The Scopes Trial Essay Example

to stay in the public spotlight, which he had occupied since his famous "Cross of Gold" speech at the 1896 Democratic Convention. According to the columnist who covered the Scopes Trial, Bryan became a "sort of Fundamentalist Pope." By 1925, Bryan and his followers had managed to introduce legislation in fifteen states to prohibit the teaching of evolution.

The Scopes Trial, which began in a conspiracy at Fred Robinson's drugstore in Dayton, Tennessee, had its origins in a bill passed by John Butler in February. This bill made it illegal to teach any theory that contradicts the biblical story of divine creation and instead promotes the concept that humans evolved from animals. George Rappalyea, a 31-year-old coal company manager from New York who had moved to the area, brought with him a paper containing an announcement from the American Civil Liberties Union. According to this announcement, the ACLU was willing to offer assistance to anyone who challenged the recently implemented anti-evolution law in Tennessee.

Rappalyea, a Methodist who disliked the new law, convinced other town leaders that organizing a trial could attract attention to Dayton. Superintendent Walter White and the others agreed that a contentious trial could generate publicity for their declining town. With this in mind, they summoned John Scopes, a 24-year-old teacher and football coach, to meet at the drugstore.

According to Scopes, during the meeting, Rappalyea stated, "John, we have been arguing and I stated that nobody can teach biology without teaching evolution." Scopes agreed with him and said, "That's correct," as he retrieved a copy of Hunter's Civic Biology from the drugstore's shelves. This textbook had the approval

of the state. Rappalyea inquired if Scopes had been using this book to teach the students. Scopes responded that while substituting for the regular biology teacher during an illness, he had assigned readings on evolution from the book for review purposes.

Rappalyea concluded that if you've been violating the law, then you would be willing to stand for a test case. Scopes agreed to this proposition and later explained his decision, stating that the best time to scotch the snake is when it starts to wiggle. Prosecuting attorneys Herbert and Sue Hicks, who were friends of Scopes, also agreed to take on the case. The first day of the trial on July 10, 1925 was attended by nearly a thousand people, with 300 of them standing due to limited seating. The Rhea County Courthouse was also equipped with announcers ready to broadcast the trial live on the radio. Judge Raulston, a conservative Christian who enjoyed publicity, was accompanied by two police officers who waved huge fans to circulate air.

The proceedings began with a prayer, despite Darrow's objections. A jury of twelve men, consisting mostly of middle-aged farmers and regular church-goers, was swiftly chosen. The trial then took a break for the weekend. On Sunday, William Jennings Bryan criticized the defense strategy in the Scopes case while delivering a sermon at Dayton's Methodist Church. Judge Raulston and his family listened attentively from their seats in the front pew. On the first day of the trial, the defense requested to dismiss the indictment based on state and federal constitutional reasons.

The defense strategy focused on obtaining a declaration from a higher court, preferably the U.S.

Supreme Court, that laws against teaching evolution were unconstitutional. Despite the goal not being John Scopes' acquittal, Judge Raulston denied the defense motion. The trial's opening statements portrayed it as a monumental battle between good and evil, truth and ignorance. Bryan claimed that if evolution prevailed, Christianity would be undermined. Darrow argued that it was not Scopes on trial, but civilization itself. According to Darrow, the prosecution was endorsing a future of widespread intolerance reminiscent of the Middle Ages.

Darrow alleged that Bryan was responsible for the "foolish, mischievous, and wicked act," asserting that the law prohibiting evolution permitted the Bible to be employed as a gauge of individuals' intellect, intelligence, and education. The media reacted positively to Darrow's assertion and generally supported the defense. As the trial drew to a close, Darrow implored the jury to pronounce a guilty verdict so that they could bring the case before the Tennessee Supreme Court for further review.

Despite his efforts, Bryan was unable to give his closing speech in Tennessee due to a law that prevented him from doing so. In response to Darrow's plea, Judge Raulston was fined $100 by the jury. Following the trial, Bryan remained in Dayton for six days before passing away after enjoying a hearty dinner and restful sleep. While hiking in the Smoky Mountains, Darrow rejected the notion that Bryan died of a broken heart, suggesting instead that it was due to overeating. He emphasized loudly that his death was a great loss for the American people.

Raulston's decision angered Darrow as he questioned why the prosecution's suggestions were endlessly wasted and dismissed while their own

suggestions were immediately rejected. Raulston inquired if Darrow was reflecting upon the court and Darrow responded with the acknowledgment that Raulston has the right to hope so. In return, Raulston declared he has the right to take a different action. This exchange resulted in Darrow being found in contempt, although this finding was later retracted when Darrow apologized for his comment, earning applause from the spectators.

Darrow and Raulston exchanged handshakes while a sign hung on the courthouse wall, facing the jury, which read "Read Your Bible." Darrow requested either the removal of the sign or the addition of a second sign of equal size that said "Read Your Evolution." Raulston instructed the removal of the sign. In front of a crowd of approximately 5,000 people, the defense presented excerpts from the prepared statements of eight scientists and four experts on religion who were ready to testify, to be recorded for appellate review.

The experts' statements were widely reported by the press, which helped Darrow in his efforts to turn the trial into a national biology lesson. On the seventh trial day, Raulston inquired if the defense had additional evidence. The New York Times described what happened next as "the most incredible court scene in Anglo-Saxon history." Hays requested William Jennings Bryan to testify as an expert on the Bible. Bryan agreed, with the condition that he be allowed to question the defense attorneys.

Bryan, disregarding the concerns voiced by his colleagues in the prosecution team, decided to take a seat on the witness stand and started fanning himself. Darrow initiated his interrogation of Bryan with a soft inquiry: "You have extensively

studied the Bible, haven't you, Mr. Bryan?" In response, Bryan acknowledged, "Yes, I have. I have dedicated around fifty years to studying the Bible." This marked the beginning of a sequence of inquiries aimed at undermining a literal interpretation of the Bible. Bryan was questioned about various biblical events such as the swallowing of Jonah by a whale, Joshua's ability to make the sun stand still, the great flood and Noah, Adam's temptation in the garden of Eden, and the creation as described in Genesis.

After initially asserting that the words of the Bible should be accepted as they are, Bryan eventually admitted that they should not always be interpreted literally. When Darrow persistently asked if the six days of creation in Genesis were twenty-four hour days, Bryan replied, "My impression is that they were periods." The decision of the Dayton court was later overturned by the Tennessee Supreme Court, but on a technicality rather than the constitutional grounds Darrow had hoped for.

In a decision, the court ruled that Raulston lacked the power to decide on the fine. Instead, it should have been determined by the jury. Rather than remanding the case for further proceedings, the Tennessee Supreme Court opted to dismiss it. The court concluded that there would be no advantages in prolonging this peculiar case. While the Scopes trial did not resolve the debate over teaching evolution, it delivered a significant blow to its opponents. In 1925, out of fifteen states with laws restricting instruction on evolution, only Arkansas and Mississippi had such legislation.