Read an Excerpt

CHAPTER 1

The Scopes Trial (1925)

Background of the Controversy

Charles Darwin started the evolution revolution. There were evolutionists before Darwin, even in ancient times, but Darwin was the first to propose a plausible scientific mechanism by which evolution could have occurred. Between the 1859 publication of his landmark volume On the Origin of Species and 1900, the naturalistic macroevolution theory literally conquered the intellectual scientific world of the West.

From the beginning, serious religious and moral implications were apparent in Darwin's theory. Darwin himself called it "my deity 'Natural Selection.'" The very subtitle of his book, referring to the "preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life," has racial implications. Alfred Wallace, the "coinventor" of natural selection, deified the very evolutionary process. "Wallace put more and more emphasis on the spiritual agency, so that in The World of Life it is described as 'a Mind not only adequate to direct and regulate all the forces at work in living organisms, but also the more fundamental forces of the whole material universe.' For many years Wallace was interested in spiritualism and psychical research." Darwin's friend Karl Marx declared, "But nowadays, in our evolutionary conception of the universe, there is absolutely no room for either a creator or a ruler." Henri Bergson deified the evolutionary process in his work Creative Evolution (1898), calling it a Life Force. Herbert Spencer, whom Darwin called "our great philosopher," made evolution into a cosmic process. In Germany, Ernst Haeckel, who developed social evolution from Darwin's theory, claimed that "the idea of 'design' has wholly disappeared from this vast province of science." As Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould would later explain, "Evolution substituted a naturalistic explanation of cold comfort for our former conviction that a benevolent deity fashioned us directly in his own image...."

In America a few strong voices spoke against Darwin. In 1860 the famous Harvard zoologist Louis Agassiz wrote a critical review of On the Origin of Species. At Princeton, Charles Hodge wrote a strong critique in 1878 titled What Is Darwinism? His answer was straight to the point: "What is Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is ... tantamount to atheism." The logic is impeccable: no design, no designer; no creation, no creator. Evolution as a theory is atheistic, even though not all evolutionists are atheists.

Perhaps the most frightening consequences of Darwinism were the ethical ones. In 1924 a young Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, in which he proposed following the example of evolution and weeding out the weaker breeds of mankind. And he proceeded to put his proposal into action, exterminating those he considered less fit. Hitler justified his action by evolution, claiming, "If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile."

The implications of Darwinism were not perceived quickly in America by the religious community in general In fact, it took some sixty years and a World War. But by the time of Hitler the implications were becoming clear. One year after Hitler's racist book, the people of Tennessee passed the Butler Act on March 13, 1925, forbidding the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Interestingly, the biology textbook that had been used in the schools before this taught a racism similar to Hitler's views. To quote from the book:

At the present time there exist upon the earth five races. ... These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.

Although such racist implications did not come out at the Scopes trial, it was clear from the speech prepared for the trial by William Jennings Bryan, leader of the anti-evolution movement, that both the theological and ethical implications of evolution were paramount in the minds of the anti-evolution forces. Two citations from the speech will make the point: "But it is not a laughing matter when one considers that evolution not only offers no suggestions as to a Creator but tends to put the creative act so far away as to cast doubt upon creation itself" (325). Indeed, Bryan pointed to statistics showing that half of all scientists did not believe in God (329–330). He concluded: "If all the biologists of the world teach this doctrine — as Mr. Darrow says they do — then may heaven defend the youth of our land from their impious babblings" (333). Further, Bryan saw the serious ethical implications of evolution. He cited agnostic Clarence Darrow's defense of a young man who allegedly had committed murder. Darrow had argued that it was the influence of the atheist and evolutionist Friedrich Nietzsche on the young man that led him to do it (330–331). Bryan also cited Darwin himself (in The Descent of Man) approving of savage and barbarous acts in emulation of nature which weed out the weak and inferior breeds (335). Bryan summed up the issue this way: "Let us, then, hear the conclusion of the whole matter. Science is a magnificent material 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" (338).

