As a diverse people, Americans have learned to seek the middle ground whenever possible. As a species, however, human beings instinctively respond to stirring oratory. Darrow and Bryan had mastered that craft and used it in Dayton to enlist their legions. They tapped into a cultural divide that deeply troubles American society. And as people learn either from Proverbs in the Bible or a Broadway classic, “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.” That wind has sporadically touched off maelstroms over the past eighty years—storms that sorely test America’s national tradition of tolerance. If history offers a barometer for future events, it forecasts more heavy weather ahead.
NOTES
Throughout the notes, page numbers of newspaper articles refer to the first page of the article, and the following sources are identified in short form:
ACLU Archives: American Civil Liberties Union Archives, Princeton University Libraries, Princeton, N.J.
Bryan Papers: William Jennings Bryan Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
Darrow Papers: Clarence Darrow Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
Fortas Papers: Abe Fortas Papers, Princeton University Libraries, Princeton, N.J.
Hicks Papers: Judge Sue K. Hicks Papers, University of Tennessee Libraries, Knoxville, Tenn.
Mims Papers: Edwin Mims Papers, Vanderbilt University Libraries, Nashville, Tenn.
Peay Papers: Official Papers of Governor Austin Peay, Tennessee State Archives, Nashville, Tenn.
Transcript:
The World’s Most Famous Court Case: Tennessee Evolution Case.
Dayton: Bryan College, 1990.
INTRODUCTION
1
All quotations from the trial are taken from Transcript, 284-304.
2
William Jennings Bryan,
In His Image
(New York: Revell, 1922), 13.
4
William Jennings Bryan,
Is the Bible True?
(Nashville: private printing, 1923), 10.
5
Henry Fairfield Osborn, “Evolution and Religion,” New York Times, 5 March 1922, sec. 7, p. 2.
6
Transcript, 236-38, 244-45, 277-78.
7
“The Scopes Trial,”
Chicago Tribune,
17 July 1925, p. 8.
CHAPTER ONE. DIGGING UP CONTROVERSY
1
Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward, “On the Discovery of Palaeolithic Human Skull and Mandible,”
Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London
69 (1913), 117.
2
For a scientific description of these fossil remains from the time, see Arthur Keith,
The Antiquity of Man
(London: Williams & Norgate, 1915), 497-511; and for a somewhat later description by an expert witness for the defense in the Scopes trial, see Kirtley F. Mather,
Old Mother Earth
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929), 52-55.
3
Dawson and Woodward, “Discovery,” 133-35, 139.
4
Boyd Dawkins, in discussion following ibid., 148-49.
5
“Paleolithic Skull Is a Missing Link; Bones Probably Those of a Direct Ancestor of Modern Man,”
New York Times,
19 December 1912, p. 6.
6
“Man Had Reason Before He Spoke,”
New York Times,
20 December 1912, p. 6.
7
For example, “Exhibit Skull Believed Oldest Ever Discovered,”
Chicago Tribune,
20 December 1912, p. 9.
8
“Darwin Theory Proved True; English Scientists Say the Skull Found in Sussex Establishes Human Descent from Apes,”
New York Times,
22 December 1912, p. CI.
9
“Simian Man,”
New York Times,
22 December 1912, p. 12.
10
See, e.g., Edward Hitchcock and Charles H. Hitchcock,
Elementary Geology
(New York: Ivison, 1860), 377-93; James D. Dana,
Manual of Geology,
2d ed. (New York: Ivison, 1895), 767-70.
11
C. I. Scofield, ed.,
Scofield Reference Bible
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1909), 3
n
2, 4
nn
I,2.
12
Ronald L. Numbers,
The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism
(New York: Knopf, 1992), 7.
13
George William Hunter,
A Civic Biology
(New York: American, 1914), 253.
14
Charles Darwin,
The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin: A Variorum Text,
ed. Morse Pechham (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959), 747. Darwin goes on to add that Lamarckian-type factors might also cause variation.
15
Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, 22 May 1860, in Francis Darwin, ed.,
Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,
vol. 2 (New York: Appleton, 1896), 105.
16
T. H. Huxley to Bishop of Ripon, 19 June 1887, in Leonard Huxley,
Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley,
vol. 2 (New York: Appleton, 1901), 173.
17
T. H. Huxley to Charles Darwin, 23 November 1859, in ibid., vol. I, 189.
18
T. H. Huxley to Charles Kingsley, 30 April 1863, in ibid., 52.
19
Charles Hodge,
What is Darwinism?
(New York: Scribner‘s, 1874), 11, 173.
20
Asa Gray,
Natural Selection and Religion: Two Lectures Delivered to the Theological School of Yale College
(New York: Scribner’s, 1880), 68-69.
21
“Introduction,”
American Naturalist
1 (1867), 2.
22
Joseph LeConte,
Evolution and Its Relation to Religious Thought
(New York: Appleton, 1891), 258, 301.
23
Clarence King, “Catastrophism and Evolution,”
American Naturalist
2 (1877), 470.
24
E. D. Cope,
Theology of Evolution: A Lecture
(Philadelphia: Arnold, 1887), 31.
