Get e-book THE MONKEY TRIAL - Judgment Day

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online THE MONKEY TRIAL - Judgment Day file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with THE MONKEY TRIAL - Judgment Day book. Happy reading THE MONKEY TRIAL - Judgment Day Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF THE MONKEY TRIAL - Judgment Day at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF THE MONKEY TRIAL - Judgment Day Pocket Guide.

I make no bones about that. They believe the Earth is less than 10, years old, and that God created everything fully-formed, including humans, in just six days. Although most mainstream religions made peace with evolution decades ago, many creationists still see evolution as incompatible with their faith. And both creationism and evolution are no strangers to the court. Their legal battles stretch back to the famous Scopes Monkey Trial of Dick York As Bertram T.

Keller on the stand so that he can explain to the gentlemen of the jury the exact meaning of the theory of evolution. Sillers, what would you think if that sweet child came home from school and told you that a godless teacher But the verdict would have a chilling effect on science education throughout the country for the next three decades.

SCOTT: After the Scopes trial, textbook publishers decided that evolution was just too controversial a subject, and so they just quietly removed it from the textbooks. And for most of that time, the textbook was the curriculum, and, so, if it wasn't in the textbook, it didn't get taught. But as publishers slipped evolution back into their textbooks, creationists fought to teach their views in science class as well.

Over the next 30 years, the two sides battled it out in court. The fight culminated in , when the Supreme Court decided that teaching creationism in public school science classes violated the separation of church and state mandated by the constitution in the Establishment Clause, which prevents the government from promoting or prohibiting any form of religion. To this day, teaching creationism in public school science classes anywhere in the United States remains a violation of students' constitutional rights.

Another Dover school board member, Bill Buckingham, a retired policeman, was appointed by Alan Bonsell to head the curriculum committee. It was his job to review all requests for new textbooks. The 9th grade biology teachers had asked for a widely used book, co-authored by biologists Ken Miller and Joe Levine. But Buckingham did not like what he saw. I think I listed somewhere between 12 and 15 instances where it talked about Darwin's theory of evolution.

It wasn't on every page of the book, but, like, every couple of chapters, there was Darwin, in your face again. And it was to the exclusion of any other theory. The school board put the purchase on hold. Darwin published his theory of evolution in , in a book called On the Origin of Species , and it has been sparking controversy ever since.

It was the culmination of work Darwin started more than two decades earlier, after sailing around the world on a ship called the Beagle. On that expedition, Darwin collected thousands of plants and animals that were unlike any he had ever seen before. And when he returned home to England, he became particularly fascinated by the many different birds he had found on a remote chain of islands off the coast of South America called the Galapagos.

MILLER: There was a bird that looked to him like a warbler, and another one that looked to him like a woodpecker, and another one that looked like a finch, and so forth. And he wasn't sure what these birds were. But they were all clearly adapted for very different ways of life. Some ate insects.

Some, for example, picked up small seeds. Some could crush the large seeds of certain plants which were found on the Galapagos. So they had different appearances, different beaks, different styles of life. He was stunned to discover that the expert ornithologists in Great Britain told him, "They're all finches.

  • More great documentaries.
  • Vegetarian Cooking: Spice-Winy Vege Pork Chop with Bitter Melon and Mushrooms (Vegetarian Cooking - Vege Meats Book 89).
  • Rhyming Quizzes (Categorically Quizzes Book 9).
  • Site Navigation!
  • Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia.
  • Darkest Mercy.

That's not a woodpecker, it's a finch. That's not a warbler, it's a finch. Darwin reasoned: in nature, individual organisms compete for limited resources like food. If, for example, a bird is born with a slightly larger beak than the other members of the population, that might give it an advantage on an island where large seeds are more common. Over many generations, birds with large beaks would be more likely to survive and reproduce, handing down this advantageous beak shape to greater numbers of offspring than those with smaller beaks.

Darwin called this process "natural selection," because the forces of nature, such as the environment of an individual island in the Galapagos, select those organisms best suited to that environment. And he believed that, over time, this could give rise to new species. MILLER: What Darwin pointed out was a general principle, which is easily observed in nature: species are not fixed, that with natural selection pushing or pulling or splitting, species can change over time.

