Still
Inheriting the Wind:
The Continuing Debate with Teaching
Creation and Evolution in Public Schools
Seth Dorian Gilboord
December 7, 1999
Law and Literature Seminar
Professor Redwood
I.
Introduction:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth. Now the Earth was unformed and
void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; the spirit of God hovered
over the face of the waters…And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of
living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth…cattle, and the creeping
thing, and beast of the earth…And God said, 'Let us make man in our own image…'[1]
Or
perhaps,
Who can explain why one
species ranges widely and is very numerous, and why another species has a
narrow range and is rare…I am convinced that natural selection has been the
main…means of modification.[2]
These two verses explain the creation of the Earth and the development of the life that inhabits our planet in very different ways. Both explanations hold great power over the believers of them. Many believe that one theory is correct and the other is wrong or blasphemy. For some people it is not enough that they believe that G-d created heaven, Earth, and all life, but they urge that everyone should be taught the story of this miracle. Others see the beginning of life as nothing more than a very complex combination of the natural elements on a watery planet that happens to be just the right distance from just the right type of star. These people stress that students should be taught that there is no master plan, just creatures that evolved from more primitive beings, which, in turn, evolved from even more simple organisms. Some, in an attempt to appease both sides, have created various theories that combine the main points of these two views, and attempt to teach a middle ground to public school children.
Which
theory should our American public school children be taught? Literature, law, scientists, and clergy have
all tried without success to come to an answer. Is one version more appropriate
in a church, synagogue, or mosque, while the other belongs in the
laboratory? Can there be more than one
correct answer to these difficult and divisive questions? The answer is one of the most passionately
and fiercely debated issues of modern history.
It pits religion, science, law, history, and strongly held emotions all
against each other.
As always, when there is a
divisive issue, the similarities and complexities of the problem are forgotten
and the issue of right and wrong takes over.
Soon after, authors write books, stories, and plays on the topic. Meanwhile, other people take the issue to
the courts, with the hope that they will be better able to hammer out a final
solution. One must try to exam the
debate, the literature, and the legalities, that the controversy over teaching
creation and evolution have caused in American society and the classroom,
before coming to a conclusion.
Creation and evolution are commonly seen as two different ways to explain the creation of the world, the origin of life, and the appearance of human beings. There is much debate over creation. What is it and when did it happen? Creation is based on the Book of Genesis contained in the Bible. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how one looks at the issue, there are many faith traditions involved in the interpretation of the story of Genesis. Much of the confusion comes from which version of the Bible the interpreter is using. Currently, because of this debate, new “versions” and “translations” of the Bible are coming into print[3] with each translator hoping to calm and satisfy different groups of believers.
In a legal sense, the fundamentalist, usually Protestant Christians, who encourage the teaching of creation in schools, are actually promoting a type of creation called, “creation science.” In the case of McLean v. Arkansas Bd. of Ed,[4] the court summarized the differences between creation-science and evolution science as follows:
"Creation-science" means the scientific
evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences.
Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that
indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
(2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about
development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within
fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate
ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by
catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A
relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.[5]
And
evolution science is:
"Evolution-science" means the scientific
evidences for evolution and inferences from those scientific evidences.
Evolution-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that
indicate: (1) Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from
disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife; (2) The sufficiency of
mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living
kinds from simple earlier kinds; (3) Emergence by mutation and natural selection
of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds; (4) Emergence of man from a
common ancestor with apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology and the
evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and (6) An inception several
billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life.[6]
Charles
Darwin first discussed the theory of evolution in his book, The Origins of
Species. In this book, Darwin
states that living organisms change slowly over time by the accumulation of
small changes.[9] In the case of human beings Darwin looked
for variation in the same features of all living things, homologous
characteristics between man and other animals.
He looked at rudimentary structures such as muscles, sense organs, hair,
and reproductive organs.[10] From
his examinations, he came to the conclusion that human beings descended from
the “Anthropomorphus Apes,” or more simply, old world African apes.[11] Later scientific discoveries continue to
verify Darwin’s theories as basically correct.
This issue is very hotly
debated in politics. Politicians know
that if they publicly one side of the issue or the other, they will get a
certain segment of the electorate to automatically cast their vote for
them. This is true at any level of the
political structure in the United States.
For example, early on in this presidential race, each candidate had his
own statement on this issue. Pat
Buchanan was the firmest on the issue. He believes that, “[Parents] have a
right to insist that Godless evolution not be taught to their children.”[12] On the other hand, candidate Albert Gore has
said he supports teaching evolution in public schools and saving creation for a
religion class.[13] Adopting a middle position, candidate George
W. Bush believes that both creation and evolution should be taught in school,
but in the end, the question should be left to the states and local school boards.[14]
In the state of Kansas, the
issue of teaching creation is of foremost importance. In August of 1999, the Kansas Board of Education eliminated the
teaching of evolution entirely from their science curriculum. The Board's
decision does not require the teaching of creation in schools, and neither does
it forbid the teaching of evolution. It
leaves the decision up to local school boards and teachers. This act was an
attempt to prevent evolution from being taught and not to appear to promote
creationism.[15] In neighboring Nebraska, by contrast, the
Nebraska Board of Education approved a science curriculum that states evolution
is to be the only “theory of planetary life origins” that can be taught in
public schools.[16] Americans continue to lobby on both sides of
the issue and, as with most hotly debated topics, the law and literature cannot
be far behind.
