logo
When Darrow took on Bryan 100 years ago today, science got the win. Or did it?

When Darrow took on Bryan 100 years ago today, science got the win. Or did it?

Before O.J. Simpson's 'trial of the century,' another courtroom clash riveted America and merited that title. In the sleepy town of Dayton, Tenn., on July 10, 1925, the Scopes 'Monkey Trial' was gaveled to order. The issues contested in the second-story courtroom of the Rhea County courthouse may seem long settled, but they still divide Americans 100 years later.
At the behest of the American Civil Liberties Union, a young science teacher, John T. Scopes, agreed to stand trial for violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which forbade educators 'to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.'
Local boosters in Dayton calculated that a trial pitting science against religion would provide a jolt to the town's economy. William Jennings Bryan, fundamentalist Christian and three-time Democratic nominee for president, agreed to assist the prosecution, and Clarence Darrow, agnostic and arguably the nation's most famous defense attorney, signed onto the Scopes team. WGN, the clear-channel radio station in Chicago, carried the proceedings live, and the irascible H.L. Mencken of the Baltimore Sun led the phalanx of journalists who descended on Dayton.
For eight days, Dayton was awash in visitors, including journalists, partisans on one side or the other and chimpanzees. Banners advocated Bible reading. Lemonade stands popped up. Nearly a thousand people crowded into the courtroom, and even more witnessed the proceedings when they were moved outside because of the summer heat. Over Darrow's objections, the Scopes trial opened each day with prayer.
The trial was supposed to decide a narrow question: Had Dayton's high schoolers been taught evolution; was the Butler Act violated? The judge quashed various defense attempts to contest the merits of the act, but that didn't stop the trial from unfolding as a a proxy for larger issues. Bryan posited that 'if evolution wins, Christianity goes,' and Darrow countered with 'Scopes isn't on trial; civilization is on trial.' He added that the prosecution was 'opening the doors for a reign of bigotry equal to anything in the Middle Ages.'
Once the judge refused to hear testimony from most of the defense's Bible and science experts, Darrow called Bryan to testify as an expert on the Bible. The New York Times described what ensued as 'the most amazing court scene in Anglo-Saxon history.'
'You have given considerable study to the Bible, haven't you, Mr. Bryan?' Darrow began. Bryan replied that he had studied the Bible for about 50 years. Darrow proceeded with a fusillade of 'village atheist' challenges to famous Bible stories: Jonah and the whale, Noah and the great flood, Joshua making the sun stand still. Bryan, who had initially insisted that 'everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there,' had to say time and again that he'd never questioned the biblical accounts. He eventually conceded that the Genesis account of creation might refer to six 'periods' rather than six 24-hour-days.
The exchange grew testy. Bryan complained that Darrow was trying to 'slur at the Bible' and declared that he would continue to answer Darrow's questions because 'I want the world to know that this man, who does not believe in God, is trying to use a court in Tennessee ...' but Darrow interrupted. 'I object to your statement,' he thundered, and to 'your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on Earth believes.'
The outcome of the Scopes trial was never in doubt. The jury of 11 white men, all but one of whom attended church regularly, returned a guilty verdict after nine minutes of deliberation. Scopes was fined $100 (a verdict later overturned on a technicality). Bryan, a broken man, died in Dayton five days later.
Most liberals, theological and political, believed that science and common sense had prevailed once and for all in that steamy Tennessee courtroom, that Darrow had banished the retrograde 'fool ideas' of Christian literalists to the margins. But is that true?
Although it was never enforced again, the Butler Act remained on the books in Tennessee until 1967. Some publishers, afraid of a backlash from churchgoers, quietly expunged or watered down evolution in their textbooks, and many states continued to prohibit the teaching of evolution in public schools. That added to an alarming decline in science education in the United States, a deficit that came finally to public notice when the Soviets launched their Sputnik satellite in 1957. President Kennedy's aspirations to land a man on the moon jump-started American science dominance education in the 1960s, which necessarily rested, in part, on the fundamentals of Darwin's evolutionary theory.
But many of the faithful remained wary. Several organizations emerged in the 1960s and 1970s — the Creation Research Society, Bible Science Assn., the Institute for Creation Research, among others — that advocated 'creationism' and later, 'scientific creationism,' a sometimes comic attempt to clothe biblical literalism with scientific legitimacy. Most scientists scoffed, dismissing as preposterous claims that the Grand Canyon, for example, was formed in a matter of weeks.
Courts repeatedly refused to countenance creationism as anything but religious teaching and therefore impermissible in public schools because of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment ('Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion …' ). Undeterred, 'Bible-believing' Christians set about inventing new guises for creationism, which led to something called 'intelligent design,' the notion that creation is so ordered and complex that some Designer must perforce have initiated and superintended the process.
The legal showdown over intelligent design took place in Dover, Pa., where the school board had required biology teachers to read a statement asserting that evolution 'is not a fact' and urging students 'to keep an open mind.' John E. Jones, U.S. district judge appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, ruled in December 2005 that intelligent design was 'a mere re-labeling of creationism and not a scientific theory,' and that requiring it in public schools represented a violation of the establishment clause.
Even now those who can't abide Darwinism are very likely working on the next evolution of creationism. In the meantime, the broader religious right mounts attacks on science and public education that echo those that animated the Scopes trial. Public education, one of the cornerstones of democracy, is itself on the line, as religious nationalists support the diversion of taxpayer funds to provide vouchers for religious schools. Sadly, the current Supreme Court, with scant regard for the establishment clause, is abetting those efforts.
The Bible vs. Darwin showdown in Tennessee cast a long shadow over American life. The jury may have taken only nine minutes to determine the fate of Scopes, but 100 years later science and religion, and modernism and fundamentalism are still fighting it out.
Randall Balmer, a professor of religion at Dartmouth College, wrote and hosted three PBS documentaries, including 'In the Beginning: The Creationist Controversy.' His latest book is 'America's Best Idea: The Separation of Church and State.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How many journalists cover Philly
How many journalists cover Philly

