1,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 66:
Line 66: + + + + + +
→End of Trial
:::::: Darrow did say that he wanted to preserve some evidentiary issue for appeal. I'm not sure what that issue is, because the 2-1 appellate decision doesn't even appear to mention it. (I just skimmed it briefly.) It looked like Darrow was trying to have scientists give expert testimony that the Bible is wrong, even tho they are not really Bible experts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Darrow did say that he wanted to preserve some evidentiary issue for appeal. I'm not sure what that issue is, because the 2-1 appellate decision doesn't even appear to mention it. (I just skimmed it briefly.) It looked like Darrow was trying to have scientists give expert testimony that the Bible is wrong, even tho they are not really Bible experts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
<reduce indent>If you read about halfway down in the [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/statcase.htm appeal], you'll find:
:"The argument is that the theory of the descent of man from a lower order of animals is now established by the preponderance of scientific thought and that the prohibition of the teaching of such theory is a violation of the legislative duty to cherish Science"
Perhaps that's it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)