2. THE SCOPE~ ~KIAL TRANSCRIPTS (1925)The spread of the fundamentalist movement during the 1920s led many states topass laws specifically banning or restricting the teaching of evolution in publicschools. In 1925, a Tennessee high-school teacher named John Scopes(1900-1970) was convinced by several like-minded evolutionists to test the legit-imacy of his own state's prohibition of evolution in its classrooms. The resultwas one of the most celebrated trials of the century, the so-called Monkey Trialheld in Dayton, Tennessee. In the following excerpts from the trial transcripts,the main antagonists attempt to frame the question in terms of monumental so-cial and religious choices. For Scopes's defense attorney, Clarence Darrow(1857-1938), the case represented a showdown between the forces of progres-sive enlightenment and backward religious bigotry. As a famous criminal andlabor attorney, Darrow reveled in courtroom confrontation and seized this op-Iportunity to go after fundamentalist lawmakers in one of their strongholds. Thestate's case was prosecuted by perhaps the other most famous American lawyerof the day, three-time populist candidate for the presidency, William JenningsBryan (1860-1925). In Bryan's opening speech he portrayed Darrow and otherevolutionists as outside agitators, bent on overturning the will of the people ofTennessee. Though Bryan did not live to deliver the closing speech he com-posed, it is clear that he too saw the conflict in epic terms. The compatibility ofscience and religion proposed by the Modernist theologian Kirby Mather, whosetestimony is excerpted in the third reading, did not seem to strike either theatheist Darrow or the fundamentalist Bryan as even a remote possibility, thereby)The Scopes Trial TranscriPts (1925) 439indicating the depth of the antagonism the issue inspired. Scopes was foundguilty and fined one hundred dollars, though the conviction was later over-tUrned on a technicality by the Tennessee Supreme Court. The state's lawagainst teaching evolution in public schools, however, was not revoked untilthe 1960s.a. CLARENCE DARROW myself, and I know how it is. They may vote forOPENING SPEECH' them with~ut rea~ing them, ~ut the .substanceof the act IS put In the captIon, so It may be"There is not a single line of any constitution seen and read, and nothing may be in the actthat can withstand bigotry and ignorance when that is not contained in the caption, There isit seeks to destroy the rights of the individual; not any question about it, and only one subjectand bigotry and ignorance are ever active. Here shall be legislated on at once. Of course, thewe find today as brazen and as bold an attempt caption may be broader than the act. They may. to destroy learning as was ever made in the make a caption and the act may fall far short ofMiddle Ages, and the only difference is we have it, but the substance of the act must be in thenot provided that they shall be burned at the caption, and there can be no variance.stake. But there is time for that, your Honor. "Now let us see what they have done. ThereWe have to approach these things gradually. is not much dispute about the English lan-"Now let us see what we claim with refer- guage, I take it. Here is the caption:ence to this law. If this proceeding, both inform and substance, can prevail in this court, 'p bl.A Ch 37 1925u IC ct, apter, , an act pro-then, your Honor, any law, no matter how fool-h.b.. h h. f h 1 .h" " . 1 ItIng t e teac Ing 0 t e evo ution t e-Ish, wIcked, ambIguous, or ancIent, can come "all h ' ..1 d 11ory In t e UnIVersItIes, norma s, an aback to Tennessee. All the guarantees go forh bl' h I f T h"h. t e pu IC SC 00 S 0 ennessee w IC arenothIng. All of the past has gone to waste, beend .h I .b h bl'fi .f h ' d supporte mw 0 eormpart yt epu ICorgotten 1 t IS can succee . ."I '. b " h f h ' school funds of the State, and to prescrIbeam gOIng to egm WIt some 0 t e sIm- .fi " f '1 h . .Jb 1 1 b d h'nk penaltIes or the vIolatIon thereo .p er reasons w y It I~ a so ute y a sur to t 1that this statute, indictment, or any part of theproceedings in this case are legal; and I think "Now what is it---an act to prohibit thethe sooner we get rid of it in Tennessee the bet- teaching of the evolution theory in Tennessee?ter for the people of Tennessee, and the better Is this the act? Is this statute to prevent thefor the pursuit of knowledge in the world; so teaching of the evolution theory? There is not alet me begin at the beginning. word said in the statute about evolution. There"The first point we made in this suit is that is not a word said in the statute about prevent-it is unconstitutional on account of divergence ing the teaching of the theory of evolution-and the difference between the statute and the not a word.caption and because it contains more than one "This caption says what follows is an act for-subject. bidding the teaching of evolution, and the"Every Constitution with which I am famil- Catholic could have gone home without anyiar has substantially this same proposition, that thought that his faith was about to be attacked.the caption and the law must correspond. The Protestant could have gone home without"Lots of things are put through the legisla- any thought that his religion could be attacked.ture in the night time. Everybody does not read The intelligent, scholarly Christians, who byall of the statutes, even members of the legisla- the million in the United States find no incon-ture-I have been a member of the Legislature sistency between evolution and religion, could.c440 Chapter 9 The Twentieth Centuryhave gone home without any fear that a narrow, mals, and all other public schools in the State,ignorant, bigoted shrew of religion could have which are supported in whole or in part by thedestroyed their religious freedom and their public school funds of the State, to teach'-right to think and act and speak; and the nation what, teach evolution? Oh, no,-'To teach theand the state could have laid down peacefully to