is written by CHRISTIANS therefore it may be religious Will is now a specialist on THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE- a clause in the constitution that says government can not establish a main religion they cannot back one religion over another freedom of religion LUCAS:expert on Pastafarianism- takes away the validity of having a deity you cannot describe it conflicts the idea of ID. It is saying that having a higher being creating things is ridiculous if you have no proof UNICORN THEORY: Same as Pastafarianism pretty much Gerardo: expert on irreducible and specified complexity: there is no evidence saying that there is a higher power that created anything there is skeletal evidence proving evolution

Paragraph of Final Decision

Who Won and Why?

After listening to the trial simulation I have come to the conclusion over the conflict of whether or not intelligent design should be taught in public schools. It is clear that the side defending intelligent design being taught in public school won because she used more logical arguments and drew from evidence that was more relevant than the other sides. The idea that intelligent design (ID) should be taught in public school so that everybody can see the different views on the creation of life and make their own opinion based on these differing views is both logical and fair. When those against ID start to question if ID has religious ideals, they make a decent point however ID never states that a high person is the creator. ID never talks about there being a god or one deity that created life, they refer to a force of nature of higher power that created the first spark of life. I think that the best argument the winning group made was when they brought up Michael Behe as a witness. Michael Behe, a biologist, says that life is too complex to be completely explained by evolution. Michael uses biology to give evidence that there must be an intelligent designer.There is an extent to which natural selection can evolve things. This concept of Behe’s is logical in that there must have been some starting point for evolution to take place from. Evolution can not serve as the only answer for life because you cannot evolve from nothing. This concept was further built on by the witness played by Bryan,an expert on irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is the idea that everything must start from somewhere and it must be a working thing from the start. All the components must be there before evolution can take place. This is very logical because how can you evolve nothing into something. You cannot evolve something into a human, you have to have something first which you can evolve into a human. The only explanation for this creation of the original something must come from ID not religion. Although the other side arguing against ID made some valid points, it is clear that the winning side was the group in support of ID. This group won because their arguments were more logical and they used more relevant evidence and witnesses.