He called the gradual evolution of new species from old "descent with modification," and he pictured the relatedness of all living things as a great tree of life, with each twig a different species ultimately springing from a common ancestor. What you see is a continuity of life on the planet, because we're not exceptional in any great degree, we're just a twig on a giant evolutionary tree that includes everything.

But he recognized disturbing implications in the idea that humans had evolved from ape-like ancestors. MILLER: In the eyes of a lot of people, once Charles Darwin had proposed that natural processes could have produced every species on this planet, including us, they felt that took God out of the picture. To this day, somewhere between a third and half the U. I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and that the Book of Genesis tells it like it is as to how we came into being. God didn't create monkey and then take man from a monkey.

He created man. NARRATOR: In Dover, hostility to the theory of evolution had already erupted in vandalism after a student at the high school painted a foot mural depicting the evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors. The mural was on display in a science classroom, when someone removed it from the school and burned it. Now, as Bill Buckingham continued fighting the purchase of the biology book at school board meetings, the science teachers began to suspect that he had been involved. NARRATOR: Though Buckingham denied any involvement in the incident, when he reportedly announced he was searching for a biology book that included evolution and creationism, the school board meeting erupted in chaos.

But these meetings would be hundreds of people, and it would be hot, and people would be upset, and it was a zoo. It was just an absolute madhouse. They were disrespectful to the public, disrespectful to the teachers. They didn't want to listen to anybody. They were just on their own agenda. ALAN BONSELL: Sometimes in a democracy, and when you have nine different personalities together, and you have a controversial issue, in the heat of the moment, somebody might say something they wish, 10 minutes from now, they wouldn't have said.

I didn't realize how big, but I certainly knew I was intrigued by it. But her interest in the issue was not just professional, it was also personal. Lauri's father had been the owner of a local radio station, but the oldies format wasn't paying the bills, and the electric company was about to put him off the air. And overnight the radio station became Christian radio station. My father became born again. In the meantime, Buckingham was in touch with two organizations known for questioning Darwin. Headed by former public prosecutor Richard Thompson, famous for his efforts to convict assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian, the firm bills itself as "the sword and shield for people of faith.

  1. Say it Haint So: Volume 3 (The Ghost Handlers Series).
  3. Generational Dysfunctions (Perfect Imperfections Book 1).
  4. Scopes Trial?
  5. And he thought there should be other alternative theories involved. And that's when I introduced him to the theory of intelligent design and indicated that I thought that that theory could be taught alongside the theory of evolution and pass constitutional muster. They sent Buckingham a DVD and other material on intelligent design. In these materials, Buckingham found a view that did not seem to conflict with his own. For example, according to the book Of Pandas and People, "Intelligent Design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.

    Today, that theory faces a formidable challenge. Intelligent design has sparked both discovery and intense debate over the origin of life on Earth. And, for a growing number of scientists, it represents a paradigm, an idea with the power to once again redefine the foundations of scientific thought. Rather, it shows a sign of some sort of intelligence that's behind it. NARRATOR: And just as those words on the beach are clearly the product of an intelligent being, the claim is that some aspects of life itself must be the product of a designer.

    In the Book of Genesis, the designer would be God. The mysterious designer is called an "intelligent cause" or "intelligent agent. Championed by a law professor named Phillip Johnson, intelligent design began to emerge in the s. Everybody is told that it's absolutely certain and certainly true. And because it's called science, it has been proved again and again by absolutely unquestionable procedures. But this is not true.

    It's an imaginative story that has been spun on the basis of very little evidence. Berkeley law school, Johnson wrote a book called Darwin on Trial , in which he laid the groundwork for the intelligent design movement. For years, he's been making the claim that evolution may produce small-scale changes—like the different finch beaks Darwin observed—but for humans to come about requires the intervention of some kind of intelligence.

    An intelligent cause had to be involved. And Alan Bonsell told me that, too—and what the courts will allow. They were both very clear on that, that this is their compromise even though they believe in creationism. This would, this would, sort of, bridge the gap for them. It's Biblical creationism, you know? All I have to do is take out "intelligent agent" and put in "God," and, voila! We have the story of Genesis. So there is no question in my mind what intelligent design was.

