What we can learn from Scopes

The 1925 Scopes Trial, commonly known as the Scopes Monkey Trial, was a ubiquitous event in the history of the creation/evolution issue—it had a huge amount of coverage, and subsequently influenced major changes in the American public’s perception of the controversy. I think that an examination of the trial and its consequences is necessary in order to properly put into context current attitudes about this topic.

A quick summary of the case: It was set up by the American Civil Liberties Union in order to challenge the Tennessee’s then-new Butler Act, which forbade the teaching of any theory that denied the Genesis account of creation or that stated that man had evolved from lower species. John Scopes, the eponymous defendant, was a high school biology teacher who volunteered for the position at the urging of town locals. The prosecution was headed by William Jennings Bryan, a three-time presidential candidate noted for his oratory and a devout Presbyterian; the defense was headed by Clarence Darrow, a famous lawyer and self-identified agnostic.

The focus on the trial was hardly on Scopes’ alleged crime; instead, the focus was largely on the validity of evolution and creationism, and the interaction between science and religion. Darrow’s tactics changed from challenging the law based on the freedom it gave teachers to attacking the foundation of the law—that is, a literal interpretation of the Bible. Darrow’s strategy culminated in a cross-examination of Bryan’s personal beliefs; he attacked his views on creation, Adam and Eve, and other Bible-related topics.

Scopes was ultimately found guilty of teaching evolution and fined. But to the eyes of the public, that was hardly relevant. The massive publicity the trial received propagated new attitudes toward the debate; I think that we’re all familiar with the assumed dichotomy between science and religion that’s so often presented. Darrow and Bryan’s deeply contrasting views on religion and science shaped the public’s belief in such a dichotomy, a belief that persists even today.

I think that the most important thing we can glean from knowledge of this trial is the way that creationists tend to view this debate; Bryan considered the Bible to be inerrant and refused to reconcile a conflicting scientific fact with his beliefs, something that all creationists are guilty of. Bryan also made frequent appeals based on irrelevant statements, claiming that evolution is a bad theory because of the way it degrades humans. When you contrast Bryan’s behavior with Darrow’s explicit attacks on religion and biblical inerrancy, you can see how many can view science and religion as irreconcilable points of view.