25
For example, at the time of the Scopes trial, the antievolution leader William Bell Riley lauded LeConte as an example of a scientist who believed that “there must be an infinite Creator back of nature.” W. B. Riley, “Should Evolution Be Taught in Tax Supported Schools?” (1928), in Ronald L. Numbers, ed.,
Creation-Evolution Debates
(New York: Garland, 1995), 371.
26
Peter J. Bowler,
Evolution: The History of an Idea
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 233.
27
Vernon L. Kellogg,
Darwinism To-Day
(New York: Holt, 1907), 5.
28
Julian Huxley,
Evolution: The Modern Synthesis
(London: Chatto and Windus, 1968); William Jennings Bryan, “The Prince of Peace,” in William Jennings Bryan, ed., Speeches of
William Jennings Bryan,
vol. 2 (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1909), 266—67.
29
A. H. Strong,
Systematic Theology,
vol. 2 (Westwood: Revell, 1907), 473.
30
B. B. Warfield,
Biblical and Theological Studies
(New York: Scribner‘s, 1911), 238.
31
James Orr,
God’s Image of Man
(London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1904), 96.
32
James Orr, “Science and the Christian Faith,” in The
Fundamentals:
A
Testimony to the Truth
7 (Chicago: Testimony, [1905—15]), 102-3 (emphasis in original).
33
John William Draper,
History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science
(New York: Appleton, 1874), vi.
34
Andrew Dickson White,
The Warfare of Science
(London: King, 1876), 7.
35
Orr, “Science and Faith,” 89. The historian George M. Marsden wrote about Draper and White, “Though dubious reconstructions of the evidence (usually ignoring, for instance, that most of the debate about science had been debates among Christians) they suggested that the intellectual life of the past several centuries had been dominated by the conflict between advocates of religious based obscurantism and enlightened champions of value-free scientific truth.” George M. Marsden,
Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991), 139-40.
36
Edwin Mims, “Modern Education and Religion,” manuscript of address to the Association of American Colleges, in Mims Papers.
37
A. W. Benn and F. R. Tennant, quoted in James R. Moore,
The Post-Darwinian Controversies
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 41, 47.
38
Arthur Keith,
Concerning Man’s Origin
(London: Watts, 1927), 41 (reprint of essay first published in the
Rationalist Press Association Annual
for 1922).
39
Clarence Darrow,
The Story of My Life
(New York: Grosset, 1932), 250.
40
Clarence Darrow, quoted in Kevin Tierney,
Darrow: A Biography
(New York: Croswell, 1979), 85; Arthur Weinberg and Lila Weinberg,
Clarence Darrow: A Sentimental Rebel
(New York: Putnam’s, 1980), 42.
41
“Malone Glad Trial Starts on Friday,”
Chattanooga Times,
19 July 1925, p. 2; Arthur Garfield Hays, “The Strategy of the Scopes Defense,”
Nation,
5 August 1925, p. 158.
42
W. C. Curtis, “The Evolution Controversy,” in Jerry R. Tompkins, ed.,
D-Days at Dayton: Reflections on the Scopes Trial
(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1965), 75.
43
Moore,
Post-Darwinian Controversies,
73.
44
Asa Gray,
The Elements of Botany for Beginners and Schools
(New York: Ivison, 1887), 177.
45
Joseph LeConte,
A Compend of Geology
(New York: Appleton, 1884), 242-82, 313-90.
46
James Edward Peabody and Arthur Ellsworth Hunt,
Elementary Biology: Plants
(New York: Macmillan, 1912), 118.
47
Clifton F. Hodges and Jean Dawson,
Civic Biology
(Boston: Ginn, 1918), 331-35.
48
George William Hunter,
A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems
(New York: American, 1914), 194-96, 405.
49
Statistics from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census,
Historical Statistics of the United States,
vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975), 16, 368-69; Tennessee Department of Education,
Annual Report for 1925
(Nashville: Ambrose, 1925), 165.
50
Austin Peay, “The Second Inaugural—1925,” in
Austin Peay, Governor of Tennessee, 1923-29: A Collection of State Papers and Public Addresses
(Kingsport, Tenn.: Southern, 1929), 211.
51
Bettye J. Broyles,
Churches and Schools in Rhea County, Tennessee
(Dayton: Rhea County Historical and Genealogical Society, 1992), 258.
52
Thomas Hunt Morgan,
A Critique of the Theory of Evolution
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1916), 194.
53
Thomas Hunt Morgan,
The Scientific Basis of Evolution
(New York: Norton, 1932), 109-10.
54
For example, Curtis asserted in his affidavit as expert witness for the defense at the Scopes trial, “The modern science of genetics is beginning to solve the problem of how evolution takes place, although this question is one of extreme difficulty.” The antievolutionist Harold W. Clark, who taught science at a small church college, sought to refute Curtis on this point but in doing so acknowledged that modern discoveries in genetics were reviving the idea that slight, random variations could account for evolution. Harold W. Clark, “Back to Creationism,” in Ronald L. Numbers, ed.,
The Early Writings of Harold W. Clark and Frank Lewis Marsh
(New York: Garland, 1995), 100.