Evolutionists, on the other hand, saw creationists' efforts as an attempt to squelch freedom and scientific progress. Darrow's concluding comments at the trial sum up their feelings: "I think this case will be remembered because it is the first case of this sort since we stopped trying people in America for witchcraft because here we have done our best to turn back the tide that has sought to force itself upon this — upon this modern world, of testing every fact in science by a religious dictum" (317).

Background of the Scopes Trial

It is in this context that what has been called "the world's most famous court trial" occurred. The ACLU, eager for an opportunity to challenge the Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution, advertised to get someone to break the law. John Scopes, a young teacher, volunteered to do so, and the rest is history. Little Dayton, Tennessee, became a circus. The media of the world converged on the Rhea County Courthouse, where on a sultry July 10th the trial began. For the rest of the story, rather than referencing the popular movie Inherit the Wind, we can consult the actual stenographic record of the proceedings published in The World's Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case. Another excellent source is Edward J. Larson's Pulitzer Prize–winning book Summer for the Gods, one of the best books ever written on the trial.

The Tennessee Law Forbidding the Teaching of Evolution

The focus of the Scopes trial was the Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution which was enacted on March 21, 1925. It read in part:

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the state, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals (5).

The case (No. 5232) was called State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes. The trial lasted for eight days, from July 10 through July 21. Clarence Darrow, famous agnostic ACLU lawyer, was lead attorney for the defense. William Jennings Bryan, one-time Democratic presidential candidate and defender of creation, was a visiting attorney for the state.

Highlights from the Trial

While the entire trial transcript is well worth reading, certain highlights are important for the ongoing saga of creation in the courts. The actual legal issue was: did or did not John Scopes "[teach] any theory that denies the story of the Divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and ... teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals" in violation of the law of the state of Tennessee?

First Day (Friday, July 10)

OPENING PRAYER

The court was opened in prayer by Rev. Cartwright, who besought "God, our divine Father ... the Supreme Ruler of the universe" for wisdom for the court and jury, justice for the defendant, reminding all in attendance that there is a day coming when "all of the nations of the earth shall stand before Thy judgment bar." The prayer was offered in "the cause of truth and righteousness." It concluded, "to Thy glory and grace for ever more. Amen" (3).

INTRODUCTION OF ATTORNEYS

Judge John T. Raulston asked Attorney General Tom Stewart to introduce the outside counsel for the state, William Jennings Bryan and his son (who was unnamed in the court transcript, since he "need[ed] no introduction"). For the defense Mr. ( Judge) Neal, Clarence Darrow, Arthur Hays, Mr. Dudley Field Malone, and Mr. Thompson were introduced (4). Other attorneys for the state included Mr. McKenzie and Mr. Hicks.

THE LAW THAT SCOPES IS ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED WAS READ

The law in question was Chapter 27 of the Acts of 1925 of the State of Tennessee, enacted on March 21, 1925. The act was read as follows:

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the state, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals (5).

THE READING OF GENESIS CHAPTER ONE

Judge Neal then said, "Since the act involved in this investigation provides that it shall be unlawful to teach any theory that denies the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, it is proper that I call your attention to the account of man's creation as taught in the Bible, it is proper that I call your attention to the first chapter of Genesis." The chapter was read in its entirety. The crucial parts are repeated here from the court record:

In the beginning the Lord [sic] created the heaven and earth. ... And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth. ... And God made the beasts of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind. ... So God created man in His own image, in the image of God, created He him; male and female created He them (vv. 1, 21, 25, 27) (5–6).

THE CHARGE OF THE JUDGE TO THE GRAND JURY

Judge Neal charged: "You will bear in mind that in this investigation you are not interested to inquire into the policy or wisdom of this legislation. ... Our constitution imposes upon the judicial branch the interpretation of statutes and upon the executive branch the enforcement of the law" (6). He told them the violation would only be a mis demeanor, but reminded them there are serious misdemeanors, such as those involving "the evil example of the teacher disregarding constituted authority in the very presence of the undeveloped mind whose thought and moral he directs and guides" (7).

A NEW INDICTMENT IS RETURNED

Both sides agreed to quash the original indictment (No. 5231) and replace it with a new one (No. 5232). This was apparently to avoid its being overturned on a technicality. The judge named it Case No. 5232 State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes (7).

