The Scopes Monkey Trial

The theory of evolution has been a magnet for controversy since Charles Darwin first published The Origin of Species in 1859. It challenged the long held concepts of creation in 6 days and a Creator who created all living things within that time period. This controversy came to a head in the United States during the trial of Tennessee biology teacher John Scopes in 1925. Scopes was charged with violating an anti-evolution law relating to teaching in public schools. The events that took place within the trial and its outcome would have a lasting impact on the debate over evolution and would force many to recognize a new player in the study of the origins of all life on Earth.

William Jennings Bryan, the prosecuting attorney, had a long history of attacking the teaching of evolutionary theory and this gave him the ammunition he needed in this case. The prosecutions case focused on the fact that the teaching of evolution contradicted the commonly held belief in creationism. Bryan's background shows that "As a young man, he had "looked into evolution". He found the theory improbable..." (William Jennings Bryan, Biography). His Christian background was evident in his strong rhetoric on the infallibility of the Bible's account of creation. One of the strongest points that Bryan made was in something that he never got to say:

"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" (Bryan's Summation, Trial Excerpts).

The teaching of evolution in public schools was illegal according to the law of the state of Tennessee. The prosecution did make this an important part of their case, but Bryan's belief in the importance of the Bible in understanding the origins of the world and its significance as a "moral compass" led him to use those ideas to bring the public to his side.

Clarence Darrow, the defense attorney, relied on reason alone to make his case. Darrow believed that "Religious "fanaticism"..threatened public education and the spirit of inquiry and skepticism that sustained civilization" (Clarence Darrow, Biography). Darrow's attempt at a defense did not seem to be a defense so much of his client to teach what he chose to teach, but more as an attack on religion itself. Darrow biographer Kevin Tierney would even come to show an example of how Darrow seemed to dismiss anything religious as preposterous simply because it was hard to explain. The Darrow defense focused less on the law itself and more on Darrow's belief in the "impartiality of science and the soundness of its conclusions" (Clarence Darrow, Biography).

The prosecution's case in the Scopes trial seems to hold the most legitimacy in several different ways. While William Jennings Bryan's belief in the Bible did have a tremendous impact on how he handled the case, he did remember that the case itself was about the law banning the teaching of evolution. Clarence Darrow seemed to have ignored that point for the most part and used the trial as a forum in which to attack the beliefs of Bryan and Christianity as a whole. The question of the law itself seems to have been lost on Darrow. Bryan, on the otherhand, did realize that the question of whether the law had been violated was the true issue. Bryan did indeed make a valid case that the law had been broken by John Scopes.

The study of the theory of evolution is still a controversial one in the modern days. It is still a theory, since there is no absolute way to prove its tenets. Science seems to have ignored the basic premise of a theory in the case of evolution and refers to it simply as evolution. The removal of theory from its study implies it to be a proven fact. One solution to the animosity and tension involved in the study of this portion of science would be the reintroduction of evolution as theory. The same goes for creationism and intelligent design. If they were referred to as theory, then this might put both of them on more equal footing. There is scientific data used on the part of many creationist proponents, so it seems that would justify calling it a theory. If both evolution and creationism/intelligent design were taught as theories, that would make it possible to teach them both as part of the study of science. Neither evolution or creationism can be proven without a doubt as scientific fact. None of the processes involved in either can be observed and there are no written records that scientifically can attest to their accuracy.

The trial of John Scopes brought a major battle between creationists and evolutionists to the forefront of the public arena. William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow both brought their personal viewpoints into the trial even though it was a matter of whether Scopes had violated the law. Bryan seems to have remembered that in a way while Darrow used the courtroom as an arena to launch an assault on Christianity. The subsequent conviction of Scopes did not end this debate. The battle over the origin of all species wages even now in the 21^st century and both sides at times seem like they are their own religion.

Sources
Scopes Trial homepage (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm), UMKC School of Law