III.
INHERIT THE WIND
Americans have always been
fascinated with the courts and the popular images that the trials that take
place within the legal system bring to mind.
Authors are drawn to the trials that capture the minds and hearts of the
public. They may write many different
types of works about a trial. Whether
the author writes fiction or non-fiction, no trial has captured the essence of the
public debate over the teaching of evolution and creationism in the classroom
as does the play Inherit the Wind by
Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee.[17] This play captures the emotion, the
antagonism, and the fear that each of the sides of the creation versus
evolution debate holds for the other side.
Inherit the Wind is not an accurate
historical portrayal of any famous event.
It is true that this play is based on the actual events of the
"Scopes Monkey Trial," a trial that occurred in 1925, in the town of
Dayton, Tennessee. It is important to remember that, as the playwrights say in
the preface to the play, the Scopes Monkey Trial had an "exodus completely
its own."[18] Only a handful of the events in the play are
actually taken from the record of the Scopes Monkey Trial. The playwrights reinforce that this is
"theater" not "journalism," and, “the year is not 1925.”[19] Having said all this, the public still sees
the events of the Scopes Monkey Trial as synonymous with the play inherit the Wind.[20] Therefore, no detailed discussion of the
debate between evolution and creation in public school, and the courts’
reaction to cases brought before them on this issue, can be told without a
detailed analysis of Inherit the Wind.
A
playwright and a lawyer have a lot in common.
A lawyer presents a story, along with its characters, to a jury in much
the same way as a playwright presents a play to the audience.[21] It is important that the lawyer and the
writer create a sense of "advocacy of characterization."[22] This means that a jury, a reader, or an
audience should be able to identify with the people or characters involved with
the story or plot presented to them, and then they can create a sense of who is
right and who is wrong, by the words written or spoken before them. [23] If they can come to this conclusion, then
the lawyer is one step closer to a winning case, and the playwright also one
step closer to having written a hit.
One
way a writer or a lawyer communicates a compelling story is through the use of
"stereotypes." [24] In a storytelling, sense a stereotype is not
necessarily always negative. Through
the proper use of a stereotype, a good storyteller or lawyer can communicate
emotions and motivations without using an extraneous amount of words and
wasting vast amounts of precious time, thereby creating an image in the
readers' or listeners' mind. [25] Its fault lies in that it requires a
commonly held notion of what an image a word means. A stereotype can quickly be used to determine if the feeling the
reader or listeners get is positive or negative towards the outcome of the
story. [26]
Inherit the Wind opens with two children
talking. Howard is having fun
collecting worms. The other child, Melinda, is disgusted by the worm’s
appearance. Howard innocently says to
Melinda that she should not be so scared of worms since "You were a worm
once."[27] Melinda,
horrified by this revelation, tells Howard that she is going to tell her father
what he said. Howard then calls
Melinda's father an old monkey. She
runs off stage, presumably to tell her father what he said. Howard is not shaken by this and goes on
collecting worms. [28] This scene sets up the whole play in just a
few lines. As the audience is familiar
with the stereotype of innocent children such as Melinda and Howard, the
audience immediately knows that someone has planted the seed of evolution in
this young child's mind. The rest of
the play indirectly results from this event.
The
audience soon learns that the teacher responsible for planting this seed is Bertram
Cates, a local schoolteacher. The play
takes place in the fictional town of Hillsboro, and in Hillsboro, the teaching
of evolution is a crime. [29] We also learn that the town led by it
dogmatic preacher Rev. Brown is adamantly against Mr. Cates and the teaching of
evolution. They look at him with a type
of “hate” not even reserved for a wife murderer.[30] Soon the stage is set for the main plot of
the play, the “Cates Trial.”
The
prosecution has a special attorney volunteer come to Hillsboro to prosecute the
case. He is a three time presidential
candidate and a gifted speaker. The
town and its dogmatic preacher await his arrival with great anticipation. When Mathew Brady finally arrives, the mayor
honors him with the honorary rank of Colonel. [31] Brady, in typical style, gives a rousing
speech. He says that he is there to
prosecute more than just a crime, but an attack on the youth by the North and
on a law duly passed to protect the “living truth of the Scriptures!”[32]
Soon we learn that the representative
of the defense is no less a great man.
His name is Henry Drummond and his services are paid for and reported by
the Baltimore Herald.[33] The city’s reaction to this news is the
opposite of its response to Brady. The
townsfolk threaten to keep him out of the town. They consider him “a vicious Godless man.” The mayor is determined to go through the
town ordinances to find a reason why he cannot enter into the town.[34] Brady, always looking for a good fight and
maybe a headline, sees winning a trial against Drummond as a battle of biblical
proportions.[35]
The first person to see
Drummond is Melinda. She runs away in terror because all she sees is a “devil.”[36] This is an interesting observation. To almost all the townspeople Drummond is a
devil, coming to Hillsboro to fight against the scriptures and all that is
holy. When Cates tells Drummond about
the hatred of the townspeople, Drummond understands completely. He responds that what Cates has done is
worse than murder to the townsfolk. Mr.
Drummond explains, “You murder a wife, it isn’t nearly as bad as murdering an
old wives’ tale. Kill one of their
fairy-tale notions, and they call down the wrath of God, Brady, and the state
legislature.”[37]
This line is especially
important to the trial in the play as to well as the real life question of
creation and evolution in public schools.
Those who blindly accept the story of creation as told in the Bible
often call down the wrath of G-d in an attempt to defend their position against
those who want to teach or learn Darwin’s theory of evolution. Next, creationists use powerful speakers,
gifted intellects, and other outside sources to help further their cause. Lastly, in many communities there are enough
creationists to affect the outcome in local or state legislative
elections. Often pressure is brought to
bear on those elected to pass laws supporting the views of the
creationist. In the play Inherit the
Wind, it can be assumed that political pressure was brought to bear in the
passing of “Public Act Volume 37, Statute Number 31428,”[38]
the law against the teaching of evolution that Cates is soon to be convicted of
violating. Strangely enough, it will be
political pressure exerted from the other position that forces the judge to
pass a light sentence on Cates.[39]
As
soon as the trial in Inherit the Wind begins, the audience soon realizes that
Drummond and Cates are going to have a difficult time winning, if they can win
at all. Brady and Drummond are both
there to further a cause that they believe in.
We learn that at one time they considered themselves allies and
friends. Drummond gave active support
to Brady in his presidential campaign of 1908.[40] On
the issue of creation and evolution, they are both very passionate on their
respective sides. Brady allies himself
with the townspeople, the Reverend Brown, the scriptures, and the elected
officials of Hillsboro. Drummond allies
himself with the news reporter Hornbeck, the U.S. Constitution, and science. Through all of this a character named Rachel
plays the stereotypical love interest of Cates, complicated by the fact that
she is the daughter of Rev. Brown.
Rachel finds herself in the middle of the collision between the two
extremes of Brady and Drummond. She
constantly urges Cates to admit he was wrong just to end the whole trial. Her love of Bert Cates will cause her to be
the victim and the tool of both sides in the Cates trial.
The trial begins with jury
selection. The first man we meet is an
illiterate. Drummond and Brady both
accept this person, figuring that he could read neither the Bible nor Darwin’s
theories. The second man is a different
story. He says, “I believe in the Holy
Word of God. And I believe in Matthew Harrison Brady!”[41] Brady accepts this person but Drummond, of
course does, not. Brady, angered by
Drummond’s refusal to accept this juror, starts the wrangling between Brady and
Drummond that will last throughout the play.
Brady boisterously criticizes Drummond for not asking the “venireman” a
question. Drummond, to spite Brady asks
the potential juror a question, “How are you,” to which the potential juror
answers, “Kinda hot.” Drummond replies, “So am I, excused.”[42] The attitude towards the trial is set. To Brady, it is a venue to make speeches,
arouse the emotions of the public viewers in the courtroom, and accuse the
other side of all sorts of tricks and levity.
Drummond sees this as probably a show trial. He will wait until appeal to truly attack the law and free Cates,
but he must go through with the trial as best as he can and he uses humor to
try to point out the ridiculousness of having these proceedings at all.
Both Brady and Drummond are now going to have to prove
their case to a jury, a jury that much to Mr. Drummond’s displeasure conforms
to the, “laws and patterns of society.” [43] Drummond likens this to running a jury
though a meat grinder so they all come out the same and “conform.”[44] The hardest battle that Drummond is going to have to deal with is
the challenge of opening the jury’s and more importantly the town’s mind to new
thoughts and ideas. The play is very
slowly shifting from a story about evolution and creation to a story about
allowing people to think for themselves.
Drummond is motivated to be there to try “…to stop the bigots and the
ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States.”[45] Brady, on the other hand, is motivated by an
unshakable belief in the words of the Bible.
He does not think about what the Bible means or why things are the way
they are. The Bible is his literal truth.[46]
Brady tries his case first. He calls everyone from a child Mr. Cates has taught to Rachel,
Cate’s girlfriend. He attempts to try
to prove the literal truth of the story of Genesis and insinuates that Mr.
Cates is poisoning the minds of the students he teaches. Brady is not interested in trying to prove
evolution wrong. His belief in the
Bible is enough evidence for him. He
sees those who believe in evolution as G-dless and evil people. He believes Cates is wrong and deluded and
in Brady’s eyes it is more important to “find Cates guilty of breaking a
commandment rather than of breaking a law.[47]
Drummond
at first attempts to run his case in similar way. He wants to provide evidence that evolution happened. Drummond wants to read from Darwin’s Origin
of the Species and the Decent of Man. At great expense he has brought experts to testify about sciences
such as zoology, archeology, and geology.
The prosecution objects, saying that they are irrelevant and the law
that the court is trying to enforce would be violated with such testimony. The Judge sustains the objection saying that
they “do not relate to this point of law,” and cannot be used in this case.[48] Basically the whole of the defense’s case is
thus ruled inadmissible. Drummond
realizes he is at a legal roadblock, and to succeed he needs to defend Cates at
Brady’s and the town’s level. He must
turn to the Bible for guidance. [49]
Drummond,
at this point, takes the unusual position of calling Matthew Brady to the
witness stand as an expert on the Bible.
Brady, perhaps out of pride and against the local prosecutor’s and
judge’s warning, agrees to be a witness against his own case. [50]
Drummond
first asks Brady if he accepts the Bible literally and Brady answers yes. Drummond then begins to selects stories from
the Bible that do not quite make sense in a literal way, and thus lead may
thoughtful people to speculate on their deeper meanings. He begins to discuss Jonah and the whale. Brady reminds him that the Bible says “big
fish.” Drummond corrects Brady with,
“great fish.”[51] From this exchange, we learn that Drummond
is very familiar with the Bible, and that Brady may not be the infallible
deliverer of G-d’s word that he believes he is.
Brady
answers Drummond’s question by saying that G-d could make a whale and a man do
as he wishes. His faith allows him to
believe in such miracles.[52] Drummond also questions out the story of
Joshua making the sun stand still in the sky.
Brady says it would all be possible if the “Heavenly Father,” wished it
so, but he also acknowledges problems with “natural law” and “the solar system”
if the world stood still. Next Drummond
asks Brady about the story of Cain, in Genesis, finding a wife. He asks him where did the wife come from if
only Adam and Eve and their sons existed.
Brady coolly says he does not search for that answer, that the Biblical
account satisfies him enough. [53]
The
questioning continues, but now switches to a different tone. Drummond now wants to show that people
should be allowed to think on their own.
He asks Brady if G-d plagued man with the power to think why should he
not use it. Brady answers, “Because
your client is wrong! He is
deluded! He has lost his way!” [54] Drummond comments on why is it that only
Brady knows what is right and what is wrong.
This comment will come back to haunt Brady soon enough.
Drummond
asks Brady about the length of the day in the early part of Genesis. How long was it. Brady eventually must agree that a day in the Bible might have
been not exactly 24 hours?[55] Brady, realizing that his case is slipping
away from him, reacts by asking Drummond, “ Who are you to question the Bible?” [56] Drummond admits that it is a good book, but
just a book. Brady, enraged says that
it is not just a good book, but that it is the reveled word of G-d spoken to
the men who wrote the Bible.[57] Drummond then asks Brady if G-d speaks to
Brady too. Brady answers, “Yes,” and
that he then acts accordingly.[58] Drummond now says, that since Brady talks to
G-d, to be against Brady must make a person against G-d. Brady replies, “No, each man is a free
agent.”[59] Drummond then asks, if that is true, what
about Bertram Cates, and Charles Darwin?
Why cannot their views be taught in school? “Because there is only one truth,” answers Brady. Drummond ridiculing Brady shouts, “the
Gospels according to Brady! God Speaks
to Brady, and Brady tells the world…,” says Drummond[60]
Drummond
has successfully changed the whole basis for the trial. It is no longer about Cates or Darwin or the
unjust law. It is now about Brady and
his religious beliefs being forced on all those within his presence. Most of the townspeople realize this and
laugh, perhaps at Brady himself. [61]
During
the following recess, the mayor of Hillsboro pulls the judge aside and tells
him that the, “Boys over at the state capitol are getting worried about how
things are going.”[62] He says to the judge that with all the media
attention and since November is coming up, perhaps it would be better to let
things, “simmer down” so the voters do not get all “steamed up.” [63] Without actually verbalizing it he asks the
judge give Bert Cates a lenient sentence.
The
jury returns a not unexpected verdict of guilty. There is a mixed reaction in the crowd in the courtroom.[64] It seems that Drummond has been able to
persuade some people that the right to think is very important. Before Bertram Cates is sentenced by the
judge, he makes a statement to the court that he feels he was convicted of
“violating an unjust law,” and insists he will continue to oppose the law in
the future as in the past, in any way he can.[65] The judge sentences Cates to a fine of one
hundred dollars. Immediately, Brady
begins to complain to the judge that the sentence is too lenient. Drummond then asks for leave to appeal, as
Cates has no intention of paying the one hundreds dollars. The judge agrees and fixes bail at five
hundred dollars.[66] Before the judge can adjourn the trial,
Brady asks permission to make a few remarks.
The judge refuses and tells him to make them after adjournment. The trial is over. [67]
The
trial ends with Melinda asking Howard who won?
He answers that he is not sure.[68] Many people begin to leave the trial,
uninterested in Colonel Brady’s remarks, and vendors begin to sell “Eskimo
pies” and lemonade in the courtroom. [69] Matthew Brady tries to give his speech,
straining to talk over the noise in the room.
He collapse and eventually dies.[70]
Drummond
reassures a worried Cates that he has won.
Twelve men may have convicted him, but to millions, he is a winner. [71] Later, Drummond is told by Hornbeck that
Brady is dead. Hornbeck expects
Drummond to be happy, but when Hornbeck ridicules the religious beliefs of
Brady, Drummond retorts, “ You have no more right to spit on his religion that
you have a right to spit on my religion! Or lack of it!”[72]
In the end, Drummond understands that all people have a right to
their beliefs. Personal beliefs become
a problem only when one tries to force them on others because G-d gave man the
right to think, and this freedom should be enjoyed even if it does not
necessarily mean that man will be correct all the time.
Inherit
the Wind has been very successful in shaping the public image of the
creation and evolution in our public school’s debate. This was not the main motivation of the authors Jerome Lawrence
& Robert E. Lee. The authors were
really interested in discussing the attack on the rights of people to think for
themselves, an attack led by Joseph McCarthy.[73] The play warns its audience that “Only a handful
of phrases have been taken from the famous Scopes trial.”[74] Names and places from the Scopes trial were
changed for the play. For example,
Dayton, Tennessee, became Hillsboro, John Thomas Scopes became Bertram Cates,
defense attorney Clarence S. Darrow became Henry Drummond; Prosecutor William
Jennings Bryan became Matthew Harrison Brady; and the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU), the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association (WCFA), and the
score of local prosecutors and defenders were totally taken out of the play. [75]
Jerome
Lawrence & Robert E. Lee wrote Inherit the Wind as a plea for
tolerance in a nation that they saw tearing itself apart over McCarthyism.[76] The play makes the Cates trial into a witch
hunt that the real Scopes trial was not. The Cates trial portrays the town as a place on the verge of a
lynching. In Dayton, Tennessee, the
locals of the Scopes trial, the town was quite low key. [77]
At the end of the play Drummond picks up the Bible and Darwin’s Origin of
the Species, the book that caused the whole uproar, and slaps them together
and walks off stage.[78] This represents the belief that two
different belief systems can live in peace with one another.[79]
Regardless,
of the playwriters’ intent, the public remembers Inherit the Wind as synonymous
with the John Thomas Scopes’ “Monkey” Trial where the great battle between
evolution and creationism took place.
The public at large believes that the end result of the trial was that
evolution prevailed and that open thought triumphed over reactionism and
close-minded religious fundamentalism.[80] In reality, the Scopes trial was far less
black and white in its allocation of winner and loser. The scientific community sees the Scopes
trial as an example where “Clarence Darrow artfully exposed the ignorant and
narrow-minded dogmatism of North American Fundamentalism,”[81]
while the Christian fundamentalist sees the Scopes trial as a travesty where
William Jennings Bryan was successfully “manipulated by a skilled but
unprincipled lawyer representing an antithesistic scientific establishment.”[82] A noted Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay
Gould summarized the Scopes trial in the public folklore as the time when,
“John Scopes was persecuted, Darrow rose to Scopes defense and smite the
antediluvian Bryan, and the antievolution movement then dwindled or ground at
least temporarily to a halt.”[83] Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Scopes trial began when
the American Civil Liberties Union, (ACLU), an organization created during
World War One to protect the rights of Americans opposed to the war, put an ad
in the Chattanooga News Tennessee newspaper asking if any teacher in the
state would be willing to challenge the anti-evolution law in Tennessee.[88] The ACLU said their lawyers wanted the
opportunity to “friendly test” the law and that the teacher need not fear
losing his job. [89]
The law in question was the Public Schools Act of 1925, Chapter 27, known as the Tennessee Anti-Evolution Act:[90]
“An act prohibiting the teaching of the evolution
theory in all the Universities, normal and other public schools of Tennessee,
which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the
state, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof.”
Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Tennessee, that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the state which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the state, 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.
Sec. 2. Be it further enacted, that any teacher
found guilty of the violation of this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
upon conviction shall be fined not less than one hundred ($100.00) dollars nor
more than five hundred ($500.00) dollars for each offense.
Sec. 3. Be it further enacted, that this act take
effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it."
The ACLU had planned on
attacking this law as unconstitutionally restricting academic freedom, without
specifically addressing the underlying issue of teaching evolution in school.[91]
Soon, William Jennings Bryan
officially joined the prosecution as the representative of the WCFA.[92] As soon as William Jennings Bryan joined the
prosecution team, the ACLU changed its strategy since they knew that Bryan was
going to make evolution and creation an issue at trial. The ACLU now fought the law as a “result in
hate and intolerance, that they’re conceived in bigotry and born in ignorance—ignorance
of the Bible, of religion, of history, and of science.”[93] The lead local prosecutor Thomas Stewart
chose the simple argument that the law “was formed and passed by the
legislature, because they thought they saw a need for it, and who forsooth, may
interfere?”[94] It would be this position that would
eventually win the trial.
John
Thomas Scopes, a schoolteacher in Dayton, Tennessee, would be the man to accept
the ACLU’s invitation to challenge the Tennessee law against evolution. On May 25, 1925, John Scopes was indicted
for breaking the Tennessee Anti-Evolution Act.[95] Mr. Scopes was a substitute teacher. Who was asked to teach a class for a biology
teacher who was sick.[96] It was in this class that he taught the
theory of evolution from a controversial biology textbook written by George W.
Hunter, called A Civic Biology.[97] This textbook was based heavily on the
evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin.[98]
Why did such important the
lawyers became involved in this case?
Why was Bryan brought into this trial and why was his antics and his
views accepted so easily by the local prosecutors? John Scopes, years later, said that, “He [Bryan] has the best
judgment, was the smartest, the most religious; in short, he was the best in
everything.”[99] People did not argue with Bryan. He had a type of magnetism that allowed
people like him to lead. [100] The defense leader, Clarence Darrow, on the
other hand, liked to ask questions, hear others talk, and learn other people’s
philosophies, ideas, and knowledge,[101]
Scopes, however, felt that most of the true legal strategies and work was done
by another defense attorney, Garfield Hays, although he is rarely mentioned in
accounts of the trial. [102]
The
Scopes trial was no ordinary trial. The
attorneys and their views and personalities overshadowed any legal issue that
they were there to try. The attorneys
often would break into long speeches.
Sometimes they would face the courtroom spectators and not the
court. During the trial it was common
for technical points of law to be forgotten, and, instead, speeches and
arguments were aimed at the courtroom spectators, not the judge![103] The media was very active in reporting the
case. Newspaper reporters asked all
participants, even the judge, for information.
[104] All were often too happy to answer their
questions. The court transcripts,
Scopes believe, missed a lot of the trial.
During the trial, often up to seven people would be talking at
once. The court reporter would only get
one pair of conversations.[105] Lastly, the people of Dayton considered
Bryan their, “leader.” They always
figured he would win in the end against Darrow. [106]
The
trial began with the indictment of Scopes and a selection of the jury. Scopes was originally represented by John
Randolph Neal, but when William Bryan declared he was coming to Dayton to be a
part of the prosecution, Scopes felt he needed an attorney of matching caliber
and style with Bryan so he accepted an offer from Clarence Darrow to represent
him instead.[107] Darrow was fresh from a victory representing
two confessed murders in Chicago, using an insanity defense. This helped to perpetuate Darrow’s image as
a defender for radicals and an outspoken agnostic.[108] Bryan, on the other hand, was a three time
presidential candidate, a secretary of state under the Woodrow Wilson
administration, and an outspoken leader for Christian fundamentalism.[109] Jury selection was a difficult process. It was hard to find people who could fairly
try Mr. Scopes and would not let their personal views on the issue decide for
them. One minister called for jury duty
got a round of applause from the audience when he said he preached against
evolution.[110]
The
next issue was whether the state could indict Scopes. Was the law enforceable?
Judge John T. Raulston ruled it was.[111] Thereupon, the trial began in earnest. The prosecution began their case by calling
the superintendent of schools. He said
Scopes taught from the A Civic Biology book and that Scopes insisted on
teaching evolution. Scopes told him
that he believed the law was unconstitutional.[112] The prosecutions case was, overall, rather
short. They called Howard Morgan, a
student in that class. It was Mr.
Morgan that when asked the famous question by Darrow if evolution had hurt him
in anyway replied firmly, “No sir.” [113] It was also Morgan who brought up the issue
of man thinking for himself. Darrow
asked if Scopes ever said that, “A cat was the same as a man.” Morgan answered, “No sir, [Scopes] said man
has reasoning power, that these animals did not.”[114] After a few more witness gave testimony, the
prosecution rested.
The
defense began their case. They had brought many expert witnesses to testify on
evolution, as a part of the strategy to attack creation not the law. On day five, the prosecution challenged the
admission of the defense’s scientific evidence. [115] The court let their testimony be entered
only without the jury present, in the form of affidavits.[116] This may not have affected the jury, but it
did have a major effect. The press
reported the expert testimony and interviewed the experts themselves. These accounts informed the public in great
detail about evolution and science, helping to form a new public awareness of
evolution, thereby contributing greatly to the public’s general acceptance of
evolution and natural processes.[117] Thereafter, the defense ceased attacking
creation through science and moved on to creating its now famous case around
the Bible itself.
The Defense called many experts on the Bible. They tried to show that the Bible was not opposed to evolution. One expert was Rabbi Herman Rosenwasser. His testimony was centered on problems encountered in translating of the Bible from its original Hebrew to the King James Version used in the trial. In his testimony on the history and meaning of the original Hebrew, he said there were many mistakes in the translation. One example was in the very translation of the name “Adam.”
In the first chapter of
Genesis, the word ‘Adam’ is used. The
word Adam means a living organism containing blood. If we are descended from Adam we are descended from a lower order—a
living, purely organism containing blood.
If that is a lower order of animal, then Genesis itself teaches that man
is descended from a lower order of animals.[118]
He
went on to say,
If the Hebrew Bible was properly translated and
understood, one would not find any conflict with the theory of evolution which
would prevent him from accepting both. [creation and evolution]”[119]
A second Bible expert was Dr. Herbert .E. Murkett. He was a pastor with the first Methodist Church in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He wrote in his statement,
There is nothing whatever in the belief in evolution
that denies the divine story of creation…Students have a right to be taught the
truth about the whole of man rather than a half-truth. The future of human progress demands it. [120]
While there was much
testimony such as the above, the Biblical expert that is best remembered was
William Jennings Bryan. Normally, it
would be very unusual for an opposing counsel to testify for the other side,
but as with everything else in the Scopes trial there were a lot of unusual
situations. It was Garfield Hays not
Darrow who originated the strategy to call Bryan to the stand.[121] Hays knew that Bryan’s
testimony, in his role as an attorney was meaningless,[122]
but as a Biblical scholar and spokesperson his testimony would be very useful. The rest of the prosecution team vigorously
objected to Bryan being called as an expert witness.[123] Bryan, in typical fashion, saw this as a
great opportunity to attack, “the greatest atheist or agnostic in the United
States [Darrow].”[124] He waved off the objections of all his
co-counsels and said, “They [the defense] did not come here to try this
case,…They came here to try revealed religion. I am here to defend it, and they can ask me any questions they
please.”[125]
The
questioning began with Darrow asking Bryan if he had given considerable study
to the Bible. Bryan answered, “Yes sir,
I have tried to.”[126] Darrow asked Bryan if he claimed everything
in the Bible was to be literally interpreted and Bryan answered, “I believe
that everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there…[however]
some of the Bible is given illustrative.”[127] Darrow then questioned Bryan about stories
in the Bible. Like in Inherit the
Wind, he asked about Jonah and the whale, Joshua and the Sun standing
still, the flood, the age of the earth, and the mysteriously appearing wife of
Cain.[128] Darrow also asked Bryan if he studied other
religions and their creation and flood mythology.[129] Bryan answered each of these questions, but
his answer to a question about the great biblical flood sums up the rest of his
answers well. He said his famous line,
“I do no think about things I don’t think about.”[130] To which Darrow answered, “Do you think
about things you do think about?”[131] From this it was obvious that Bryan blindly
accepted the teachings of the Holy Scriptures without trying to understand
them, without considering other interpretations and other mythologies. Only his fundamentalist viewpoints were to
be accepted as truth.
Unlike
Inherit the Wind, there was no final bringing down of Bryan as there was
of Brady. At the end of testimony on
the seventh day of the trial, Bryan held fast to his notions and values and had
no breakdown. He never claimed to talk
to G-d. During all of this, the other
attorneys for the prosecution objected constantly to the questioning. Bryan always undermined their objections by
saying he welcomed Darrow’s questioning.[132] By the eight day, Judge Raulston had heard
enough of this and ended the questioning of Bryan, and struck all the testimony
from the record.[133]
With
the last piece of the defense’s case ruled inadmissible, the defense came to
the realization that had submitted no evidence or witnesses for the jury to
consider. Therefore, Clarence Darrow
says,
We have been here quite a
while and I say in perfectly good faith, we have no witnesses to offer, no
proof to offer on the issues that the court has laid down here, that Mr. Scopes
did teach what the children said he taught, that man descended from a lower
order of animals, we do not mean to contradict that, and I think it is time we
will ask the court to bring in the jury to find the defendant guilty. We make no objection to that and it will
save a lot of time and I think that should be done.”[134]
Knowing that the reporters in the courtroom heard
all the testimony given but not admitted, Bryan said that “I will have to trust
in the justness of the press...” [135]
Soon afterwards, the judge charged the jury, [136]
and only nine minutes later, the jury
returned a verdict of guilty.[137] Judge Raulston then allowed John Scopes to
make a statement to the court before sentencing. He said,
Your honor,
I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in
the past to oppose this law in anyway I can.
Any other action would be in violation if my ideal of academic
freedom—that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our constitution, of
personal freedom. I think the fine is
unjust.[138]
The judge then gave John Thomas Scopes a one hundred
dollar fine, plus costs,[139] and Mr. Scopes was released
for appeal, the bond being set for five hundred dollars.[140] The Scopes Monkey trial was finally over.
On
appeal his conviction was overturned on a technicality, not on the issue of
creation versus evolution. The Supreme
Court of Tennessee held that although the law was written poorly,[141]
it was valid under the doctrine that the State was acting as the employer of
Scopes, therefore the law was, “an act of the state as a corporation, a
proprietor, and employer...a declaration of a master as the character of work
the master’s servant shall or rather shall not perform.”[142]
The court responded to the
Defense’s further argument that this law was unconstitutional because it was
written with the legislative motive to promote a religious belief. By rejecting this argument, and went on to
write, “Much has been said about the motives of the legislature in passing this
Act. But the validity of a Statute must
be determined by its natural and legal effect, rather than proclaimed motives.” [143] Lastly, the court was asked to overturn
Scope’s conviction on the technical grounds that the trial judge in error
assessed a fine of one hundred dollars, and that under Tennessee law, only a
jury can assess a fine greater than fifty dollars.[144] The court agreed and reversed the conviction
but did not remand to the trial court feeling that since, “…the plaintiff in
error is no longer in the service of the State. We see nothing to be gained by prolonging the life of this
bizarre case.” [145]
In
the end, very little in the way of substantive or procedural law came out of
the Scopes Monkey Trial. The law was
not overturned. Scopes was released on
a technicality. For the legal system,
this case was a huge failure. It did
not answer any of the burning questions.
Which is correct, creation or evolution? What should be taught in public school creation or
evolution? The public, on the other hand,
felt it was a great success. Each side
found enough victories to feel vindicated, and the media having so diligently
reported all the evidence of the trial changed the way science was taught and
viewed thought the country and the world.[146]
The Scopes Monkey Trial may
have greatly changed the public perception of the debate between evolution and
creation in public schools, but the law remained the same. Other cases would challenge the laws enacted
in other jurisdictions with more success, and thereby create a body of law
regulating and limiting the teaching of creation and evolution in public
school.
Rejection of evolutionary
theory and proposing laws to help further creation theory was originally a
Democratic Party issue. William Jennings Bryan, after all, ran for president as
a Democrat three times. Today, the
issue has shifted to the Republican Party.[147] As the nation heads into the twenty-first
century new laws are being enacted throughout
the nation to further the goal of creation-based science education in public
schools. Unlike the Tennessee of the
1920’s American jurisprudence has “evolved” greatly over the past seventy-five
years. Courts, mostly at the Federal
level, have placed many restrictions on the teaching of creation in public
schools. But no matter how many times
proponents of creation get a negative response from the court, they always
return to their respective state capitals and classrooms to begin their
campaign anew. Since the Scopes Monkey
Trial there have been a number of major trials involving creation and evolution
in school. Each one has stressed a
different nuance to the problem.
One notable case is Lemon
v Kurtzman. [148] While this case does not involve issues of
creation and evolution, it does deal with the issue of religion is school. In this case, the court was asked to decide
whether the state and the federal government could fund the secular aspects of
a child’s education in a religious private school.[149] The court came up with a famous three prong
test to determine if a law violated the establishment clause or was merely a
legal accommodation of religion. All
three prongs must be satisfied for the state’s action to be
constitutional. “First, the statute
must have a secular legislative purpose; second its principal or primary effect
must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion…finally, the statute
must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.”[150] The courts have extended this test to use
when analyzing a statute that promotes the teaching of creation in public
schools.
