A Review Of The United States Scopes Trial

A Review Of The United State's Scopes Trial The modern world is the child of doubt and inquiry, as the ancient world was the child of fear and faith (p. 72). This statement was uttered by Clarence Darrow, the counsel for the defense of John Scopes during the monkey trial that rather questionably put Dayton, TN on the world s map in 1925. Similar words could have been uttered in many other occasions during human history, including in 1996, when the Tennessee legislature tried once more to gag educators and evolutionary biologists throughout the state. Historian and law professor Edward Larson s book on one of the many trials of the century is therefore much more than a very lively and informative piece of historical reconstruction and criticism. It is as relevant to present controversies as it would have been in the 20s. The trouble with the Scopes trial is that everybody thinks they know what happened, but they usually don t. Our image of the epic battle between Darrow and William Jennings Bryan has been shaped much more by its dramatization in Inherit the Wind, than by what actually happened in Dayton during the period that Darrow referred to as a Summer for the Gods (p. 177). And perhaps understandably so. The depictions of the key characters by Spencer Tracy, Gene Kelly, Frederich March, and Tony Randall are captivating and unforgettable. In dramatizing such epic events, however, not only does the story become more inaccurate, but it acquires all the flavor of a myth. And mythology is only the shadow of truth. In some sense, the modern perception of the Scopes trial is akin to our understanding of the other famous debate on evolution, the encounter between Thomas Huxley and Bishop Wilbeforce in 1860 immediately after the publication of Darwin s Origin. Evolutionists cling to the myth that Huxley smashed Wilbeforce in Oxford, and that truth prevailed over bigotry (Caudill, 1997), just as Darrow humiliated Bryan thereby giving evolution a long-lasting victory that went beyond the mere fact that Scopes was actually convicted. In some sense, this is true. Evolution won because it is now the accepted worldview among professional biologists. The victory was due not only to evolution s intrinsic scientific merits, but also to the enthusiasm catalyzed in young biologists in every country by the drama of the Oxford and Dayton debates. Technically, however, neither side actually won either debate. And that is because debates cannot be won: the supporters of each school of thought leave the debate feeling that their hero carried the day. But debates play another role. Rather than uncovering the truth, they are a unique opportunity to educate the usually silent majority of people who are not previously committed to one point of view. In fact, anti-evolutionist crusader Frank Norris wrote to Bryan before the trial: It is the greatest opportunity to educate the public, and will accomplish more than ten years campaigning (p. 123). Such is the nature of public debates, conducted more by campaigning and discursive technique than by logic and factual evidence. Nevertheless, this is a lesson that creationists have learned and exploited very well (Futuyma, 1995) and that has most unfortunately not been impressed into the minds of evolution scientists. Indeed, scientists who engage in debating creationists or organizing campus events to raise awareness of the scientific status of evolution (http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin) are generally chided by their colleagues for wasting time. As Skeptic Society president Michael Shermer put it while debating creationist Duane Gish (1997), truth has long been ascertained in the scientific arena; now it is a matter of convincing the public. And the stakes are much higher than most evolutionists think. Let us not forget that most of our funding comes from Federal agencies, and that their budgets are at the whim of politicians and, by extension, public opinion. It is a matter of fact that, for this reason, the National Science Foundation actively deletes the word evolution from layman abstracts of funded proposals (which are public record). That the creation-evolution debate was an educational, not a scientific matter was perfectly clear (to scientists) as early as the time of the Scopes trial. Larson relates the involvement of personalities such as Columbia University president Nicholas Butler, according to whom The Legislature and the Governor of Tennessee have [] made it impossible for a scholar to be a teacher in that State without becoming at the same time a law-breaker (p. 111). Princeton president John Hibben echoed that the anti-evolution law was outrageous and the trial absurd (p. 112). Yale president James Angell commented that the educated man must recognize and knit into his view of life the undeniable physical basis of the world (p. 112). George Bernard Shaw deplored what he referred to as the monstrous defense of fundamentalism. Albert Einstein added that any restriction of academic freedom heaps coals of shame upon the community (p. 112). As it was then, it remains today: an issue of academic freedom, an all-important issue for any educator. And it is an issue that is not going away, since while I am getting ready to submit this article for publication the Washington state senate is taking up yet another measure not to teach evolution as fact. As Randall aptly put it, sometimes we wonder if anyone ever learns anything (p. 246). Interestingly, the book s blurbs include endorsements by both Philip Johnson and Will Provine. The first is a creationist who has written extensively against Darwinism and evolutionism. The latter, himself a veteran of debates with creationists, is a distinct and foremost voice urging evolution scientists to engage creationists at every turn. Noticeably, both Provine and Johnson agree on what is actually a minority opinion within both scientists and Christians (albeit one characterized by an internally consistent logic): that evolution is in direct and irrevocable conflict with the Bible. However, the positive endorsement of Larson s book by both Provine and Johnson demonstrates that Summer for the Gods is indeed remarkably balanced. The author s objectivity, while commendable, is also appropriate, for the purpose of the book is not to resolve a scientific dispute (that has been settled long ago), but to present a historical explication of the case in its proper social context. This he achieves in a work that is scholarly, extremely well-documented, and an engrossing narrative accessible to a general audience. Larson displays the Scopes trial as a tapestry of interwoven threads, sometimes difficult to tease apart. There was science vs. religion, but also the intellectual north vs. the conservative south, a shade of racism (the Klan took upon itself to defend anti-evolutionism), the whole explosively mixed with local (damaged) pride generated from the still fresh wounds of the Civil War. Larson s reconstruction of the atmosphere that then reigned throughout the nation, in the southern states, and in Dayton in particular is very illuminating. But he also points out that the most important aspect of the battle was between two visions of democracy: Bryan s majoritarianism vs. Darrow s defense (sponsored by the American Civili Liberty Union) of minority rights. This tension remains with us today, as a major test of the health of a free society. As Arthur Hays, co-author with Mencken of several banned books, and a lawyer for the ACLU at the time put it: We should bear in mind that there may be n o greater oppression than by the rule of majority (p. 68).