At this point, it happened, three lawyers met in New York City for a conference on some business matters. They were Clarence Darrow, controversialist and defender of unpopular causes; Bainbridge Colby, an eminent corporation lawyer and, like Bryan, a former Secretary of State; and Dudley Field Malone, a leading Catholic layman and a fashionable barrister. Their conversation turned to the Tennessee situation. One said: "It is a shame. That poor teacher, who probably doesn't know what it is all about, is to be sacrificed by the Fundamentalists." Another said: "Someone ought to do something about it. " The third replied: "Why don't we?" Through the American Civil Liberties Union they offered to defend young Scopes. Their offer was accepted.
This was real news! Bryan, three times candidate for the presidency of the U. S., the great Fundamentalist leader and orator, on one side. On the other, three of the nation's most famous lawyers, including Darrow, master jurypleader. The papers were full of the story.
This was the background of Darrow's call to me and of our meeting at his office in Chicago early in the summer of 1925. By telephone, wire and letter we proceeded to assemble a panel of expert witnesses: scientists to testify on the theory of evolution and theologians to give evidence on the history and interpretation of the Bible. In addition to Newman, Mathews and myself, our panel finally included Kirtley Mather, professor of geology at Harvard; Jacob G. Lipman, director of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station at Rutgers University; W. C. Curtis, professor of zoology at the University of Missouri; Wilbur Nelson, state geologist of Tennessee; Maynard Metcalf, professor of zoology at Johns Hopkins University; Charles Judd, head of the University of Chicago School of Education; and Rabbi Herman Rosenwasser of San Francisco, a noted Hebrew scholar. All of us, along with our counsel, undertook to go to Dayton at our own expense and to serve without fee.
The trial was scheduled for Friday, July 10. But long before that date the town was crowded with newspapermen, Fundamentalist supporters and others who were just curious. No one was willing to house "the heretics, " that is, the scientific witnesses and defense attorneys. So an old "haunted house " on a hill overlooking the town was fitted out as a dormitory.
When I reached town, I took care not to associate myself at once with the Defense group, and was able to wander about for a time listening to the talk of the local people. For the most part they were extremely partisan to the Fundamentalist cause. But they were apprehensive of the famous Darrow, and they were not yet aware of his plan to present expert testimony on evolution and the scriptures.
That evening I joined the group at the "haunted house " and there met young Scopes for the first time. He was a fine, clean-cut young man, a little shy and apparently overwhelmed by the controversy he had stirred up. He expressed amazement that famous lawyers like Darrow, Colby, Malone and Arthur Garfield Hays (counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union) should come to his defense, and that a group of well known scientists should join them.
Little happened on the first day of the trial beyond the selection of the jury. A panel was offered, and Darrow accepted it without change after a casual examination. But he did bring out the fact that 11 jurors were Fundamentalist church members. All admitted that they knew little about science or evolution. One said that the only Darwin he had ever heard about ran a local notion store. One could not read or write.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentExcellent article. It amazes me that intelligence in this country still has not triumphed over ignorance, and this is still being debated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn 2009 we still have religion trying to undermine evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligious groups have a problem. As time passes our knowledge increases, our ethics and morality change. Religion however has to live with and try to re-interpret ancient scripts.
In the past reformers of outdated ideas and codes of living became prophets of a new religion. In today's world this is not possible.
Religion will survive - it exists as a result of evolution, it will be the refuge of those who need an external support mechanism.
So. The Klan and religious fundamentalists explain the reason a publicity stunt, sham of a 'trial' like the Scopes circus?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is the scientific rigor in that? This was a made for Hollywood special with 'witnesses' who didn't know anything about the facts of the trial. A prosecutor being questioned on the stand is not exactly something which happens is a real trial.
Why would anybody want to bring this up again as some kind of argument in favor or evolution? They might as well go back to crowing about Piltdown man.
