Scopes Trial

The trial in 1925 of John Scopes for teaching evolution in Tennessee was a defeat of Darwinism. The ACLU and liberal trial lawyer Clarence Darrow brought the Scopes case in the hopes of winning a public relations and legal victory, but in fact William Jennings Bryan, the liberal three-time Democratic presidential candidate, decisively beat them.

Note: the Scopes trial itself was important only as a public relations battle. The case was tried at the local court level, and therefore the laws that banned the teaching of evolution could not be challenged unless the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court or the Tennessee - high court? - (i forget what court you have to be in to challenge state laws please edit if you know).

The ACLU challenged a Tennessee statute, the Butler Act, that imposed a fine for teaching in public school that man descended from more primitive life forms. The statute did not prohibit teaching most aspects of evolution. The textbook at issue in the case taught eugenics, including that man supposedly descended from lower life forms and that some racial groups had evolved to more advanced levels than others.

The textbook also featured the fraudulent Piltdown Man. At the time, Darwinists claimed that this and eugenics were indisputable science to be taught to students. The Hollywood version heaped mockery on any argument that teaching evolution could be socially harmful.

In the real trial, Bryan quoted for the court how Darrow had previously claimed that murder defendants Leopold and Loeb were driven to crime by what they were taught, which was Nietzche's atheistic philosophy. Bryan quoted Darrow as saying that "Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life on it? ... The university would be more to blame than he is. ... Your honor, it is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university."

Bryan was an extraordinary speaker, recognized to be among the best in American history. Darrow wanted to prevent Bryan from making a persuasive closing argument to the jury, and Darrow searched for another way to try to score points for his side.

So Darrow stunned the court by requesting to cross-examine Bryan, in the hope that Bryan, like many attorneys, would be a poor witness. Darrow's attempt was unprecedented, because trial attorneys almost never take the witness stand in their own cases. Bryan agreed only on the condition that he could cross-examine Darrow. Based on that agreement, Bryan took the witness stand.

A witness in a trial is always at a disadvantage, because he can only answer questions that are posed by a hostile adversary. Attorneys are particularly vulnerable, because their knowledge of the law and tendency to speak in legalese hinder their performance.

Darrow undoubtedly thought that he could turn Bryan into the proverbial buffoon that liberals wanted. As the transcript reveals, Darrow managed to trick Bryan into admitting that the bible could be interpreted in multiple ways refuting Bryan's earlier responses which had demonstrated his steadfast adherence to the bible's miracles. Since religion was the major argument against evolution at the time, getting a well-respected conservative to admit that the Bible could be interpreted more loosely than a history book was a victory for the evolution cause (although people just hated Darrow for "tricking" Bryan into saying it).

The cross examination between the two attorneys would have continued had it not been for the intervention of Judge Raulston. Raulston did not believe that the whole examination had any relevance to the case, and dismissed it.

Again, none of the debate over evolution had anything to do with the case, as at this level the court was only interested in whether or not John Scopes had taught evolution (and since his entire class testified that he had, there was no case). Judge Raulston allowed the debate because that was what the case was really about - a public forum to debate the merits of evolution vs. Biblical creation and their place in the education system.

After 8 days of trial, the jury was able to make their decision after 9 minutes of deliberation. Scopes was found guilty on July 21 and ordered to pay a fine of $100 US. This was not that surprising considering that Tennessee is a highly religious and conservative area of the United States.

The movie and play

The play Inherit the Wind, and the adapted movie, were loosely based on the Scopes Trial. Several modifications were made; characters names were changed, and many crucial facts were changed. The authors have said that the play was really an attempt to mock Senator Joseph McCarthy, and to equate anti-communism with anti-intellectualism. It featured the popular Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow, and even garnered a few Academy Award nominations.

The movie features an angry mob trying to lynch a jailed teacher; in fact, the ACLU ran advertisements with offers to pay expenses for a teacher to volunteer for the case, and Scopes was never jailed and never paid even a fine.

The movie portrayed the character based on Bryan as a complete buffoon. In fact, as shown above, Bryan beat Darrow in the courtroom so convincingly that Darrow surrendered, breaking his own promise to testify. Even the New York Times article the next day reflected surprise at Darrow's abrupt capitulation. Bryan's death was also portrayed as happening in the courthouse, when in fact he was an elderly man suffering from diabetes who died peacefully in his sleep.

American history books often describe this case as a catalyst for evolution supporters.

Aftermath

Bryan, a 65-year-old diabetic lacking in modern treatments, died peacefully in his sleep five days after the conclusion of the Scopes trial. Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial was a fitting end to a principled, illustrious career. Scopes was fined the maximum, $500.00, for his actions.

The law challenged by the ACLU in the Scopes Trial remained in effect for over 50 more years. In 1967, Tennessee repealed the Butler Act, and in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, that such bans on teaching are unconstitutional if they are primarily religious in intent. However, Tennessee continues to downplay evolution in its schools.

Sources: