“
“The crime of inquiry is one which religion never has forgiven.”
—English poet Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822)
Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right.”
—American journalist H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)
By Phill Courtney
One hundred years ago this month, the nation’s attention was focused on the small town of Dayton, Tennessee, where 25-year-old high school substitute teacher and football coach, John Scopes, was being tried for violating that state’s law banning Charles Darwin’s theory of human evolution from being taught in public schools.
With a national press closely following the proceedings, which were the first in U.S. history to be broadcast by radio, is it any wonder that the trial, perhaps only riveled by O.J. Simpson’s for murder in the 1990’s, is the one that’s always held the long-time distinction of being the “Trial of the Century.”
Ironically, it was later determined that many of the circumstances surrounding the trial, which the agnostic newspaper journalist H. L. Mencken, who covered the events with his typically cynical wit, tagged with a title that would eventually catch on: the “Scopes Monkey Trial,” were not what they appeared to be. In other words, in today’s terms: the trial was a “set up.”
To begin with, the man who sponsored and managed to pass the bill that brought Scopes to trial, had not read either of Darwin’s books on evolution, nor even some “Cliff Notes” versions, and later acknowledged that he knew little about the theory, except for the perceived effect he was seeing it have on children, whom, he said, were coming home with questions about the Bible’s truthfulness.
As for Scopes himself, he later disclosed that he couldn’t actually remember clearly what he’d shared with students about the theory during a short stint of substitute teaching, but that he’d been persuaded to stand for trial by the American Civil Liberties Union, who wanted to make this a “test case” to force a determination as to the Constitutionality of the law.
Although initially reluctant, Scopes eventually “took the fall” for the crime after intense lobbying by the ACLU, along with some coached testimony from students who said that they’d thought they’d heard it from him, including one student who said, “I believe in part of evolution, but I don’t believe in the monkey business.”
Then there were Dayton’s civic leaders who were the “movers and shakers” behind the eventually successful effort to make the trial happen. Apparently, they were not so much interested in the “harmful” effects the theory was having on their “innocent” children, but, instead, on elevating their town’s profile in order to bring both attention and boost business; an effort in which they would prove to be successful beyond their wildest dreams.
The trial’s immense potential for publicity (and/or infamy, depending on one’s point of view), gained a huge boost when, after a period of contentious “backs and forths,” it was determined that William Jennings Bryant, the famous three-time Democratic candidate for president (who, at 36 during his first run in 1896, was and remains the youngest person ever nominated by a major party), and renowned champion of fundamentalist Christianity, would sit at the prosecuting table despite his not having participated in a trial for over thirty-five years.
Counter-balancing the presence of Bryant, the defense team gained its “star” member when the nationally famous lawyer, Clarence Darrow, considered by some historians as the greatest of the 20th century, volunteered his services after he’s heard that Bryant would be participating. At first the ACLU said, basically: thanks, but no thanks because of Darrow’s well-known reputation as an open and outspoken agnostic, which they feared would focus attention on that rather than the matter at hand. But, in the end, Darrow’s potential for helping turn the trial into a sensation was just “too good” for the ACLU to pass up.
So, there it was: two champions of differing world views who would “square off” for a national audience in what Bryant would call a “duel to the death” over evolution during a virtual “Trial of the Titans.” Talk about a fight “tailor made” for the tabloids. Could it get any better than that?
And so it unfolded, and although it was thought there would be the eagerly anticipated “show down” between science and religion, Judge John Raulston (who never made his Biblical bias a secret) ruled that the scientists’ testimony on evolution presented by the defense would not be presented to the jury, but only entered into the record for a possible future appeal, while he ruled out all the Biblical testimony as also irrelevant when it came to the question of whether or not the law itself had been violated.
By the seventh day of the trial the defense had run out of witnesses, and Raulston ruled that a request from Darrow could go forward—a ruling that would result in an exchange of some two-hours between Darrow and Bryant that still resonates in the realms of both American juris prudence, and in the halls of history: Darrow would be allowed to question Bryant as an “expert” on the Bible, although Bryant had averred that while he was well-acquainted with its contents he was not “an expert.”