The only other significant occurrence the first morning was concerning the competency of the witnesses. Darrow expressed his belief: "I think that scientists are competent evidence — or competent witnesses here, to explain what evolution is, and that they are competent on both sides" (8). Attorney General Stewart responded: "we think that it isn't competent as evidence; that is, it isn't competent to bring into this case scientists who testify as to what the theory of evolution is or interpret the Bible or anything of that sort" (8–9). He suggested, therefore, that they go immediately to qualify jury members so as not to pollute the jury pool by the discussion.

The rest of the day was spent interviewing potential jurors. When one prospective juror, Rev. Massingill, was asked by Darrow if he ever preached for or against evolution, he answered: "Well, I preached against it, of course! (Applause)." At this outburst the judge warned: "if you repeat that, ladies and gentlemen, you will be excluded" (14). There ensued a short disagreement over whether they should swear in the jurors immediately or wait until Monday morning.

Second Day (July 13)

OPENING PRAYER

The invocation on the second day of the trial was offered by Rev. Moffett to "God, our Father, Thou Who are the creator of the heaven and the earth. ..." He prayed for "wise decisions" to be made and for "blessing" of the jury, the lawyers, the media, all involved in this case "in the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ" (45).

SWEARING IN OF JURY

Before the jury was sworn in, the judge had to call for order in the courtroom (45), saying, "we cannot proceed in the courtroom, as many people as there are without absolute order" (46). Before the jury could be sworn in the judge considered the motion to quash the indictment. The indictment was read first. In part it charged that: "John Thomas Scopes, heretofore on the 24th day of April, 1925, in the county aforesaid, then and there, unlawfully did wilfully teach in the public schools of Rhea county ... a certain theory and theories that deny the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and did teach instead thereof that man has descended from a lower order of animals ..." (47).

THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT

The defense then made a motion to quash the indictment. They argued against both the indictment and the anti-evolution act on which it was based, citing a long list of reasons divided into three broad categories. First, they discussed constitutional issues:

a) The act is in violation of Section 17, Article II of the state constitution, which states that all bills must have only one subject and it be clearly stated in the title (47–48);

b) It violates Section 12, Article XI: "Education to be cherished," since it does not cherish a student's education in science.

c) It violates Section 18, Article II, which says, "No bill shall become a law until it shall have been read and passed, on three different days in each house, and shall have received, on its final passage, in each house, the assent of a majority...." (48);

d) It violates Section 3, Article I, "That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience" (48);

e) It violates Section 19, Article I, which states, "That the printing presses shall be free to every person. ... The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject ..." (48–49).

Defense attorney Hays joined in the defense argument that the indictment was indefinite, insisting that Scopes was "charged in the caption of the act with one thing and in the body of the indictment it is put in another way" (55). It is also not clear, he said, what "teach" means. If it means simply exposing students to the theory, "I presume our teachers should be prepared to teach every theory on every subject. Not necessarily to teach a thing as a fact" (56). "It should not be wrong to teach evolution, or certain phases of evolution, but not as a fact" (56).

Attorney Hays suggested that the court consider a hypothetical law, parallel to the evolution law, this one forbidding the teaching of a heliocentric universe, which "denies the story that the earth is the center of the universe, as taught in the Bible, and [teaches] instead, that the earth and planets move around the sun" (56). He concluded: "My contention is that an act of that sort is clearly unconstitutional in that it is a restriction upon the liberties of the individual. ... The only distinction you can draw between this statute and the one we are discussing is that evolution is as much a scientific fact as the Copernican theory, but the Copernican theory has been fully accepted, as this [theory of evolution] must be accepted" (56–57). Thus, "To my mind, the chief point against the constitutionality of this law is that it extends the police powers of the state unreasonably and is a restriction upon the liberty of the individual." It was unreasonable, he said, because "it would only be reasonable if it tended in some way to promote public morals" (57). And this is not possible unless we know what evolution is.

---

Excerpted from "Creation & the Courts"
by .
Copyright © 2007 Norman L. Geisler.
Excerpted by permission of Good News Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---