Axios

time19 minutes ago

  • Axios

How many journalists cover Philly

Whenever I think about reporting, two edicts come to mind: Journalism is a daily crisis memorialized, and it's about doing the best for the most. That's a mashup of what one of my Daily Lobo colleagues told me early on in my career, and I've carried it with me as a guiding star. Why it matters: There are fewer reporters across the country doing the best for the most. And that makes every day we continue to churn out newspapers, newsletters, Substacks, whatever your medium, even more of a daily crisis memorialized. Driving the news: The U.S. now has 8.2 "local journalist equivalents" (LJEs) for every 100,000 people, down 75% from 2002 on average, Axios' Alex Fitzpatrick reports. That's according to the Local Journalist Index 2025 from Muck Rack and Rebuild Local News, a local journalism nonprofit. The big picture: About two-thirds of U.S. counties have a below-average number of local journalists, per the index, an ambitious project aiming to illustrate "the stunning collapse in local reporting." To crib Biggie: Less journalism, more problems. You can draw a pretty strong line between the lack of local reporting and our country's biggest problems: more polarization, less civic engagement, and not enough fact-driven gatekeepers to watchdog corruptible public officials and help us sift through the absolute tsunami of information we have available at the click of a mouse. Threat level: Americans could once dutifully rely on the Big Three — ABC, NBC and CBS — to set the agenda on what was important. Now with the saturation of social media, it's turning into Big Me — opinion makers and slant artists delivering hot takes for clicks rather than community good. Yes, but: Philly's lucky that we're bucking the trend. We have about 13 journalists per every 100,000 people, or about 201 total. And our collar counties — Bucks (6.5), Montgomery (8.2) and Delaware (7.9) — are toughing it out. The latest: It doesn't help when local public media outlets like WHYY must scrap to plug holes after Congress clawed back $1.1 billion in federal funding. State of play: Sometimes the absence of sunlight makes you realize how much you miss those muckrakers doing the disinfecting. Our scrappy team at Axios Philly does our best to bring you the most. Sometimes that's being a check on the local media ecosystem, while feeding you a steady diet of the biggest news in our region — from the garbage strike to the inner workings of the Parker administration to SEPTA's existential crisis. Mom and Dad always said you have to eat your vegetables (that's those stories you need to be a healthy, engaged citizen), but we also can't go without a little dessert and a brewski or two to make it all go down.