And this hatred of religion isn't healthy or helpful. Scientifically nonsensical things like 'religion is a result of evolution' just antagonize people of faith and don't help convince anybody else that evolution is any more valid. Try citing evidence and arguing facts instead of simply dismissing any skeptic, critic or challenger as being unintelligent or a religious zealot.
There are current only two scientific theories I can think of right now which garner more zealotry than scientific rigor - evolution and man-made global warming. These two theories have zealots following them which made fundamentalist Christians seem like pikers. If only scientists would drop the zealotry and spend their time defending things which are ACTUALLY scientifically provable then there would be very little to argue about.
The point of the trial was to protect free thought and healthy inquiry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is not disputed in scientific circles, because it has not been disproven, and that is a very difficult thing to find in a theory. As soon as just ONE experiment disproves it, it is thrown out. It has survived to this day. The only zealotry comes from the religious circles (mostly just fundamentalists), because it offers a different world view than their bible tells them. There is no real conflict between religion and evolution, only fundamentalism and evolution. Man-made global warming and evolution are both scientifically testable, and thus are valid scientific theories and both have yet to be disproven.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionists are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific. Be sure to look at the list of evolutionists who refuse the debate challenge from Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. See the list at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/.
I have seen Inherit the Wind but never read an eyewitness account of the event. Thank you very much for republishing the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution and global warming are both new religions unto themselves. They take what is seen, Adaptation and a slight rise in global temperatures, and make a leap of faith to the unseen, species-ization and that man is responsible for the rise. Both, as much as Christianity in the past, are being used like clubs to set government policy in the US and around the world. Evolutionists don't want ID in the classrooms because people will begin to see that once you make the distinction between adaptation and evolution, evolution has the exact same flaws that evolution proponents say keeps ID from being science. Global warming adherents don't want anymore debate on the subject because they know there has been marked increases of global temperatures on several other planets in our solar system that correlate with our own and that this is something that has happened before, such as the polar cap melting and the northwest passage being open (Which is why it has been named for centuries "The Northwest Passage"). They haven't yet figured out how to blame us for the warming observed on Mars. Better start packing up them landers and shopping for more carbon credits
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't be so quick to rule out religion and it's "ancient"texts. Ask a scientist 50 years ago how big is the universe they would've said"infinite". The Bible teaches a finite universe.Up until about 1960,learned historians and archeologists said, there was no Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem,there was no city of Jericho, no Sodom none of these places were considered real. Now we know they are because we not only found them but kings and others who lived in them are written about on Egyptian,Babylonian,and Roman ruins.There are many more examples:descriptions of giant squid, elephants covered with hair these things and more are described in not just the Bible but other sacred writings considered fairytales not so long ago and I bet there'll be more as time goes on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnoahidenanny:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd in contrast, when helicentricism was first introduced the church violently tried to keep it quiet because it went against the church's centuries of geocentric teachings. The church, and religion in general as far as being the literal interpretaion of God, is completely unmalleable. If the Bible is the word of God then no amount of scientific evidence to the contrary can invalidate it. That is where the problem lies. Darwinism may eventually prove to be invalid, and when if it is, you can bet the scientific community will accept that with open arms. The church, however, will never accept that, "hey, maybe we were wrong." This is the difference. Most religious proofs aren't proofs at all, merely the pointing out that some things still are unproven by science. As scientists we accept that we do not have all the answers. As theologians you assign divinity to all that you do not understand. That is the ultimate folly.
bpjam:
in response to this statement:
"Try citing evidence and arguing facts instead of simply dismissing any skeptic, critic or challenger as being unintelligent or a religious zealot."
I would reply that a biblical defender is the last person on this Earth who has the right to demand that those he debates use only proven facts in their arguments. The fundamentalists should use even just one factual argument before they demand that science, with it's undisputed scientific method of inquiry, use only facts and nothing more when defending itself.