Since the trial was happening during July in stifling summer heat, and the courtroom itself overcrowded, it was suggested that the proceedings be moved out to the front lawn—a suggestion that was immediately greeted as a sound one, and it was there that the now almost mythical duel between Darrow and Bryant played out.
Although many now see Darrow as having come out the winner that day, both men scored their share of points with some pithy “zingers,” including Bryant’s response to Darrow about the age of the Earth, and Byrant’s position that he was more interested in “the Rock of Ages, than the ages of rocks” (no doubt a zinger he had polished through the years), and Darrow’s response when Bryant was questioned about such matters as to where Cain’s wife came from to which Bryant said he didn’t spend much time thinking of such matters with Darrow firing back, asking him if he spent much time thinking at all.
When it was asked what the purpose of all this was, Bryant seized the opportunity and thundered that the purpose, obviously, was “to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible,” while Darrow shot back that it was to prevent “bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States.”
But perhaps the seminal moment came when Darrow got Bryant to admit that the six days of creation might have been periods and not days, and Bryant allowed that that might be the case—an admission that sent gasps through the fundamentalists in attendance who rightly saw this as a crack in the armor of Biblical inerrancy. The “slippery slope” of using reason to interpret the world had been confronted and the armor breached.
In the end Bryant did not get his chance to question Darrow in return; a condition he asked to be honored if he first answered Darrow’s questions. Raulston gaveled the day and in effect the trial to a close and would not agree to the subsequent questioning of Darrow by Bryant.
Of course Darrow knew that his client Scopes would be found guilty of violating the law, and indeed he was after the jury’s nine minute deliberation, and was then fined $100 (almost $2000 in today’s dollars) for a violation that could have been up to $500, and although the law was upheld, the verdict was eventually overturned on a technicality because Raulston rather than the jury had set the fine, which was perhaps a clever “work around” to let Scopes “off the hook.”
Despite the verdict, and although Darrow and the ACLU had achieved their goal of spotlighting the law’s unjust nature, it wasn’t until 1967 that Tennessee’s law was repealed and not until the next year’s Supreme Court ruling that all such laws nationwide violated the Constitution’s First Amendment on the separation of church and state since these laws were fundamentally religious in nature, which put the matter to rest—at least as far as laws were concerned.
While Darrow went on to fight more legal battles in the future before his passing in 1938, the trial did prove to be the end of the line for Bryant. Although the connection between the trial and Bryant’s death is still being debated, it seems more than mere coincidence that Bryant died five days after it was over from apoplexy.
As for Scopes, he never “cashed in” on his fame, and, in fact, was embarrassed by the often-derisive attention he received and the negative effects on his later career, keeping a low profile for the most part afterwards. Later, he did pen a book about the trial and his life, and did attend the premiere of the 1960 film Inherit the Wind, based on a play of the same name with Spencer Tracy playing a character modeled on Darrow; Fredric March as Bryant; and Dick York (who gained fame later in a somewhat less significant role as Samantha’s husband on TV’s Bewitched) as the character based on Scopes.
So there’s the Scopes trial in a nutshell, and while the play and film Inherit the Wind, does a tremendous job of breathing life into what happened in Dayton during those hot summer days in 1925, it must be emphasized that, like all docu-dramas, it is not history, but rather an “rendering “ of history, with its two authors always saying as much.
Of course, these days, at a time when millions of Americans see films “based on a true story,” rather than read books about what actually happened in history, the story becomes the facts as evidenced by many who seem to think that the 1997 movie Titanic is also history, rather than a story based on history and that Jack and Rose were actual people rather than fictional constructs from writer and director James Cameron’s imagination.
Consequently, many who have seen Inherit the Wind and it’s several remakes have been led to believe that American fundamentalist Christianity was sent off to slink silently away as a consequence of the trial and the embarrassment that followed a battle where Bryant almost comes off as a buffoon.
However, as we now know, this is far from the case. While much of the wind (so to speak) did go out of their spiritual sails with Bryant’s departure from the field, that did not portend the death knell for fundamental Christianity and their insistence that the Bible is inerrant. Later in the 20th century other figures arose, particularly after the Great Depression faded into the past as the nation faced World War II, and millions of Americans were understandably focused not so much on their own spiritual journeys within, but first and foremost on threats from without in the form of depraved dictators who had arisen seemingly from the bowel of hell during the 1920s and ‘30s.