The small episode this week that helps explain why people distrust Congress
The small episode this week that helps explain why people distrust Congress

Boston Globe

timean hour ago

  • Boston Globe

The small episode this week that helps explain why people distrust Congress

The need for this legislation was shown by a Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up That backdrop made the Senate debate feel overdue. But to move further, Democrats needed to be on board. The legislation was originally dubbed the Advertisement The committee debate on Wednesday quickly turned combative with the main dispute rising between Republicans on the panel. Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri quipped, 'I'm not a billionaire, unlike others on this committee.' Fellow Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida, one of the chamber's wealthiest members who was seated next to him, shot back: 'I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money. But somehow, if you've made money, you're supposedly — I think Senator Hawley suggests — you shouldn't be serving, because you might trade stocks. Advertisement 'Anybody want to be poor? I don't,' continued Scott. To many Americans, that's exactly the problem. Public service doesn't suffer from a shortage of wealthy members, it suffers from the perception that political access and information is being leveraged to enrich the already rich. Even in this moment of supposed reform, political calculation won out. To avoid a Trump veto, senators inserted a carve-out delaying the ban for presidents and vice presidents until after the 2028 election, effectively shielding Trump and JD Vance for now. The bill squeaked through committee on an 8‑7 vote, with Hawley the lone Republican supporting it along with Democrats. When Trump was asked about by reporters if he would sign it, he appeared open-minded. 'Well, I like it conceptually,' said Trump. 'I don't know about it. But I like it conceptually.' Hours later, Trump went on Truth Social to ridicule Hawley as a 'second-tier senator,' sending a clear signal that if it ended up on his desk the bill would end up in a veto. Advertisement What changed? Senate leadership is already signaling it's unlikely to ever bring the bill up for a floor vote. In the House, Florida Representative Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican, says she'll try to force a vote in September, but she's facing the same entrenched resistance that has killed past attempts at reform. The backdrop of wealth disparity only makes the spectacle more glaring. According to OpenSecrets, the median net worth of US senators is about $1.7 million, with some far richer: Scott is worth closer to $200 million, Virginia Democrat Mark Warner is worth $248 million, Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell has $34 million, North Dakota Republican John Hoeven is worth around $60 million. More locally, Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren's estimated net worth is roughly $10 million, and Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse has close to double that. Compare that to the rest of America: The That asymmetry may drive a reason the public supports a ban by overwhelming margins. It could also just be the basic premise that elected leaders shouldn't get rich in office using insider information. This shouldn't be a hard sell. Instead, they may well punt and mock the lone Senate Republican willing to side with public opinion. Advertisement For those who believe Washington operates for insiders, this episode offers no rebuttal. A common-sense ethics reform, years in the making, popular across party lines, even grudgingly backed by Pelosi, got watered down, politicized, and left to die. And for what? James Pindell is a Globe political reporter who reports and analyzes American politics, especially in New England.

Kamala Harris hints at a 2028 re-run, raising the question: Can a woman win?
Kamala Harris hints at a 2028 re-run, raising the question: Can a woman win?

Los Angeles Times

timean hour ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Kamala Harris hints at a 2028 re-run, raising the question: Can a woman win?

