Revisiting the Scopes Monkey Trial
by John Carter
Particular events have a way of describing certain decades, or defining certain eras. The Scopes Trial is one such example. The “Scopes Monkey Trial” reinforced a movement in the country away from its moorings. It isn’t the only event, but it was advertised as confirmation that the U. S. was systematically inching its way into the scientific and technological modern world. Any vestiges of a religious or theological past would only slow progress, and Darwin’s explanation of biological changes would remove any credibility of a more primitive approach to science, education, and even religion.
The Challenge of the ACLU
In the mid-1920’s, the American Civil Liberties Union sought to challenge a Tennessee state law that prohibited the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the public schools. The organization offered to defend anyone who was accused of teaching the theory. A local from Dayton, Tennessee, John T. Scopes, was asked to plead guilty for having taught the subject in a biology course. The prearranged plans of a guilty plea with prescribed student statements were agreed upon, and formal charges were brought against Scopes.
Local prosecutors defended the Tennessee law on the basis that endorsement of biological evolution had moral implications that stemmed from the Christian religion and would violate the core understanding of humanity. Sound scientific limitations were also offered as opposition to evolution. But the case was designed for a much larger audience. Outsiders mostly were behind the test case and its proceedings. Attempts were made to bring in H. G. Wells from Britain, though he declined.
William Jennings Bryan, the immensely famous Democratic presidential candidate (and more recent Secretary of State under President Wilson) was invited to join the prosecution team, which he did. Clarence Darrow, a renowned agnostic lawyer, became a member of the defense team and the leading spokesman for the team. The stage was set for a national and international show over the teaching of Darwinian evolution. Publicity was sent around the country by H. L. Mencken’s Baltimore Sun, as well as southern and other national publications. The new medium of radio broadcasted news of the events. Monkeys on leashes were displayed to draw attention to the human connection with the animal world. A circus environment surrounded the huge event in little Dayton.
The Law of Tennessee
The trial judge focused on the case of Scopes’s violation of the law, rather than trying the science of evolution. Supposed experts of scientific evidence of evolution were prohibited from testifying in person, but could provide written comments. With the trial proceedings going against the Scopes team, Darrow changed horses in the middle of the stream by focusing on the Genesis interpretation of creation and calling Bryan to the witness stand, because of his popularity, as a credible spokesman for Biblical understanding. Darrow tried to paint Bryan as famous, but uninformed and lacking scholarship in science and religion.
Toward the end of the trial, Dudley Malone, a defense team lawyer, made an eloquent plea that the events were similar to historic inquisitions and should be suppressed. Malone’s caricature of the event and Darrow’s image of Bryan were intended to make those who took the Biblical account seriously appear ignorant, rural, moronic, and completely outside the modern world of scientific knowledge and accomplishment.
The trial ended with John Scopes having been found guilty of the charges against him. He was fined one hundred dollars and was instructed not to teach evolution. The Tennessee law was not rescinded until the late 1960’s, even though the law had been violated multiple times well before the 60’s. The law was changed to conform to the reality or norm.
The Value of Remembering
What is the value of looking at this event in our history? The serious Christian and serious non-Christian must ask and try to answer honest questions. Reading the evidence must impact our thinking and actions. The issue is more than a volley hurled at the other for very selfish purposes. Decisions have major consequences, and neglecting an honest investigation has negative consequences. Even the interpretation and nature of evidence is in question. Real evidence in honest minds is going to cause reeducation and cautious interpretation. Behind orchestrated events lie ulterior motives.
The Scopes Monkey Trial has been a dividing line ushering in a more aggressive defense of Darwinism. The momentum increased considerably. Future challenges would remain, but the idea was becoming more respectable and main stream. Even churches would fire “modernist” pastors who were jumping on the “scientific” bandwagon. Serious challenges to the theory came early from academics at Harvard and from seminary theologians. These were well-qualified academics whose voices were being quieted. The movement was gaining steam, but also running roughshod over legitimate and credible cautions.
