What was the Scopes Monkey Trial?

Answer

The Scopes Monkey Trial occurred in 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. Officially titled The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, the trial involved the state accusing Mr. Scopes, a public high school teacher, of teaching human evolution in violation of state law. While the trial was orchestrated to generate publicity for Dayton, it had lasting implications for the ongoing debate between creationism and evolution, as well as the teaching of Darwin’s theory in public schools.

In March 1925, Tennessee passed the Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of human evolution in state-funded schools. In July of the same year, John T. Scopes was charged with violating this law. The American Civil Liberties Union enlisted an agnostic lawyer, Clarence Darrow, to defend Scopes in the ensuing “Monkey Trial.” William Jennings Bryan, a three-time Presidential candidate and Presbyterian, agreed to represent the state of Tennessee. This set the stage for a highly publicized event that captured the public’s attention and sparked a media frenzy.

The motives of those involved in the trial were questionable from the outset, and the proceedings were marked by dubious circumstances. For instance, Mr. Scopes, who was merely a substitute teacher in the science department, was uncertain if he had actually taught evolution but incriminated himself to provide a defendant for the case. The defense team avoided having Scopes testify, possibly because they knew he had not taught the subject. Initially, the ACLU hesitated to involve Clarence Darrow, fearing he would turn the trial into a personal spectacle and a campaign against religion—concerns that materialized. Darrow’s participation led other attorneys, such as Charles Hughes and John Davis, to withdraw from the defense.

On the prosecution side, Bryan focused primarily on states’ rights. He staunchly defended the Butler Act as a means of upholding a state’s authority to determine its educational curriculum. Additionally, he expressed deep apprehension regarding the perceived connections between evolutionary theories and religious beliefs.Eugenics. In fact, Bryan pointedly said he was willing to debate evolution but didn’t think it had anything to do with Scopes’ case. Nonetheless, Bryan had read Darwin years before and quoted him during the case. Darrow, on the other hand, admitted he had given up on Darwin’s writing, finding it too obscure.

The trial quickly devolved into a one-on-one debate between Bryan and Darrow over religion and religious ideals. In a move some suspect was his entire motivation for taking the case, Darrow called Bryan to the stand as a “witness” for the Bible. Thanks to fictionalized accounts, it’s commonly believed that Bryan struggled to defend Scripture and his fundamentalist faith and was embarrassed on the stand. In reality, Bryan comfortably responded to Darrow’s attacks. He even deflected some of the questions by noting that, strictly speaking, a person did not have to believe in a 6,000-year-old earth.

Darrow’s needling did eventually get to Bryan. He became increasingly irritable on the stand. Sadly, Bryan’s own knowledge was used against him. Darrow’s approach was hostile, shallow, and broad—peppering Bryan with more questions than could possibly be answered. As shown in actual transcripts, Bryan came across as careful and nuanced—which, ironically, caused more criticism from his constituents, who might have preferred a simpler, hard-line stance.

Darrow’s trap was both malicious and multi-layered. After two hours of interrogation in a brutally hot courtroom, the judge called a halt to the farce. He then ordered the entire testimony stricken from the record. Darrow’s next trick was to waive the defense’s right to make a final statement—which, according to law, also prevented the prosecution from making one. This was a direct contradiction to Darrow’s earlier promise that he, in turn, would serve as a witness on behalf of Darwinism, to be examined by Bryan. In so doing, Darrow cleverly manipulated the situation to prevent any possibility of reasonable answers. Bryan, in effect,was silenced with zero opportunity to reply.

Anti-religious reporters like H. L. Mencken, who was not even present during Bryan’s testimony, spun the events to portray religious views in a negative light. Bryan died a few days later—due to poor diet and diabetes, not any form of angst.

Although Scopes was found guilty in only nine minutes by the jury, the verdict was eventually overturned by the Tennessee Supreme Court on a technicality. The justices stated in their ruling that “nothing is to be gained by prolonging the life of this peculiar case.”

The trial’s impact on the creation versus evolution debate was significant, albeit delayed. The spectacle revealed a growing hostility toward religion and biblical views among non-believers who were ready to utilize the theory of evolution as a weapon against faith. Scopes’ guilt or innocence was never the true issue. Nor, despite the original intent, was it a legal test of the Butler Act. Instead, it was a publicity stunt intended to erode biblical views and ridicule religion.

After Scopes was found guilty, several states attempted to enact laws similar to the Butler Act but were unsuccessful. For a period, it appeared that a majority of the nation supported anti-evolution laws. In reality, the concept of evolution was still being taught in schools, even if the precise terminology was avoided. It would take several decades to witness the full impact that the Scopes Monkey Trial had on the nation and on the creation-versus-evolution debate. Popular culture, rather than law, drove this change.

For nearly thirty years, the Scopes Monkey Trial faded from mainstream American culture. Then, a dramatized version of the trial emerged in the play Inherit the Wind. In that play and a 1960 film, the prosecutor is portrayed as a fervent, close-minded, uninformed Christian Fundamentalist, while the defense is depicted as gentle, open-minded, intelligent agnostics.

It’s a significant understatement to say that Inherit the Wind is not an honest re

Presenting history in a dramatic way tends to attract more viewers than factual accounts. The popularity of plays and movies has widened the perceived gap between science and the Bible, leading to a generation of Americans with a distorted view of the facts related to the case. This has contributed to “The Scopes Monkey Trial” becoming a preferred illustration of religious backwardness by skeptics and critics.