The Scopes Trial

The Scopes Trial remains the best-known encounter between science and
religion to take place in the United States. It occurred in 1925, soon after the
Tennessee state legislature passed a statute forbidding public-school
teachers from instructing students in the theory of human evolution. The law
was the rst major success of an intense national campaign by protestant
fundamentalists against the teaching of organic evolution in public schools.
The so-called antievolution crusade, which had begun in earnest three years
earlier, aroused erce opposition from many American scientists, educators,
and civil libertarians.
After passage of the Tennessee antievolution statute, the growing public
controversy soon focused on the small Tennessee town of Dayton, where a
local science teacher named John T. Scopes ( 1900 - 1970 ) accepted the
invitation of the American civil Liberties Union ( ACLU) to challenge the new
law in court. The media promptly proclaimed it the trial of the century as this
young teacher stood against the forces of fundamentalist religious law-
making.
SETTING THE STAGE.
The trial itself was more a media circus than a serious criminal prosecution.
Such a trial would put Dayton on the map. Such a trial would put Dayton on
the map, Rappleyea explained to other civic leaders. They agreed and asked
John Scopes to stand trial.
Scopes disapproved of the new law and accepted an evolutionary view of
human origins. John also inclined toward his fathers view about government
and religion but in an easygoing way. When asked by the local board
president and the school superintendent if he would stand trial for teaching
evolution, Scopes readily consented, even though he doubted that he had
ever violated the law.
BRYAN versus Darrow
Ever since Charles Darwin had published his theory of evolution in 1859,
some conservative Christians had objected to the materialistic implications of
its naturalistic explanation for the origins of man. Many of the maintained that
God especially created the rst humans , as the bible suggested in Genesis,
and rejected the notion that people had evolved from brutes.
Early in the twentieth century, these objections intensied with the spread of
fundamentalism as a reaction by some traditional American PrProtestants to
increased religion liberalism within their mainline denominations , especially
because many came to see Darwinian theories of survival of the ttest behind
excessive militarism, imperialism, and laissez-faire capitalism - the three
greatest sins in Bryans political theology.
Bryan called for the enactment of state restrictions on teaching the Darwinian
theory of human in public schools. Bryans pending appearance in Dayton
drew in Clarence Darrow. By the twenties, Darrow stood out as the most
famous trail lawyer in America. He had gained fame as the countrys premier
defender of labor organizers and political radicals but also was known for his
militant opposition to religious inuences in public life, particularly to biblically
inspired legal restrictions on personal freedom. In this cause, he was a
pioneer. His opposition to religious lawmaking stemmed from his belief that
revealed religion, especially Christianity, divided people into warring sects,
caused them to be judgmental. Darrow sought to expose biblical literalism as
both irrational and dangerous. He welcomed the hullabaloo surrounding the
antievolution crusade. It rekindled interest in his attacks on the Bible, which
one had appeared hopelessly out of date in light of modern developments i
Mainline Christian thought but now seemed to regain relevance with the rise
of fundamentalism.
With Bryan and Darrow on board, Dayton civic leaders could only marvel at
the success of their publicity scheme. They feted both men with banquets in
their honor and housed them in two of Daytons nest private homes.
NATIONAL INTEREST.
The prospect of these two renowned orators - Bryan and Darrow - actually
litigating the profound issues of science versus religion and academic
freedom versus popular control over public education turned the trial into a
media sensation at the time and into the stuff of legend thereafter.
Two hundred reporters covered the story in Dayton, including some of the
countrys best correspondents, who represented many of the major
newspapers and magazines.
Newsreel cameras recorded the encounter, with the lm own directly to
major Northern cities for projection in movie houses. The media billed it as
the trial of the century before it ever began, and it lived up to its billing.
Darrow, for his part, concentrated on debunking fundamentalist reliance on
revealed Scripture as a source of knowledge about nature that was suitable
for setting educational standards. Their common goal, as Hays stated at the
time, was to make it possible that laws of this kind will hereafter meet the
opposition of an aroused public opinion.
