| The Scopes Trial of 1925 pitted William Jennings Bryan against Clarence
Darrow and teacher John T.
Scopes in an American court case that tested a law passed on March 13, 1925, forbidding the teaching of evolution in Tennessee public schools. It has often been called the "Scopes Monkey Trial".
The Butler Act
At issue was the Butler Act, which had been passed a few months earlier by
the Tennessee State legislature. The Butler Act provided:
- "That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State
which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the
Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of
animals."[1] (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/tennstat.htm)
By the terms of the statute, therefore, it was not illegal to teach that apes descended from protozoa, or to teach the
mechanisms of variation and natural selection. It was only illegal to teach that man had descended from a lower order of
animal.
The legislative rationale for the Butler Act was multifaceted, as, at the time, evolution was a new and very controversial
idea. At that time, the theory of evolution was strongly linked with atheism, and
ultimately codified as a doctrine in the new "religion" of humanism in the Humanist Manifesto[2] (http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html). Second, it called for a radically different
understanding of human identity, as it asserted that men were descended from apes, an idea which was highly offensive to many.
Finally, it was strongly linked with eugenics, or the policy of exterminating or
sterilizing those considered "genetically inferior." All of these ideas conflicted with the Christian idea that all people were created in the image of God, and were vehemently opposed by many
Christians.
William Jennings Bryan was highly influential in
raising public and legislative support for the Butler Act, and he articulated many of the above concerns in his published work,
In His Image, in which he argued that evolution was both irrational and immoral.[3] (http://www.scopestrial.org/inhisimage.htm)
In large part as result of these concerns and Bryan's advocacy, the legislature of Tennessee determined that it was
inappropriate to have such an idea taught as fact in public schools, and enacted the Butler Act.
Testing the Butler Act
The American Civil Liberties Union
had offered to defend anyone accused of teaching evolution in
defiance of the law. The leaders of Dayton, Tennessee, then a
town of 1,800, thought that the controversy of such a trial would put Dayton on the map. They asked a 24-year-old science
teacher and athletic coach named John T. Scopes, who agreed.
The textbook
The text used by Scopes, Hunter's Civic Biology, was primarily a biology textbook. However, it also reflected some of
the concerns that drove the Tennessee legislature to enact the law. In support of white supremacy and a policy of eugenics
against the genetically inferior, it noted:
- “Although anatomically there is a greater difference between the lowest type of monkey and the highest type of ape than
there is between the highest type of ape and the lowest savage, yet there is an immense mental gap between monkey and man …
. At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in
instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the
Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of
China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white
inhabitants of Europe and America.” (pp. 195–196)[4] (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/hunt195.htm)
- “… if such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity
will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways of
preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been
tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country.” (pp. 263–265).
Scopes used the textbook, and was charged with violating the Butler Act.
The trial
The original prosecutors were Scope's friends, Herbert and Sue Hicks.
Hoping to attract major Press coverage, George Rappalyea, one of the people who convinced Scopes to go to trial, naively wrote to the British
novelist H. G. Wells asking him to join the defense team. Wells replied that
he had no legal training in Britain, let alone in America, and declined the offer. However, John Neal, a law school dean from Knoxville, volunteered. William Jennings Bryan, a fundamentalist preacher and three-time presidential candidate for the United
States Democratic Party, offered to join the prosecution team. In response, Clarence Darrow, a staunch agnostic, volunteered his services to the defense. After much toing and froing,
the defense team consisted of Darrow, Arthur Garfield Hays and Dudley Field Malone. The prosecution team was rounded out by A. T.
Stewart, Ben B. McKenzie, and William Jennings Bryan, Jr. The trial was covered by journalists from around the world, including
H. L. Mencken for The Baltimore Sun, which was also paying part of the defense's expenses. It was the first US trial to
broadcast on national radio.
The defense strategy was to have the charges thrown out on the grounds that there was actually no conflict between
evolutionist ideas and the account in the Bible, though by the time it went to appeal, the defense was claiming that the case was
invalid because the law was essentially designed to benefit a particular religious group, which would be unconstitutional. They brought in eight "experts" on evolution, who did not
testify in person but were allowed to submit evidence in the form of affidavits. Much, if not all, of this so-called "evidence"
would be regarded as very quaint indeed, not to say highly inaccurate, by today's standards.