    The board chose to purchase only the standard biology book co-authored by Ken Miller. Pandas was shelved. That might have been the end of the story, but a few weeks later, 60 copies of Pandas turned up in Bertha's Spahr's department, a gift to the school from an anonymous donor. Then, without consulting the teachers, members of Buckingham's curriculum committee drafted the outlines of what became a bold new policy for the science department.

    It was brought before the full school board for a vote, and after a heated debate, it passed, six to three. In its final form, the policy mandated that all students in ninth grade biology be read a one minute statement telling them that Darwin's theory is not a fact and that it contains gaps. Suggesting intelligent design as an alternative, it directed students to the 60 copies of Pandas that would be available as a reference. Tammy Kitzmiller is the mother of a 9th grade student who would be read the one minute statement at Dover High.

    She called the A. I did not like how they were trying to mix religion and science. Can you help us? They would be represented by the A. A court date was set. And as depositions were being taken, the science teachers took a stand of their own against reading the intelligent design statement. Intelligent design is not biology. Intelligent design is not an accepted scientific theory.

    PBS show looks at controversy over ‘intelligent design’ – Orange County Register

    With the teachers refusing to read the one minute statement, Dover's assistant superintendent walked into ninth grade biology class on January 18, and read:. Assistant Superintendent, Dover, Pennsylvania School District : The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered.

    The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. Are you prepared to open? Dover School Board members announced their interest in the topic of evolution in starkly religious terms. They looked for a book that could provide a religious alternative to evolution, and they found one here in Of Pandas and People. They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious topic in a science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity.

    The board believed that intelligent design was not creationism. They knew what that was, the Book of Genesis. They believed it was a legitimate educational goal to make students aware of the existence of another scientific theory. Defendants' experts will show this Court that intelligent design theory is science, it is not religion. This expert testimony will also demonstrate that making students aware of gaps and problems in evolutionary theory is good science education. It's good liberal education. And intelligent design was attracting some heavy hitters.

    Explore More

    Rick Santorum, then Pennsylvania senator, had commended the school district for its intelligent design policy. And President Bush had thrown his support behind intelligent design, saying, "Both sides ought to be properly taught so people can understand what the debate is about. One is the future of science education in this country. Presenting pseudo-science or pseudo-math or pseudo-history in promotion of one particular religious view? It's wrong. GILLEN: Does science education have to be so narrow, so technical, so deferential to the existing paradigm that we can't even introduce students to what may be the next great theory?

    Before becoming a judge, Jones was head of Pennsylvania's liquor control board, where he banned the sale of Bad Frog beer because it showed a cartoon frog making an offensive gesture. So, it seemed to me this was pretty modest. And so I did think it had a pretty good chance, if it was presented properly, of being accepted. RICHARD THOMPSON: We didn't have to show that, you know, one theory was better than the other, merely that it was a credible theory, and that the students would gain something by understanding the controversy surrounding the theory of evolution and the origin of species.

    And because the parents were asking for the teaching of intelligent design to be halted, an order that only a judge can render, there would be no jury. Instead, the jury box was packed with reporters and writers from around the globe, including one with a surprising connection to the case. This is not evolution in the right direction.

    In addition, both sides asked the judge to rule on a fundamental question: "Is intelligent design science or not? And I spent months and months on e-mail, at meetings, explaining science, explaining evolution to the lawyers. NARRATOR: To make their case before a judge who had no particular scientific training, the lawyers for the parents assembled a team of expert witnesses.

    Scopes Monkey Trial FULL

    And as their first witness they called biologist Ken Miller, co-author of the textbook that Bill Buckingham had called "laced with Darwinism. Miller, what is evolution? MILLER Dramatization : Most biologists would describe evolution as "the process of change over time that characterizes the natural history of life on this planet. He realized that those organisms that had the characteristics that suited them best in that struggle, those were the ones that would hand those characteristics down to the next generation, and that, therefore, the average characteristics of a population could change in one direction or another and they could change quite dramatically.

