Scopes and Evolution Lost the Monkey Trial, But Modernity Won
John Aloysius Farrell is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report and is the author of Tip O'Neill and the Democratic Century and an upcoming biography of defense attorney Clarence Darrow.
Henry Mencken left town.
The trial wasn't over, but Judge John Raulston had banned the testimony of the troupe of scientists who had come to Tennessee to defend Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. If Clarence Darrow could not put scientists on the stand, how could his side possibly win? What witnesses could they call? "Darrow has lost," Mencken wrote. "The main battle is over, with Genesis completely triumphant." So Mencken, the ferocious iconoclast who had transformed the case of The State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes into a national frolic—the Monkey Trial—packed and left.
And missed the greatest story of his life.
It was July 1925. The streets of little Dayton were jammed with flivvers; the sidewalks with grifters and Bible-waving preachers. Children were delighted by the showmen with trained chimps, and adults by a pair of blind minstrels, singing spirituals. Hucksters sold fried chicken sandwiches and watermelon, and an infinite variety of monkey knick-knacks. Dozens of reporters were on hand, from all the big-city papers. Many slept on cots (and shared the single outhouse) at Bailey's hardware store, which they filled with the clacks and dings of typewriters. Wires were strung from the courthouse and two dozen telegraph operators moved 400,000 words a day. Microphones were set to broadcast the proceedings by radio: an American first.
There was more at stake than John Scopes and the eighth grade biology class he taught. Modernity was on trial. The advances of recent decades—the airplane, the car, the telephone, and the radio—were no longer novelties. They were serving as accelerants, shrinking time and distance. And in war, when mixed with more insidious invention, they had brought slaughter.
Darwin and his like offered disconcerting propositions: Sigmund Freud with his excuses for aberrant human behavior; the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who sought to take man "beyond good and evil," and physicist Albert Einstein, who shattered the notion of absolute truths. A "Roaring" decade was rocking America with its jazz joints, short skirts, and speakeasies.
Reaction came in the guise of Fundamentalism. From the precarious farms of the Cumberland ridges, the pious folk arrived in their buggies—women in gingham and men in slouched felt hats and overalls—to swear to the power of the Book, the faith of their fathers, and the majesty of William Jennings Bryan.
Bryan was a legend—a three-time presidential candidate who had seized the Democratic nomination with a single speech in 1896. He was horrified by the World War, and traced German militarism to the teachings of Darwin and Nietzsche. "Science has proven itself an evil genius," he said. At 65, Bryan's once vibrant baritone was diminished. But he still had the fight of a snapping turtle, a species which, with the dome of his forehead, beak nose, and broad mouth, he somewhat resembled. It would be, Bryan prophesized, "a duel to the death."
From its inception, the trial was a stunt. The town's civic leaders had gathered at a table in Robinson's Drug Store and hatched a scheme to win drowsy Dayton some attention. Scopes agreed to take the fall. Bryan signed on with the prosecution, spurring Darrow to join the defense.
Bryan had stepped from the train like a figure out of Kipling, wearing a pith helmet. Darrow arrived in a straw skimmer and, of course, his galluses, which he used as props—to snap with emphasis, or to anchor his thumbs during emblematic shrugs. He was 68, but there were signs of the younger man—Lincolnesque, with piercing eyes and mighty cheekbones. In a storied career, he had fought hard for individual liberties, and underdogs.
The key issue was, from the first, the expert witnesses. The two sides bickered for a week. Then came Raulston's ruling.
That Sunday, Darrow joined co-counsel Arthur Garfield Hays and Harvard geologist Kirtley Mather at the old mansion that served as defense headquarters. The lawyers had Mather play the role of Bryan, and quizzed him about Adam's rib, Jonah and the whale, and other tales.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
Scopes Trial
Thank you for publishing this article and bringing this to the notice of all. Scopes Trial, largely forgotten today by many, is a magnificient chapter in the history of Democracy and Freedom, that should be model to all, irrespective of the final judgement.
CHESTERTON DEBATES DARROW....
Was an interesting debate - before a live audience. The debate was about God... Darrow clearly lost - the audience polled about 70% Chesterton. The transcripts also show the duel between two brilliant minds - but only one logical one. Logic versus humanistic, bombastic cynicism.
Read, "Chesterton - The Apostle of Common Sense" It might re-introduce logical thinking to a society of secular, progressive Obamatrons. Though I doubt it - the educational system has just about destroyed the process.
Science and God - No Problem
The fact that there is evolution has absolutely no bearing on the existence of God. Evolution and adaptation would be needed in any perfect, non-static design - In other words, it’s simply a necessary part of the perfection.
It is also incorrect to suppose that the Bible should be taught as science or history. There is truth and wisdom there, but the effect of “Sola Scriptura” as the only avenue by which to approach God or creation is to limit our understanding - the Bible is a great book, it is not the only book. I note here that nowhere in Christ’s teachings did he mention the need to write a New Testament or Bible. However, he did say to “listen” to His Church - this digression is worth exploring in depth- at another time .
Furthermore, to suppose that science has, or will ever have, all the answers is as weak a position as, “Because the Bible tells me so.”
Science will never be able to answer the simple question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?’ You must have either “eternal, preexisting” time, matter, energy, laws of physics, thermodynamics, gravity and one heck of a lot of “coincidence” ( on the order of many billions to one) - or a creator outside of time. There is no third choice.
A valid scientific approach would consider the possibility of design as well as trick of chance. An open mind would consider the dimension of time, space and matter as a creation - instead of merely assuming it always existed - a physical universe without beginning or end is no less far fetched than a spiritual one.
Now, to you atheists and agnostics (nihilist lite) who believe that Christianity is akin to insanity, I'd like to point out that your belief system is merely the opposite pole... Instead of Creation, you believe in the Big Bang - which in fact, is meaningless, and is nothing more than Genesis with fireworks. Instead of design you rely upon fortunate coincidence and happenstance. Instead of accepting that there is Absolute Truth, Perfect Morality and Eternal Justice you worship the idea of impenetrable skepticism, obstinate relativism and absolute moral subjectivity - all of which make the basics of human existence , right and wrong - good and evil - love and hate, not only unknowable but irrelevant... A belief system leading to an ephemeral and shifting landscape without bounds or parameters. A meaningless nihilistic world, without purpose or reason - a dimension easy to get lost in.
In closing I’d like to note that God has nothing to fear from an open mind - nor should science.
advertisement