To support his contention that evolution was morally pernicious, Bryan cited the famous Leopold-Loeb trial involving Darrow the year before the Scopes Trial. Darrow had saved two rich sadistic young
murderers from the death sentence, and Bryan cited Darrow's own words:
- this terrible crime was inherent in his organism, and it came from some ancestor … Is any blame attached because
somebody took Nietsche’s [evolutionary] philosophy seriously and fashioned his life upon it? … it is hardly fair to
hang a 19–year–old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university.
The cross-examination of Bryan
On the seventh day of the trial, Clarence Darrow took the unorthodox step of calling William Jennings Bryan, counsel for the
prosecution, to the stand for cross-examination, in an effort to demonstrate that belief in the history and miracles of the Bible
was unreasonable. Bryan accepted, on the understanding that Darrow would in turn submit to cross-examination by Bryan. He
questioned the story of Jonah, the account of the Earth standing still, and the
Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar. Bryan responded by steadfastly adhering to belief in the reported miracles, but asserted that he did
not know how old the Earth was, as the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar was only a calculation of men. When asked to explain the use of
the word "Day" in the first chapter, he said:
- "I have not attempted to explain it. If you will take the second chapter--let me have the book. (Examining Bible.) The fourth
verse of the second chapter says: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created in the day
that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens," the word "day" there in the very next chapter is used to describe a period. I
do not see that there is any necessity for construing the words, "the evening and the morning," as meaning necessarily a
twenty-four-hour day, "in the day when the Lord made the heaven and the earth."
The questioning continued into whether Eve was actually created from Adam's rib, where Cain got his wife, and how many people
lived in Ancient Egypt. The contest was very heated. Darrow making remarks such as:
- "You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does believe in your fool religion,"
Bryan made remarks such as:
- "The reason I am answering is not for the benefit of the superior court. It is to keep these gentlemen from saying I was
afraid to meet them and let them question me, and I want the Christian world to know that any atheist, agnostic, unbeliever, can
question me anytime as to my belief in God, and I will answer him."
Immediately after questioning Bryan, Darrow suddenly asked the judge to instruct the jury to find his client guilty and closed
the case for the defense. Thus he denied Bryan the chance to cross-examine him in return. Scopes never testified, as there was
never a legal issue as to whether he had taught evolution. (There seems to have been some question about whether he really did
ever teach evolution, but the point was not contested at trial.) The law itself was on trial.
After eight days of trial, during which Darrow was charged with contempt but
later apologized, Scopes was found guilty on July 21 and ordered to pay a $100 fine. Bryan offered to pay it.
Appeal to Supreme Court of Tennessee
Scopes appealed, challenging the conviction on several grounds.
First, Scopes argued that the statute was overly vague because it prohibited the teaching of "evolution," a very broad term.
The Court rejected that argument, holding:
- "Evolution, like prohibition, is a broad term. In recent bickering, however, evolution has been understood to mean the theory
which holds that man has developed from some pre-existing lower type. This is the popular significance of evolution, just as the
popular significance of prohibition is prohibition of the traffic in intoxicating liquors. It was in that sense that evolution
was used in this act. It is in this sense that the word will be used in this opinion, unless the context otherwise indicates. It
is only to the theory of the evolution of man from a lower type that the act before us was intended to apply, and much of the
discussion we have heard is beside this case."
Second, Scopes argued that the statute violated his the Due
Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as it prohibited him
from teaching evolution. The court rejected this argument, holding that the state was permitted to regulate his speech as an
employee of the state:
- "He was an employee of the state of Tennessee or of a municipal agency of the state. He was under contract with the state to
work in an institution of the state. He had no right or privilege to serve the state except upon such terms as the state
prescribed. His liberty, his privilege, his immunity to teach and proclaim the theory of evolution, elsewhere than in the service
of the state, was in no wise touched by this law."
Third, Scopes argued that the statute violated the Tennessee constitutional clause providing: "It shall be the duty of the
General Assembly in all future periods of this government, to cherish literature and science." The argument was that the theory
of the descent of man from a lower order of animals was now established by the preponderance of scientific thought that the
prohibition of the teaching of such theory is a violation of the legislative duty to cherish science.
The court rejected this argument, holding that the determination of what laws cherished science was an issue for the
legislature, not the judiciary:
- "The courts cannot sit in judgment on such acts of the Legislature or its agents and determine whether or not the omission or
addition of a particular course of study tends "to cherish science."
