Excursus: The Scopes Trial
This page is currently under revision.
The decisive moment for Fundamentalism in the 20th Century was the 1925 trial of John Scopes for teaching evolution in Tenessee, USA. It became the battleground between modern science and conservative religion, played out in the courtrooms and newspapers of America. Rather than just being a straightforward case of whether John Scopes had infringed the law of Tenessee which said evolution could not be taught in the classroom, the trial became a test of whether science or the bible was true. Although Scopes was convicted of breaking the law, the media and history have represented the trial as a defeat of fundamentalist Christianity. "It was immediately apparent what kind of trial it would be: the Good Book against Darwin, bigotry against science, or, as popularly put, God against the monkeys." (1) The defense barrister was Clarence Darrow, a well-known agnostic, with the prosecutor being William Jennings Bryan, a Christian who disbelieved in evolution. Both were among the best lawyers of the age, and helped turn the trial into a media circus whose effects are still evident today.
As with many things, the Scopes trial was not a simple measure of ignorance being defeated by scientific knowledge, nor was it a fair fight. Although the people of the town were largely supportive of the fundamentalist point of view, the media were not and it was their view which was relayed to the country rather than a fundamentalist one. Indeed the Christian press took little interest in the case and so their followers had to read the biased account of the newspapers, as did the general public. "The trial was thus constituted for most Americans by the national press from the modern [i.e. not fundamentalist] point of view." (2) The Baltimore Evening Sun carried some of the more extreme examples of the press reaction to the fundamentalist standpoint, with H. L. Mencken describing them as "yokels", "hillbillies" and "morons". At the end of the trial he wrote:
The decisive moment in the case came on the last day when Bryan, at Darrow's invitation, took to the stand as an expert witness on the Bible. He was questioned for two hours by Darrow on the accuracy of the bible and his knowledge of science and history. Darrow got Bryan to confess, several times, to his lack of scholarly knowledge - that he did not know that the 4004BC date for creation was a calculation, not a quotation from the Bible, and in the most famous exchange, to say six times that he did not think the six days of creation were "necessarily" six periods of twenty-four hours. After the judge adjourned the hearing, crowds of spectators thronged Darrow in order to congratulate him.
While Bryan's admission was seen as a recognition that a literal belief in the Bible could not be sustained, in reality it was not. At the time (and indeed now) many Protestants believed the "days" mentioned in Genesis were in fact, "ages" of time, and this, along with numerous other metaphorical readings, was regarded as a literal interpretation. Susan Friend Harding has said that the main problem fundamentalists had with Bryan's admission was that Darrow utilised techniques of Bible-believing preachers. They often vied to see who was the "most literal" in his interpretation of the Bible and Darrow showed Bryan not to be so literal as he thought a fundamentalist should be. Bryan's death rendered this an ultimate defeat, as he could not take on Darrow another time and recoup the loss. His death was used as a sort of ultimate verification of the claims of science - the Bible believer, having been shown the superior claims of science, dies of disillusionment. So his death contributed to the mythology surrounding the Scopes trial - the popular idea of the outcome of the trial might have been very different had Clarence Darrow died, instead. Fundamentalists were considered to be replicas of Bryan, and shared his humiliation, in the eyes of the country - they became seen as irrelevant outsiders.
Fundamentalists withdrew from "the world" into a self-imposed virtual exile from which few ventured into public view, until recently. 1. J. Favret-Saada "Deadly Words: Witchcraft in the Bocage" Cambridge University Press, 1980, p22
2. S. Friend Harding "The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics" Princeton University Press, 2000, p67
3. J. Tompkins "D-Days at Dayton: Reflections on the Scopes Trial" Louisiana State University Press, 1965, pp50-1
4. S. Friend Harding, ibid p71
5. ibid p74
The 1925 Tennessee Act Prohibiting the Teaching of Evolution
PUBLIC ACTS
OF THE
STATE OF TENNESSEE
PASSED BY THE
SIXTY - FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
1925
________
CHAPTER NO. 27
House Bill No. 185
(By Mr. Butler)
AN ACT prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof.
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.
Section 2. Be it further enacted, That any teacher found guilty of the violation of this Act, Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be fined not less than One Hundred $ (100.00) Dollars nor more than Five Hundred ($ 500.00) Dollars for each offense.
Section 3. Be it further enacted, That this Act take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it.
Passed March 13, 1925
W. F. Barry,
Speaker of the House of Representatives
L. D. Hill,
Speaker of the Senate
Approved March 21, 1925.
Austin Peay,
Governor.