As with many public, popular events, the motive is often hidden behind some façade. A powerful movement was designed to elevate a scientific, messianic explanation of reality and to dilute (and eventually hush) any religious (Christian) challenges to the big explanation. This can be seen in multiple settings, especially in public schools, but also in many private schools and in some church schools. Hadn’t the Christians heard, as Lee Strobel states in The Case for a Creator, that modern science had already dissolved Christianity into a vat of nitric acid? But the end of this story has not been written. I have been pleased and surprised at the volume of writings from skilled academics who have and are offering reasoned challenges to the “unscientific” scientific world.
Practical Response & Helpful Sources
In working toward a conclusion, how can we respond and what kind of help can the organized church provide?
a. Commit to a Biblical View of Life and Learning
First, I think we need a steady hand at the helm. That hand needs to be committed to a Biblical view of life and learning. We are not hostile to science but to bad science, not to philosophy but to bad philosophy, not to psychology but to bad psychology. The difficulty arises when good people differ on interpretations.
A deep commitment to the Bible’s words and spirit will call for love and respect when (not if) those differences occur. A mature pastor and teacher will learn about various interpretations and will respectfully discuss and debate the strengths and weaknesses of those differences. I personally am a young-earth creationist, but I know some good people who are old-earth creationists. We are all still pulling as one team on the “fundamentals” of the Christian faith.
b. Utilize Some Helpful Resources
Second, many resources are available today that were not remotely an idea when I was in college. William Lane Craig’s encounters with hostile students, professors, real and pseudo scientists, writers, and others are informative and enlightening. These are readily available on YouTube. One can observe the interconnection between science, theology, philosophy, history, and other disciplines in dealing with the world that is seen and the reality that is unseen.
Organizations such as Discovery Institute promote the understanding of Intelligent Design. This organization doesn’t specifically advance the young-earth interpretation, but it lends sound thinking to a Designer. The young earth proponent is absolutely dependent on a Designer. Good solid thinking of the Designer can answer multiple questions.
Good books are readily available. The older Genesis Flood has been a strong tower in developing credibility in the scientific realm. Henry Morris’s academic training and public debating skills have been respected by friend and foe alike. Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial has subjected Darwinism to the court of law and has been found wanting according to this Berkeley law professor. Interestingly Johnson helped co-found the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute because of inherit weaknesses of Darwinism and the aggressive tactics of Darwinists.
c. Stay Current in the Conversation
Third, the wise and mature church leader will also try to stay abreast of current happenings and maintain the connection with history. The informed person realizes that the pendulum is pointing in the opposite direction since 1925. The informed person has to make some hard personal choices about living in a society that is radically different from 100 years ago.
For instance, the Kansas Board of Education was treated with open disdain and subjected to demeaning tactics when their newly elected members thought that evolution was not a monopoly. McLean v. Arkansas struck down Arkansas’ Balanced Treatment Act of 1981, which had required that schools balance their treatment of creation and evolution, rendering it unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Hostility is the new tolerance.
Conclusion
The Scopes Monkey Trial figures significantly in our history. It set the pace for the scientific America we live in. To understand our world, it is helpful to understand this trial and its impact upon the present. However, in considering this, we should do so honestly, remembering to commit to a Biblical view of life and learning, to utilize the many helpful resources available to us on the subject, and to stay current in the conversation.
_______________________________________
About the Author: Mr. John Carter and his wife, Martha, live in Nashville. They have two children, Ashley Ketteman and John D. Carter, and two beautiful granddaughters. Mr. Carter is the chair of the Department of Arts and Sciences at Welch College, where he has taught for 32 years. He has a bachelors degree from Welch (BA), a masters from Middle Tennessee State University (MEd) in Educational Administration and Supervision, and a second masters from Pensacola Christian College (MS) in Christian School Administration.
October 7, 2013
Mr. Carter,
Thank you so much for recalling one of the most important battles concerning Darwinism. I particularly thought your recognition of the interconnection between science, theology, philosophy, history, and other disciplines in dealing with the world that is seen and the reality that is unseen was very good. Due to many factors, but primarily to the fractured format of the modern education system, believers and unbelievers alike have disavowed the interconnection between academic disciplines. Thank you for willingness to write this piece.
Phillip Morgan
October 11, 2013
Great article from Mr. Carter.