The theory of evolution remains that, a theory. People assume that God did not create the world, or that He did not create the world in 7 days on the basis that they themselves cannot do the same. Given the choice between worshipping myself, or one like myself, with human faults and limitations, or worshipping a real God with power and wisdom, and love I choose to worship the living God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid Falconer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven the catholic church, at least under the late John Paul II, has conceded that it was mistaken to equate biblical teachings with science. That is the crux of the problem. Too many fundamentalists of all stripes just cannot admit that holy scripture was never meant to be taken literally, especially the Old Testament in the Bible.
You are right, Christian fundamentalists cannot and would not admit that the bible was not meant to be taken literally. Anyone who is not a fundamental Christian is not really a Christian. Such a person is on a foundation full of cracks and voids and mushy matter unable to give support. I was lead to believe that the scientific method of studying anything was to examine all the available information completely, I must emphasise the words all and completely, and then attempt to reach a conclusion through examples and checks. Rejecting information without even checking it is ridiculous, and unscientific. If I reject proper scientific methods in my life I am bound to miss the point in literally too many things to mention. This would be to my detriment. If I reject God and Jesus Christ, this would be to my detriment. I would literally go to hell for a literal eternity. I am hoping my litany will lift and liberate you from loving lifeless literature to life with the Lord of Love.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest you stop the religious arguments. DNA is absolutely, irrefutable, physical evidence that all creatures have de-evolved from a condition of better fitness to much weaker, less intelligent and less able to survive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey have mapped over 4,000 genetic defects and we are just getting started, that are propagating in the human species.
Evolution is a fraud, and is full of mystical human "magical thinking" emotion mental garbage faith and belief. There is no magic "evolution fairy" that fixes our genomes.
If you want to believe in evolution you are just delusional.
This is THE definition of evolution:
Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character." Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language.
There is no advances towards more intelligent, more complex nor more fit to survive. Humans are heading for extinction by not taking care of their existing genomes from self destructive habits.
Wake up from you delusions and look at the facts.
"It amazes me that intelligence in this country still has not triumphed over ignorance"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ignorance is that this is not science. Nut cases are arguing with creationists and thinking it is an argument for science.
Creationism VS Evodelusionism is not an argument.
Creationism VS Evodelusionism is not an argument.
Creationism VS Evodelusionism is not an argument.
Creationism VS Evodelusionism is not an argument.....................................
There is no science in delusions.
DNA evidence is absolutely irrefutable physical evidence that evolution has never taken place.
There are no improvements shown in any DNA study, only continual degradation of the genomes.
If you don't understand that, it is because you are ignorant, brainwashed, religious nut case.
The Chimp, Gorilla, Orangutan, Macaque are all from the same genetic lineage as humans. This is clearly in the DNA evidence. All have degraded genetically over the many years. They have not improved. Neither have humans.
If you want to see what happens to the human genome when radiation and lifestyle eats away at the cell replication and destroys the DNA sequences that produce healthy cells, look at the chimp, gorilla, orangutan,and macaque. Tremendous genetic losses are shown in these creatures because they lived in volcanic regions with high levels of natural radiation.
There is no "magical mutations" that fixes screwed up genomics. 70% of the mutations are bad, deleterious and
29% are considered neutral with 1% "Might be" helpful.
There is no net evolution towards more fit, more complex, nor more healthy. All creatures are heading towards extinction, the natural result of diminished genetic coding.
The best we can do is to preserve our genome so that our descendants are not unintelligent retards scraping the ground for food until the entire species dies out.
Chimps, Gorillas, Orangutans are all going extinct. They do not have the skills, nor health, necessary to survive much longer. The message is clear in the DNA and what has happened to them is a message for us.
They have diabetes, heart disease, cancer, shortening lifespan and many of the illnesses we are rapidly progressing towards as our genome is being destroyed by constant electromagnetic radiation, bad lifestyles and not using much of our existing survival genetics.
Don't be stupid and believe in magical nonsense. Follow the evidence. It is clear, cannot be denied, unless you keep your head in the sand of ridiculous beliefs having no foundation other than your religious mythology.