Scopes Monkey Trial: Guilty

July 21 is verdict day in the infamous Scopes "Monkey" Trial of 1925. The verdict came in from a jury in Dayton, Tenn., that John Thomas Scopes had committed the crime of teaching evolution to students at his high school, for which transgression he was fined $100.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


July 21 is verdict day in the infamous Scopes “Monkey” Trial of 1925. The verdict came in from a jury in Dayton, Tenn., that John Thomas Scopes had committed the crime of teaching evolution to students at his high school, for which transgression he was fined $100.

After Scopes had originally been charged with the misdemeanor the legal proceedings quickly became a show trial between fundamentalist religious leaders eager to “dramatize their battle against evolution” and those devoted to advancing “man's understanding of himself and the world he lives in.” These quotes come from Fay-Cooper Cole, a professor of anthropology at the University of Chicago, who was recruited by noted civil libertarian lawyer Clarence Darrow to be an expert witness for the defense. The article by Cole, present at one of the most fascinating milestones on the road to truth, was written for us in January 1959 and is available from the Scientific American Archive at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-witness-at-the-scopes-trial/

The trial, as it played out in the popular press, electrified the nation. In the end the jury was unconvinced (11 jurors were fundamentalists) and they returned a guilty verdict. Victory, however, belonged to the science of evolution. As Cole said, “No attempt at repression has ever backfired so impressively. Where one person had been interested in evolution before the trial, scores were reading and inquiring at its close.” By 1967 the state of Tennessee had advanced enough to take the flawed law off their statute books.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The struggle between creationism and science continues, however. For a roundup of recent battles, see our In-Depth Report on the Web at https://www.scientificamerican.com/report/creationism-vs-evolution/

For more articles by the very best and brightest in the field of evolution, browse through the archives at scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa

For news on history and social sciences at Scientific American, follow us on Twitter @SciAmHistory.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe