Chapter 15

Trying John Scopes

Summary
      In July of 1925, William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow, two prominent men of that time period, faced off during the court case State of Tennessee vs. John Scopes to debate the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in schools. Although it was supposed to be "the showdown between science and religion, truth and faith, North and South," it didn't turn out to be anything like that (243). First of all, Bryan and Darrow weren't even in it from the start; the ACLU were the ones to actually tackle the Butler Act, an antievolution law. They, however, needed a teacher to test the law in court, and men from Dayton who wanted to put their town on the map chose John Scopes, a young substitute biology teacher, to be the defendant, and Bryan and Darrow eventually joined on as prosecution and defense, respectively, if not simply as a chance to go up against each other (244).
      The trial was really a let-down becase prosecution didn't want the main idea of evolution to be debated; they wanted it simply to be "a case 'involving the fact as to whether or not a schoolteacher has taught a doctrine prohibited by statute'" (251). Therefore, when a testimony that Scopes straight-out admitted to teaching evolution came before the court, they believed that his guilt was sealed. But, the defense still had the "expert testimony" card and could attempt to prove "that there was no conflict between evolution and the Old Testament" and "show that its teaching was not a violation of the law" (252, 254). After Bryan bad-mouthed that approach, Malone, a member of the defense team, questioned in an impressive speech why the prosecution was so afraid of the broad issue, but the judge still ruled against the expert testimony, and Scopes was found guilty. The trial, however, still somehow became a legend, an important landmark in the battle between truth and faith.

Reflection
      I didn't really understand how this trial came to be such an important moment in history if nothing of substance was really discussed, and since Scopes and evolution lost anyway. Also, if Bryan's case for faith was so "rudimentary and unschooled," why would the prosecution win (257)? Maybe there was a little bit of bias from the judge and the jury, but most likely because it was such a simple case, like a "traffic violation" (254).
      The only thing that really seemed interesting to me was Malone's speech about open-mindedness that asked why Bryan and the prosecution were so afraid to meet the big issue. I really would have liked to be there to hear him "[look] to the heavens and [implore], 'For God's sake let the children have their minds kept open-close no doors to their knowledge'" (255). No one should poison the minds of impressionable children too early on; they need to let them figure out what they believe.