The prosecution countered with a half-dozen local attorneys led by the states
able prosecutor and future U.S. senator, Tom Stewart, plus Bryan and his
son, William Jennings Jr., a California lawyer. In court, they focused on
providing that Scopes broke the law and objected to any attempt to litigate
the merits of that statute.
The elder Bryan, who had not practiced law for three decades, stayed
uncharacteristically quiet in court and saved his oratory for lecturing the
assembled press and public outside the courtroom about the vices of
teaching evolution and the virtues of majority rule.
As the actual trial played itself out,however, Darrow managed to frustrate
Bryans plan by waiving his own close because, under Tennessee practice,
the defense controlled whether there would be closing arguments.
The Trial UNFOLDS.
First came jury selection. Darrow typically stressed this part of a trial as being
critical for the defense and often spent weeks going through hundreds of
veniremen before settling on twelve jurors who just might be open to his
arguments and acquit his typically notorious defendant. Darrow had a
different objective at the Scopes trial, however. He wanted to convict the
statute rather than acquit the defendant, and only judges could do this. Jurors
simply applied the law to the facts of the case. Darrow could have won an
acquittal by arguing that Scopes never violated the statute, but that would
have left the statute intact. Instead, the defense sought either to have the trial
judge strike the statute, which was all but beyond his role , or to have Scopes
convicted and then appeal to a higher court, which could review the statute.
Hence Darrow quickly accepted even the simplest of jurors, including several
who had never heard of the theory of evolution and one who could not read.
No sooner was the jury selected than it was excused from the courtroom --
for days -- as the parties wrangled over defense motions to strike the statute
as unconstitutional. Although these arguments occasionally soared into
dramatic pleas from the defense for academic freedom and from the
prosecution for majority rule, they generally skirted the underlying issues of
science versus religion.
The prosecution then presented uncontested testimony by students and
school ofcials that Scopes had taught evolution. After the prosecutions brief
presentation, the defense offered the testimony of fteen national experts in
science and religion, all prepared to defend the theory of evolution as a valid
scientic theory that could be taught without public harm.
BRYANS testimony.
Frustrated by his failure to discredit the antievolution law through the
testimony of scientists and liberal theologians, Darrow sought the same result
by inviting Bryan to take the witness stand and face questions about it.
Although he could have declined, Bryan accepted Darrows challenge. But
Stewart could not control is impetuous eco-counsel, especially because the
judge seemed eager to hear Bryan defend the faith.
Best of all for Darrow, no good answers to the questions existed.
Darrow questioned Bryan as a hostile witnessYou claim that everything in the
Bible should be literally interpreted ?
I peppering him with queries and giving him little chance to explain.
On the stump, Bryan effectively championed the cause of biblical faith by
addressing the great questions of life: The special creation of human in Gods
image gave purpose to every person, and bodily resurrection of Christ gave
hope for eternal life to believers. But Darrow did not inquire about these
grand miracles. For many Americans, laudable simple faith became simple
faith became laughable crude belief when applied to Jonahs whale, Noahs
ood, and Adams rib. Yet Bryan acknowledged accepting each of these
biblical miracles on faith and professed that all miracles were equally easy to
believe.
In an apparent concession to modern astronomy , Bryan suggested that God
extended the day for Joshua by stopping the earth rather the sun. Bryan
afrmed his understanding that the Genesis days of creation represented
periods of time.
Legacy
Despite Bryans stumbling on the witness stand both sides effectively
communicated their message from Dayton - maybe not enough to win
converts but at least sufciently to energize those already predisposed
toward their viewpoint.
Underlying this rift, surveys of public opinion consistently reveal that
Americans remain nearly evenly split between opinion accepting the scientic
theory of human evolution and those believing that God specially created
Adam and Eve within the past ten thousand years.
With time and countless retellings, the Scopes trial has become part of the
fabric of American culture. For some, it grew to symbolize the treat to
scientic freedom and progress posed not simply by antievolution but also by
religiously motivated lawmaking generally. For others it suggested a rowing
hostility to religious faith within the scientic community and modern
American society.