Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion

Scientists and educators rallied behind Scopes in the weeks after his indictment. He visited New York to meet with ACLU officials regarding his case and made public appearances with three renowned evolutionary scientists of the day: Henry Fairfield Osborn, J. McKeen Cattell, and Charles B. Davenport. Henry Fairfield Osborn was a paleontologist who headed the American Museum of Natural History. He had been at loggerheads with Bryan for years on the teaching of evolution and used this opportunity to promote his views that “evolution by no means takes God out of the Universe” (113). J. McKeen Cattell, a psychologist who was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the publisher of its journal, Science, rallied scientific support through editorials and articles. Charles B. Davenport was America’s premier eugenicist, whose research into eugenic thinking for human improvement via evolution was featured in the textbook that Scopes used in his class, Hunter’s Civic Biology. Bryan specifically targeted eugenics as “one of the evil consequences of teaching evolution” (115).

Contrary to reports by the popular press, there was middle ground between the fundamentalists and the modernists. However, the press paid little attention to the subtle arguments they made that showed the “various ways that American Christians harmonized sincere religious faith with the findings of modern science” (120). Instead, the press focused heavily on the differences, determined to pit the fundamentalists against the modernists and/or agnostics. The press tended to skew against antievolutionists, more due to “its insensitivity to faith-based arguments rather than to intentional advocacy” (125). As a result, antievolutionists progressively turned towards interdenominational journals and publishers for fair treatment.

The prosecution’s strategy was to limit the case to the right of the state legislature to control public school coursework. However, the prosecution wanted “both legal and moral victory if possible” (129) and thus prepared for the defense to “want to win a moral victory for their scientific beliefs” (129). Bryan had furtively hoped to discredit the theory of evolution through expert testimony. The team members split their responsibilities for trial preparation based on their strengths. Since Bryan was unfamiliar with local Tennessee law and lacked trial experience, Stewart and the Hicks brothers would handle the legal issues. Bryan was responsible for procuring expert witnesses. However, this became a major issue because no other major scientific witness was willing to participate other than George McCready Price. Price did not have any formal scientific training and had no authority as a scientist outside of fundamentalist circles. He was also unavailable, as he was lecturing in England. This concern combined with conversations that Bryan had with Samuel Untermyer, a civil rights activist and corporate attorney, convinced Bryan to limit the scope of the case and exclude any discussion of evolution by experts.

The defense, on the other hand, spoke openly of its strategy and linked numerous well respected, renowned scientists to the Scopes defense, even if they would not actually testify. In addition to throwing off the prosecution, this tactic educated the public about the extensive support for evolution in the scientific community. Defense counsel also spoke extensively to the public and the press before the trial to emphasize the importance of the case. Malone, for example, stressed to the public the defense argument that evolution does not conflict with creation—that “theology is concerned with the aspiration of men and their faith in a future life. Science is concerned with the process of nature” (138).

The trial began on Friday, July 10, 1925. Far from being the tourist attraction that Dayton’s civil leaders were hoping for, it became more of a media affair. Of the 500 visitors to the town during the trial, almost half were affiliated with the media. The proceeding began with a long prayer and a new indictment (as the grand jury had convened in May without sufficient notice). Jury selection began after lunch; at the time, only white males were allowed to serve on juries. Darrow was hard-pressed to find potential jurors who were not of the fundamentalist persuasion and had to settle for individuals who would be open-minded enough to hear the evidence against Scopes and his defense team’s argument. As a result, jury selection concluded, and court was adjourned for the weekend.

Over the weekend, Bryan continued to work on the case. He made statements supporting Stewart’s opposition to the introduction of expert testimony. Darrow was furious, and tensions only grew worse when he heard that the prosecution would no longer agree to an expedited hearing regarding the issue of expert testimony. Bryan also prepared two speeches that he gave on Sunday—one was the sermon at Dayton’s Southern Methodist church, and the second was given on the speaker’s platform outside of the courthouse. By the time the weekend came to an end, tensions were running high.