    And that's the essential idea of natural selection. Miller testified how Darwin's theory pictures the history of life as a tree, with species gradually evolving into others over millions of years, producing new branches and twigs, a process that gives rise to all the variety of life, from bacteria to Darwin's finches to ourselves. But intelligent design takes a different view, as the movement's own literature shows. Intelligent design teaches a history of life in which organisms appear abruptly, are unrelated, and linked only by their designer.

    That's the view that intelligent design promotes. As it turned out, the latest in a large body of evidence to refute intelligent design and support evolution was coming to light just as this case was unfolding. For example, if, over millions of years, fish gave rise to land animals, as evolutionary theory predicts, we should find fossils of extinct creatures that are part fish and part land animal. The prediction in this case is clear-cut. That is, if we go to rocks of the right age, and the rocks of the right type, we should find transitions between two great forms of life, between fish and amphibian.

    More recently, about million years ago, the tree of life branched as primitive fish evolved into amphibians, such as today's frogs and salamanders, which live part of their lives on land. Armed with this prediction, Shubin and his colleagues organized an expedition to one of the most desolate places on Earth, the Canadian Arctic, about miles from the North Pole, where rocks of just the right age are exposed.

    Here, they hoped to fill a gap in the branch of the evolutionary tree that leads from primitive fish to animals with four limbs, or "tetrapods," by finding a fossil of an animal that shared characteristics of both. But after three summers of digging through hundreds of tons of rock in this harsh environment, they had found little of interest. They returned the next year for one last try. This was it. We were told this was our last year up there. And then, in , in the third day of the season, a colleague of mine was removing rock and discovered a little snout sticking out the side of the cliff, just exactly like this.

    And he removed more rock and more rock and more rock, and it became clear this was a snout of a flat-headed animal. And that's when we knew. Flat-headed animal at million years old? This is going to be something interesting. And it's one of the most vivid transitional fossils ever discovered, showing how land animals evolved from primitive fish.

    And, just like any good fish, it has scales on its back and fins.

    You compare that to an amphibian, and you find a creature that doesn't have scales, and it's modified the fins to become limbs, arms and legs. And the head's very different. It has a flat head with eyes on top and a neck. What we see when we look at the fossil record, at rocks of just the right age, is a creature like Tiktaalik.

    Just like a fish, it has scales on its back, and fins. You can see the fin webbing here. Yet when we look at the head, you see something very different. You see a very amphibian-like thing, with a flat head, with eyes on top. It gets even better when we take the fin apart.

    When we look inside the fin, as in this cast here, what you'll see is bones that compare to our shoulder, elbow, even parts of the wrist—bone for bone. So you have a fish, at just the right time in the history of life, that has characteristics of amphibians and primitive fish.

    It's a mix. The discovery of Tiktaalik was still being written up at the time of the trial, so it couldn't be used as evidence. But Shubin's colleague, paleontologist Kevin Padian, showed the judge examples of other fossils with transitional features that support Darwin's tree of life. NARRATOR: How dinosaurs evolved into birds, as seen in creatures like Archaeopteryx which has a long tail and teeth like a dinosaur, but feathers just like a modern bird.

    How ancestors of modern reptiles evolved into creatures now extinct that share a common ancestor with mammals. And, how, surprisingly, whales evolved from large land animals that returned to the water. We have the fossils; we have the transitional features; we have the ways of analyzing them with many different lines of evidence. And we're looking for the picture that accounts for the most lines of objective evidence.

    NARRATOR: With each fossil, Padian refuted Pandas claim that different life forms appear suddenly, by showing how fossils of extinct organisms bridge the gaps between species, resulting in a picture of gradual evolution, just as Darwin proposed. And how come they hadn't learned about this stuff before? And the reason is it's not in textbooks because the creationists fight so hard to keep it out. That's been a big influence. And I remember the judge saying something like, you know, "biology class adjourned," you know, "for lunch.

    And it was clear that we had the judge interested in science. But many in Dover wondered, "Why is evolution taught as fact if it's 'just a theory? It isn't a law of science. It isn't, you know, a fact. It is a theory. We weren't, we weren't saying, "Don't talk about Darwin. But that's what it is, it's not Darwin's law, it's not Darwin's fact, it's Darwin's theory. A theory is not just something that we think of in the middle of the night after too much coffee and not enough sleep. That's an idea. The seven-day case included its share of dull litigation, but those who sought to keep a measure of civility in the proceedings failed dismally.