Kamala Harris does not want to be governor of California, which has a whole lot of contenders (and some voters) doing a happy dance this week. But with her announcement Wednesday that she is bowing out of a race she never officially entered, Harris has ignited a flurry of speculation that she's warming up for another run at the White House in 2028. Whether you like Harris or not, a possible run by the XX chromosome former vice president raises a perennial conundrum: Can a woman win the presidency? 'This question is legitimate,' Nadia E. Brown told me. She's a professor of government and director of the Women's and Gender Studies Program at Georgetown University. She points out that post-election, Democrats can't figure out who they are or what they stand for. In that disarray, it may seem easy and safe in 2028 to travel the well-worn route of 'a straight, old white guy who fills the status quo.' That may be especially true in the Trump era, when an increasingly vocal and empowered slice of America seems to believe that women do, in fact, belong in the kitchen making sanwhiches, far away from any decision beyond turkey or ham. Brown points out that even Democrats who flaunt their progressive values, including how much they'd love to vote for a female president, may harbor secret sexism that comes out in the privacy of the voting booth. Post-2024, Harris' defeat — and deciphering what it means — has caused a lot of 'morning-after anxiety and agita,' she said. 'We're all doing research, we're all in the field trying to figure this out.' While confused Democrats diddle in private with their feelings, Republicans have made race and gender the center of their platform, even if they cloak it under economic talk. The party's position on race has become painfully clear with its stance that all undocumented immigrants are criminals and deserving of horrific detention in places such as 'Alligator Alcatraz' or even foreign prisons known for torture. The Republican position on women is slightly more cloaked, but no less retrograde. Whether it's the refusal to tell the public how Trump is included in the Epstein files, the swift and brutal erosion of reproductive rights, or claims, such as the one by far-right podcaster Charlie Kirk, that the only reason for women to attend college should be to get a 'Mrs.' degree, Republicans have made little secret of the fact that equality is not part of their package. Although Trump's approval ratings have tanked over immigration, he did win just over half of the popular vote last fall. So that's a lot of Americans who either agree with him, or at least aren't bothered by these pre-civil rights ideas on race and gender. Add to that reality the eager pack of nice, safe Democratic white guys who are lining up for their own chance at the Oval Office — our current California governor included — and it does beg the question for the left: Is a woman worth the risk? 'I've definitely seen and heard consultants and, you know, even anxious women donors say, 'Maybe this means we can't run a woman.' And I think it's completely normal for certain elements of the party to be anxious about gender,' said Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, a grassroots advocacy group. She too thinks the gender question is 'logical' since it has been blamed — though not by her — as 'the reason we lost to Donald Trump twice in a row, right? Whereas Biden was able to beat him.' While Timmaraju is clear that those losses can't — and shouldn't — be tied to gender alone, gender also can't be ignored when the margins are thin. Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive political organizing group Our Revolution, which backed Bernie Sanders for president in 2016, said that gender and race are always a factor, but he believes the bigger question for any candidate in 2028 will be their platform. Harris, he said, 'lost not because she was a woman. She lost because she did not embrace an economic populist message. And I think the electorate is angry about their standard of living declining, and they're angry about the elites controlling D.C. and enriching themselves.' Greevarghese told me he sees an opposite momentum building within the party and the electorate — a desire to not play it safe. 'Whoever it is — male, female, gay, straight, Black, white, Asian — the candidate's got to have a critique of this moment, and it can't be a normie Dem.' Brown, the professor, adds, rightfully, that looking at the question of a female candidate's chances through the lens of just Harris is too narrow. There are lots of women likely to jump into the race. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are just two names already in the mix. Brown adds that an outside contender such as a woman from a political dynasty (think Obama) or a celebrity along the lines of Trump could also make headway. The criticisms of Harris, with her baggage of losing the election and critiques of how she handled the campaign and the media, may not dog another female candidate, especially with voters. 'Whether Kamala runs again or not, I'm optimistic that the American people will vote for a female president,' Vanessa Cardenas told me. She is the executive director of America's Voice, an advocacy group for immigrants' rights. Cardenas points out that Hillary Clinton received more than 65 million votes (winning the popular vote), and Harris topped 75 million. If just Latinos had gone for Harris, instead of breaking in an ongoing rightward shift, she would have won. Cardenas thinks Latino votes could shift again in 2028. 'After the chaos, cruelty and incompetence of the Trump presidency, Latino voters, like most Americans, will reward candidates who can speak most authentically and seem most ready to fight for an alternative vision of America,' she said. 'I believe women, and women of color, can credibility and forcibly speak to the need for change rooted in the lived experiences of their communities.' Timmaraju said that regardless of what Harris decides, Democrats will probably have one of the most robust primaries in recent times — which can only be good for the party and for voters. And rather than asking, 'Can a woman win?' the better question would be, 'Do we really want a system that won't let them try?'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store