Fourth, Scopes argued that the statute violated the Establishment Clause, unconstitutionally establishing a state religion.
The Court rejected this argument, holding that the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent the establishment of a state
religion as had been the experience in Britain and Scotland at the writing of the constitution, and held:
- "We are not able to see how the prohibition of teaching the theory that man has descended from a lower order of animals gives
preference to any religious establishment or mode of worship. So far as we know, there is no religious establishment or organized
body that has in its creed or confession of faith any article denying or affirming such a theory. So far as we know, the denial
or affirmation of such a theory does not enter into any recognized mode of worship. Since this cause has been pending in this
court, we have been favored, in addition to briefs of counsel and various amici curiae, with a multitude of resolutions,
addresses, and communications from scientific bodies, religious factions, and individuals giving us the benefit of their views
upon the theory of evolution. Examination of these contributions indicates that Protestants, Catholics, and Jews are divided
among themselves in their beliefs, and that there is no unanimity among the members of any religious establishment as to this
subject. Belief or unbelief in the theory of evolution is no more a characteristic of any religious establishment or mode of
worship than is belief or unbelief in the wisdom of the prohibition laws. It would appear that members of the same churches quite
generally disagree as to these things."
Further, the Court held that while the statute forbade the teaching of evolution, it did not require the
teaching of any other doctrine, so that it did not benefit any doctrine over the others.
Nevertheless, having found the statute to be constitutional, the Court set aside the conviction on appeal due to a technical issue: the jury should
have decided the fine, not the judge, as Tennessee judges cannot set fines above $50. The
prosecution did not seek a retrial.
Not until 1968 did the US
Supreme Court rule in Epperson vs. Arkansas that such
bans contravene the Establishment Clause because their
primary purpose is religious.
Publicity and drama
Publicity
H. L. Mencken's trial reports were heavily slanted against the prosecution. He mocked the town's inhabitants as "yokels" and
"morons". He called Bryan a "buffoon" and his speeches "theologic bilge". In contrast, he called the defense "eloquent" and
"magnificent". Some evolutionists have claimed that Mencken's trial reports
turned public opinion against creationism, though few people seem to have
actually noticed this at the time.
The trial is described in detail in the Pulitzer Prize-winning book
Summer for the Gods, by Edward J. Larson (ISBN 0465075096); also useful is Ray Ginger's Six Days or Forever? (ISBN 0195197844). Another detailed resource is
The Great Monkey Trial by L. Sprague de Camp. Although
the play "Inherit the Wind", written by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, is very loosely based on the events, it is important to note
that this was a "literary device" since the play was actually about Senator Joseph McCarthy and the proceedings of the notorious
House Committee on Un-American Activities. See also The World's Most Famous Court Trial, State of Tennessee V. John Thomas
Scopes: Complete Stenographic Report of the Court, by John Scopes (ISBN 0306719754)
The trial also brought publicity to the town of Dayton, Tennessee, leading some to speculate that it was a publicity stunt. From The Salem Republican, June 11, 1925:
- "The whole matter has assumed the portion of Dayton and her merchants endeavoring to secure a large amount of notoriety and
publicity with an open question as whether Scopes is a party to the plot or not."
Inherit the Wind
Main article: Inherit the Wind
The stage play Inherit the Wind (1955) by Lawrence and Lee, later adapted into a film in 1960 by Stanley Kramer, was (very loosely) based on
this trial. It was not intended to depict the trial accurately, but rather to decry the excesses of the Joseph McCarthy era in 1950s politics. It starred Spencer Tracy
as Henry Drummond/Darrow, Fredric March as Matthew Harrison Brady/Bryan
and Gene Kelly as Mencken. In 1988, a
rewrite of the Kramer movie shown on NBC starred Jason Robards as Drummond and Kirk Douglas as
Brady.
There were many serious deviations in the movie to rule it out as serious history. Whereas Brady was portrayed as refusing to
read Darwin, Bryan was very familiar with it. It has Bryan claiming that sexual intercourse was original sin, nothing was said
about sex in the trial. While ItW had Brady betraying Cates' girlfriend, the local preacher's daughter, the real Scopes didn't
have a girlfriend at all. Brady protested that the fine was too lenient, Bryan offered to pay the fine.
External links
|