    The defense brought four notable litigators. The only passive observer, John T. Inside the packed courtroom the stifling heat inveighed against formality. Darrow stripped to a white shirt and a pair of gaudy, out-of-style lavender suspenders. Bryan worked his palm-leaf fan relentlessly. The judge worried that the combined weight of the spectators could cause the floor to collapse. He warned the viewers not to overreact to the proceedings. But the partisan crowd ignored him, applauding at will. Outside, a carnival atmosphere enveloped Dayton, even though the estimated crowd of 30, never materialized.

    A Hollywood animal trainer brought a chimp named Joe Mendi for photo opportunities. The legal wrangling centered on the constitutionality of the indictment and the admissibility of expert witnesses by the defense. Never mind that: The world waited to hear Darrow and Bryan in their duel. They obliged. Darrow fired the first shot. At the next session, you may ban books and newspapers.

    Soon you may set Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the minds of men. If you can do one, you can do the other. Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always they are feeding and gloating for more…. After awhile, your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed, until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backwards to the glorious days of the 16th century when bigots fired fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind.

    Two afternoons later, in a battle to exclude testimony by the witnesses Darrow had assembled from the fields of biology, zoology, philosophy, and theology, Bryan took his turn on the soapbox. The three-time Democratic nominee for president in , , was a staunch populist. The people of this state knew what they were doing when they passed the law and they knew the dangers of the doctrine so that they did not want it taught to their children….

    Bryan could not resist playing to the national audience. The Bible, the record of the Son of God, the Savior of the world, born of the virgin Mary, crucified and risen again. The Bible is not going to be driven out of this court by experts who come hundreds of miles to testify that they can reconcile evolution, with its ancestor in the jungle, with man made by God in his image, and put here for purposes as part of the divine plan.

    The Great Commoner would have been better served to argue in favor of including the experts. The American radio audience would have quickly grown tired of hours of turgid scientific and philosophical testimony. But that was not to be. Instead Bryan faced public humiliation, first by a lone orator named Dudley Field Malone and then by Darrow.

    Malone is practically lost to history, sadly, because his speech for intellectual freedom served as a small oasis of rationality in the storm of overblown rhetoric. Even then the audience must have been disappointed when this wealthy Paris-based divorce lawyer, whose suffragette wife registered in the hotel under her maiden name, rose to rebut Bryan. Malone had worked for Bryan while Bryan served as secretary of state in the Wilson administration.

    Malone reminded the judge that, nevertheless, only certain theologians, not all theologians, believed in the literal truth of Genesis as set forth in the Bible. Which theologians were right? Would all Christian theologians ever agree? Malone proceeded to make a compelling case for the co-existence of religious sentiment and scientific progress. Civilization is not so proud of the work of the adults.

    Civilization need not be so proud of what the grown-ups have done. Make the distinction between theology and science. Let them have both…. Let them both live. We're game, aren't we? Scopes , a Dayton high school science and math teacher. The group asked Scopes to admit to teaching the theory of evolution. Rappleyea pointed out that, while the Butler Act prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution, the state required teachers to use a textbook that explicitly described and endorsed the theory of evolution, and that teachers were, therefore, effectively required to break the law.

    Scopes added to the group: "If you can prove that I've taught evolution and that I can qualify as a defendant, then I'll be willing to stand trial. Scopes urged students to testify against him and coached them in their answers. Raulston accelerated the convening of the grand jury and " The original prosecutors were Herbert E. Hicks , two brothers who were local attorneys and friends of Scopes, but the prosecution was ultimately led by Tom Stewart , a graduate of Cumberland School of Law , who later became a U.

    Stewart was aided by Dayton attorney Gordon McKenzie, who supported the anti-evolution bill on religious grounds, and described evolution as "detrimental to our morality" and an assault on "the very citadel of our Christian religion". Hoping to attract major press coverage, George Rappleyea went so far as to write to the British novelist H. 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. John R. Neal , a law school professor from Knoxville , announced that he would act as Scopes' attorney whether Scopes liked it or not, and he became the nominal head of the defense team. Baptist pastor William Bell Riley , the founder and president of the World Christian Fundamentals Association, was instrumental in calling lawyer and three-time Democratic presidential nominee, former United States Secretary of State , and lifelong Presbyterian William Jennings Bryan to act as that organization's counsel.