By the late 1940s and ‘50s a man named Billy Graham began “packin’ ‘em in” at venues such as entire sports stadiums and, by using a combination of his compelling bolts of oratorial thunder and lightning, along with a message about the original sin committed by Adam and Eve and the need for the blood sacrifice by Jesus to cleanse it, his brand of Christianity was exhibiting no signs that it was badly in need of life support. In fact, studies have shown, levels of America’s religious convictions were peaking
But then came the “Swinging Sixties” followed by the Seventies, and several factors served to chip away at fundamental Christianity’s sturdy fortresses of faith. For one, the invention of the birth control pill removed much of the fears and stigma around unplanned pregnancies along with the” bonds of holy matrimony” needed to legitimize those pregnancies, ushering in a decidedly “unchristian” era of free love and multiple partners.
Then came the “do your own thing” message behind the rise of the Hippies aimed at turning on its head the “button down” and “square” world of yesterday. What was needed was freedom! –celebration! – “be ins!” – “Just wow, man!” – followed closely by the women’s liberation movement – “I am woman. Hear me roar!” – and its full-frontal attack both on patriarchy—yes, those “male, chauvinist pigs!”—and the Bible’s decidedly male-oriented slant (after all, it was a woman who caused the fall) and women whose role was primarily as “helpmates” to men.
Also serving to undermine fundamentalist Christianity’s foundation of faith was the explosion of other spiritual teachings, such as Hinduism; eastern traditions; and other non-linear faith paths—which, yes, also lured many into the era of cult religions and it’s numerous “gurus,” who, while all claiming that they had the truth, also found that starting their own religion could attract scads of beautiful, footloose young women all searching for “spiritual answers,” and an “enlightened man” who could provide them, along with some “physical” ones as well. Of course, such names as Charles Manson and Jim Jones did much to dampen the enthusiasm for such false father figures.
But again, we would be wrong to assume that fundamentalism is now fading away, despite the growing category of “nones”—defined as those who claim no religious affiliation—since current political trends would also indicate some powerful push-back against the “unbelievers” as evidenced by the rise of Donald Trump to the presidency not just once but twice, backed by the solid support from millions of “voting reliable” fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, many of whom reject both “woke” culture and the “arrogance” of scientists.
Which brings us back full circle to the battle in 1925 when “faith” confronted “science,” which left many thinking science had “won.” But now the fact that science did not “win” in the minds of millions of Americans is clearly evident in many ways recently such as the fundamental (double meaning intended) rejection in 2020 of the science behind vaccines and the subsequent “to the death” battles with a newly emerged virus when millions of Americans trusted a deceiving demagogue and not scientists; refused vaccines; and were heard on their death beds crying out: “This is not COVID!”
We can also see it in the millions of Americans who have dismissed the science behind human-caused global warming studies, conducted by researchers who are only interested, they say, in keeping their lucrative study grants coming and arrogantly “circling the wagons” to protect “their own” once a consensus has been reached and not in a search to discover what is actually going on.
But, unlike the consequences which followed the decisions to receive or not to receive vaccinations, which only resulted in individual deaths, the decision to send a man back to the White House who claims that global warming is a “hoax,” this denial of science could result not just in individual deaths, but human extinction itself.
Which brings us back again to the Scopes trial; the denial of yet another “consensus” around the “settled fact” of human evolution; and the levels at which that denial remains widespread in America and its on-going effects on education.
Although evolution (or evilution as some call it) has “won out” over special creation in the classrooms of public education, that’s precisely one of the reasons why millions of parents have pulled their children out of public schools in favor of home schooling so they can guide—or perhaps control might be the more accurate word—the knowledge their children are exposed to.
Which all factors into the continuing and heated debates still going on today as to just who and who doesn’t have a “right” to determine what children learn: parents or the government?—or even if children have a right to be educated at all, since there was a time (and there’s no reason to think that this sentiment, although better hidden, is still not out there) when some parents thought that their children should not have any knowledge at all of what goes on in a “fallen world,” before government decided that they did.