When Monday came, the defense made a motion to quash the indictment, arguing that the Butler Act violated both the United States Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution, which barred the state of depriving any person of liberty without due process of the law. The defense argued that the state had passed an unreasonable statute, and “no law can be constitutional unless it is within the right of the state under the police power, and it would only be within the right of the state to pass it if it were reasonable” (159). The prosecution argued that it was within the constitutional authority of the state legislature to control how state funds were spent, and that no individual freedoms were at stake as a result. Darrow, in his opening statement to the court, countered that the Butler Act was illegal because it established a religious standard in public schools and made “the Bible the yard stick to measure every man’s intellect” (163). He argued that while the state legislature might well be within its rights to determine what was taught in public schools, the people of Tennessee had adopted a constitution that gave freedom of religion to all people within its borders. As such, Darrow argued, no legislature could dictate that public schools teach something that violated that constitutional right to religious freedom.

The proceeding could not continue until Judge Raulston made his decision regarding the motion to quash the indictment. Though court was convened, the only official business was the prayer with which the judge opened every court session. The defense officially objected to this practice; as a result, Judge Raulston deferred to the local pastors’ association to make a decision on who would deliver the courtroom prayers going forward. For the remainder of the trial, the task alternated between fundamentalists and modernists.

The trial began in earnest on July 15, 1925, when the prosecution made its two-sentence opening statement. Stewart stated that Scopes had violated the Butler Act by teaching evolution. Malone opened for the defense by challenging the constitutionality of the aforementioned statute, and by saying that regardless of its constitutionality, Scopes “did not and could not violate it” (171). The defense argued that while evolution and the creation account in the Old Testament were irreconcilable, evolution and Christianity were not incompatible. The relationship between evolution and Christianity was a matter of personal religious opinion, and therefore, the prosecution would not prove or assume that teaching evolution denied Genesis’s version of creation.

After the defense finished its opening, the prosecution presented its case by calling four witnesses: Superintendent White, two of Scopes’s students, and Frank Robinson. Stewart rested the prosecution’s case after an hour. The defense began by acknowledging that the allegations against Scopes were true, but that they did not break the law. They began their case by calling their first witness, Maynard M. Metcalf, a zoologist, and asking him to testify about evolution as it pertained to the origin of mankind. The prosecution objected to his testimony as it pertained to the relevance of the case, as they argued that the Butler Act criminalized any teaching of human evolution regardless of whether it conflicted with the Book of Genesis. The jury was removed from the room so that the judge could determine the admissibility of the evidence provided by Metcalf, who testified for the rest of the day until court was adjourned.

When court reconvened the next day, the prosecution and defense debated over the issue of expert witness testimony. Bryan gave his first speech of the trial, stating that “the one beauty about the Word of God is, it does not take an expert to understand it” (177). However, Malone’s stirring response to Bryan won the day. He appealed to the crowd’s sense of justice by asking, “Is our only weapon—the witnesses who shall testify to the accuracy of our theory—is our only weapon to be taken from us?” (178). Despite this speech, Judge Raulston prohibited expert testimony from scientific witnesses, although he allowed the defense to submit written statements and to read aloud excerpts.

It was expected that closing arguments would come after witness statements, so the judge moved the proceedings to the courthouse lawn, where everyone would get a chance to see them. However, much to the surprise of Judge Raulston and the prosecution, Hays called William Jennings Bryan as the defense’s final expert, and what ensued was a debate between Darrow and Bryan on “agnosticism and belief in revealed religion” (187). Under a two-hour cross-examination, Bryan was forced to acknowledge that not all of the Bible could be taken literally. The exchange would have continued were it not for Judge Raulston suddenly adjourning court for the day. When court reconvened the next day, Raulston barred further examination of Bryan and declared his cross-examination to be immaterial to the case and thus expunged from the record. Darrow, in turn, asked the judge to bring in the jury and find his client guilty so that they could appeal the case in a higher court. The jury returned a guilty verdict in nine minutes, and Judge Raulston fined Scopes $100, thus ending the trial on July 21, 1925.