    Bryan had originally been invited by Sue Hicks to become an associate of the prosecution and Bryan had readily accepted, despite the fact he had not tried a case in thirty-six years. As Scopes pointed out to James Presley in the book Center of the Storm, on which the two collaborated: "After [Bryan] was accepted by the state as a special prosecutor in the case, there was never any hope of containing the controversy within the bounds of constitutionality.

    In response, the defense sought out Clarence Darrow , an agnostic. Darrow originally declined, fearing that his presence would create a circus atmosphere, but eventually realized that the trial would be a circus with or without him, and agreed to lend his services to the defense, later stating that he "realized there was no limit to the mischief that might be accomplished unless the country was aroused to the evil at hand".

    McKenzie and William Jennings Bryan. The trial was covered by famous journalists from the South and around the world, including H. Mencken for The Baltimore Sun , which was also paying part of the defense's expenses. It was Mencken who provided the trial with its most colorful labels such as the "Monkey Trial" of "the infidel Scopes". It was also the first United States trial to be broadcast on national radio. The ACLU had originally intended to oppose the Butler Act on the grounds that it violated the teacher's individual rights and academic freedom , and was therefore unconstitutional.

    Principally because of Clarence Darrow, this strategy changed as the trial progressed. The earliest argument proposed by the defense once the trial had begun was that there was actually no conflict between evolution and the creation account in the Bible; later, this viewpoint would be called theistic evolution. In support of this claim, they brought in eight experts on evolution.

    But other than Dr. Maynard Metcalf, a zoologist from Johns Hopkins University , the judge would not allow these experts to testify in person. Instead, they were allowed to submit written statements so that their evidence could be used at the appeal. In response to this decision, Darrow made a sarcastic comment to Judge Raulston as he often did throughout the trial on how he had been agreeable only on the prosecution's suggestions. Darrow apologized the next day, keeping himself from being found in contempt of court.

    The presiding judge, John T. Raulston, was accused of being biased towards the prosecution and frequently clashed with Darrow. At the outset of the trial, Raulston quoted Genesis and the Butler Act. He also warned the jury not to judge the merit of the law which would become the focus of the trial but on the violation of the Act, which he called a 'high misdemeanor.

    Bryan chastised evolution for teaching children that humans were but one of 35, types of mammals and bemoaned the notion that human beings were descended "Not even from American monkeys, but from old world monkeys". Malone responded for the defense in a speech that was universally considered the oratorical climax of the trial. In his conclusion, Malone declared that Bryan's "duel to the death" against evolution should not be made one-sided by a court ruling that took away the chief witnesses for the defense.

    UW-Madison Library Sites navigation

    Malone promised that there would be no duel because "there is never a duel with the truth. On the sixth day of the trial, the defense ran out of witnesses. The judge declared that all of the defense testimony on the Bible was irrelevant and should not be presented to the jury which had been excluded during the defense. On the seventh day of the trial, the defense asked the judge to call Bryan as a witness to question him on the Bible, as their own experts had been rendered irrelevant; Darrow had planned this the day before and called Bryan a "Bible expert".

    This move surprised those present in the court, as Bryan was a counsel for the prosecution and Bryan himself according to a journalist reporting the trial never made a claim of being an expert, although he did tout his knowledge of the Bible. 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 as a witness in an effort to demonstrate that belief in the historicity of the Bible and its many accounts of miracles was unreasonable.

    Bryan accepted, on the understanding that Darrow would in turn submit to questioning by Bryan. Although Hays would claim in his autobiography that the cross-examination of Bryan was unplanned, Darrow spent the night before in preparation. The scientists the defense had brought to Dayton—and Charles Francis Potter , a modernist minister who had engaged in a series of public debates on evolution with the fundamentalist preacher John Roach Straton —prepared topics and questions for Darrow to address to Bryan on the witness stand. An area of questioning involved the book of Genesis, including questions about whether Eve was actually created from Adam's rib , where Cain got his wife, and how many people lived in Ancient Egypt.