And this sentiment spills over into other areas of education as well besides evolution, perhaps most visible during the many heated debates over sex education and the cries by some parents that they don’t want their “innocent” children exposed to any of that “smut.” So, is it any wonder that this mindset has resulted in a country where many young girls are shocked when they have their first period because they think they are dying, as well as the first-world nation that ranks at the top of the list in unwanted teen pregnancies.
Now, just this past June, we have seen a Supreme Court that’s proved complicit, with its ruling that parents of children in public schools have a right to “opt” their children out of any lessons that “teach tolerance” when it comes to same-sex relationships because that’s “against our religion.”
So, is it difficult at all to imagine that someday any teaching of evolution could fall into that category as well? And while private schools and home schooling might be seen as some “sensible solutions,” that again calls into question the claim that parents have a “right” to shield their children from information—or at least try to. Yes, people have differing opinions when it comes to world views and lifestyle choices, but to teach that there’s only one that’s “correct” needs to end.
This mindset is also affecting the teaching not just of science and sex education, but also history, with many politicians today claiming that any lessons about the more unseemly aspects of our past, such as segregation; the massacres of Native Americans; and, of course, slavery (with some “patriotic” politicians preferring that it be referred to as an “involuntary jobs training program”) should be dropped in favor of “patriotic” lessons because exposing children to those other stories might depress young minds; make them feel guilty; and destroy their sense of pride in a country seen by all “true Americans” as the “shining city on a hill,” which can do no wrong.
But as Opel Lee, an African American and long-time public-school educator who was the driving force behind the successful effort to designate Juneteenth (June 19th, the date slaves in Texas were officially told in 1865 that they were free) as a national holiday after leading a symbolic walk from Texas to Washington D.C. lasting from September, 2016 to January 2017, and is now, remarkably, 98-years-old, has told us: all truth should be taught: the good; the bad; and the ugly. We need to lister to her.
Sadly, though, many American won’t—as many have also ignored the messages from another African American with a national holiday: Martin Luther King—Americans who not only still oppose evolution, but still want to believe that homo sapiens are “God’s gift to the universe;” the only animal with a soul; and own the Earth, with a “divine right” to subdue, consume, and to destroy it if need be and every other animal who stands, swims, or slithers in our way, because, someday, not to worry, supernatural forces will intervene to “set it all right.”
I’ll close, though, by giving at least one Biblical fundamentalist some credit. At the close of Inherit the Wind, I’ve always felt somewhat sad for the character based on William Jennings Bryant as the courtroom erupts into pandemonium and he pleads to be heard over the din with his closing statement which he was never allowed to deliver.
Once again, that was history fictionalized. It never happened. But, in reality, the statement was later published widely in a number of newspapers, and, if read with discerning eyes, discloses much wisdom which we could still use today from a man who was both undoubtedly sincere in his Christian convictions and his concern to love and care for his neighbors.
In his statement, Bryant first gives credit for the “magnificent force” that science in fact is, but cautions that science is also, in effect, a neutral force; it cannot teach the morals needed to use its machines wisely and protect us from their “misuse.”
“In war,” he goes on, “science has proven itself an evil genius,” with inventions that then enabled killing from both below the sea and in the air, with the potential of wars that “may come in the future” using “instruments of destruction” which would make wars then “trivial in comparison;” employing weapons with which civilization could even “commit suicide.”
It’s well to remember that all this was written at a time almost exactly 20 years to the day and month before the first atomic explosion, and 100 years before what we’ve now seen with the new technology of drones employed not only to save lives, but to take them in horrendous “hits” by these remorseless robots—and Bryant warned us.
He closes with a reminder that science “cannot teach brotherly love,” while the messages of Jesus and his “moral code” (such as love your enemies) can be used to solve many of the problems that “vex the heart and perplex the world.” Bryant’s message is as timely today as it was then in the heat of Tennessee.
The Scopes trial of 100 years ago this month reminds us also of a warning by the father of atomic weaponry, Albert Einstein, who shared this thought from his perspective as perhaps the greatest scientist of all time when he wrote that: “… science can only ascertain what is, and not what should be …. “
Now, one hundred years later, we still see many of the heartaches in the world as it is, while still struggling to create a world that should be. Yes, some still wait for that “divine intervention” to save us from ourselves, but, in the meantime, that doesn’t mean we can’t keep working on it. Somehow, I suspect that Bryant and Darrow would both agree on that.