    Darrow used these examples to suggest that the stories of the Bible could not be scientific and should not be used in teaching science with Darrow telling Bryan, "You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion. 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.

    Stewart objected for the prosecution, demanding to know the legal purpose of Darrow's questioning. Bryan, gauging the effect the session was having, snapped that its purpose was "to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible". Darrow, with equal vehemence, retorted, "We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States. A few more questions followed in the charged open-air courtroom.

    Darrow asked where Cain got his wife; Bryan answered that he would "leave the agnostics to hunt for her". However, after another angry exchange, Judge Raulston banged his gavel, adjourning the court. The confrontation between Bryan and Darrow lasted approximately two hours on the afternoon of the seventh day of the trial. It is likely that it would have continued the following morning but for Judge Raulston's announcement that he considered the whole examination irrelevant to the case and his decision that it should be "expunged" from the record.

    Thus Bryan was denied the chance to cross-examine the defense lawyers in return, although after the trial Bryan would distribute nine questions to the press to bring out Darrow's "religious attitude". The questions and Darrow's short answers were published in newspapers the day after the trial ended, with The New York Times characterizing Darrow as answering Bryan's questions "with his agnostic's creed, 'I don't know,' except where he could deny them with his belief in natural, immutable law".

    After the defense's final attempt to present evidence was denied, Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury only to have them come to a guilty verdict:. We claim that the defendant is not guilty, but as the court has excluded any testimony, except as to the one issue as to whether he taught that man descended from a lower order of animals, and we cannot contradict that testimony, there is no logical thing to come except that the jury find a verdict that we may carry to the higher court, purely as a matter of proper procedure.

    We do not think it is fair to the court or counsel on the other side to waste a lot of time when we know this is the inevitable result and probably the best result for the case. We came down here to offer evidence in this case and the court has held under the law that the evidence we had is not admissible, so all we can do is to take an exception and carry it to a higher court to see whether the evidence is admissible or not We do not see how you could. We do not ask it. Darrow closed the case for the defense without a final summation.

    Under Tennessee law, when the defense waived its right to make a closing speech, the prosecution was also barred from summing up its case, preventing Bryan from presenting his prepared summation.

    Post navigation

    Scopes never testified since there was never a factual issue as to whether he had taught evolution. Scopes later admitted that, in reality, he was unsure of whether he had taught evolution another reason the defense did not want him to testify , but the point was not contested at the trial. William Jennings Bryan's summation of the Scopes trial distributed to reporters but not read in court :. Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher of morals.

    It can perfect machinery, but it adds no moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of the machine. It can also build gigantic intellectual ships, but it constructs no moral rudders for the control of storm-tossed human vessel. It not only fails to supply the spiritual element needed but some of its unproven hypotheses rob the ship of its compass and thus endanger its cargo.

    In war, science has proven itself an evil genius; it has made war more terrible than it ever was before. Man used to be content to slaughter his fellowmen on a single plane, the earth's surface. Science has taught him to go down into the water and shoot up from below and to go up into the clouds and shoot down from above, thus making the battlefield three times as bloody as it was before; but science does not teach brotherly love. Science has made war so hellish that civilization was about to commit suicide; and now we are told that newly discovered instruments of destruction will make the cruelties of the late war seem trivial in comparison with the cruelties of wars that may come in the future.

    If civilization is to be saved from the wreckage threatened by intelligence not consecrated by love, it must be saved by the moral code of the meek and lowly Nazarene. His teachings, and His teachings alone, can solve the problems that vex the heart and perplex the world. After eight days of trial, it took the jury only nine minutes to deliberate. Raulston imposed the fine before Scopes was given an opportunity to say anything about why the court should not impose punishment upon him and after Neal brought the error to the judge's attention the defendant spoke for the first and only time in court:.

    Your honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom—that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our constitution, of personal and religious freedom.


    I think the fine is unjust. Bryan died suddenly five days after the trial's conclusion. First, they 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, the lawyers argued that the statute violated Scopes' constitutional right to free speech because 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.