After Scopes, another major
case that dealt with creation and evolution in public school was Epperson v.
Arkansas.[151] In this case, the United States Supreme
Court was asked to invalidate an Arkansas statute that had been on the books
since 1928.[152] This statute prohibited the teaching of
evolution. It was based on the language
of the law in Tennessee that John Scopes had been prosecuted under and which
was found to be constitutional by the Tennessee Supreme Court. [153] The facts were very similar to the Scopes
trial in that a local biology teacher, Susan Epperson, was convicted of
violating this statute and lost her job.
The Court, in its holding, stated that the statute was unconstitutional
on the basis that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was violated:
The Arkansas’ law selects from the body of knowledge
a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed
to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular
interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group.[154]
The court went on to say:
Government in our democracy, state and national,
must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to
the advocacy of nonreligion; and may not aid, foster or promote one religion or
religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental
neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.[155]
Therefore after Epperson v. Arkansas, it
became clear that laws like the ones in Tennessee and Arkansas that had
outlawed the teaching of evolution would not pass constitutional muster. Groups that wanted to promote creation over
evolution legislatively would now have to get much more creative.
One
of the next things states did to promote the teaching of creation was to
require that creation and evolution receive equal or balanced treatment in the
classroom. In 1982, McLean v.
Arkansas Board of Education, [156]
the law was entitled, “Balanced
Treatment for Creation-science and Evolution-Science Act.”[157] Through this act, the state had hoped to
allow creation to be taught in public schools by mandating, not that evolution
not be taught, but that creation was a science and therefore should be taught
along side evolution equally. In this
case that the court ruled creation-science was still a religion and not a
science like evolution.[158] The court held that:
The essential characteristics of science are:
1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It has
to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
3. It is
testable against the world
4. Its conclusions are
tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final
word; and
5. It is falsifiable.[159]
The court went on to say:
Creation science…is not science because it depends
upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law. It is not explanatory by reference to
natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable. [160]
Therefore, this federal court held that the state’s
balanced treatment statute violated the test created in Lemon v Kurtzman,
specifically the first and second prongs.[161]
Another Federal case along
the same lines as McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education was Edwards
v. Aguillard.[162] Creationist groups tried to argue that
creation should be taught to further “academic freedom.” In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court was
asked to decide whether a Louisiana balanced treatment act was
unconstitutional.[163] The court applied the Lemon test. It found that the “Louisiana Creation Act,”
has a purpose to endorse religion and advance religion. In addition, academic freedom is not
furthered when a law is written that effectively outlaws evolution unless
creation-science is also taught.[164] The justices went on to write that it is
true that a court will usually defer to a state’s articulation that a
challenged law has a secular purpose, but “that purpose [must] be sincere and
not a sham.”[165] The Supreme Court held most importantly
that:
The Act does not further its
stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom.”… Forbidding the teaching
of evolution when creation science is not also taught undermines the provision
of a comprehensive scientific education… and by forbidding school boards to
discriminate against anyone who "chooses to be a creation-scientist"
or to teach creation science, while failing to protect those who choose to
teach other theories or who refuse to teach creation science. A law intended to
maximize the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction would
encourage the teaching of all scientific theories about human origins. Instead,
this Act has the distinctly different purpose of discrediting evolution by
counter-balancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism. [166]
The
Court continues:
The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing
the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind…Thus, the Act
is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a
particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory
disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the
First Amendment.[167]
.
Lastly, as the courts grew
increasingly hostile to the teaching of creation in American public schools,
teachers themselves began to sue, saying that “their” rights were being
infringed upon by the state. The argument was that laws supporting the teaching
of evolution were limiting their first amendment rights, by not allowing them
to teach creation and that being ordered to teach evolution was forcing them to
abandon their religious faith in order to teach, “secular humanism.”[168] Two such cases were Webster v. New Lennox
School District[169]
and Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District.[170] This category of cases presents a problem
similar to the Scopes trial, but in reverse.
The courts have been very consistent that no constitutionally protected
right to sue exists for a teacher prevented from teaching creation, and that
evolution is not a religion.[171] Attacking evolution as a religion called
“secular humanism,” has become a popular attack many creationists use.[172] Peloza argued that, “Evolution is the
establishment of a religion…the religion of secular humanism.”[173]
In both cases the lawsuit was dismissed.[174] The Court held that under the Federal rules
of civil procedure, the court was forced to dismiss the lawsuit for a failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.[175]
It appears that after nearly
eighty years of debate the courts are firmly unified in their belief that
creation is religion and evolution is science, regardless of the labels
given. Therefore, the government,
whether State or Federal, has no right in legislating the mandatory or even
allowing the teaching of creation in any form at public school. States, nevertheless, continue to appease a
religiously vocal and fundamental electorate.
No doubt when these future laws come before the courts of the land,
their advocates will argue newer and bolder reasons why they should survive the
prohibition against religion in public schools set forth in the Lemon test and
the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and the courts will continue to strike them down, one by one.
Most parents wish that their children will one day grow up and become well adjusted adults. Parents ask the educational system to instill in their children a love of learning and parents expect this same system to teach their children important lessons, values, and concepts that will help them in their adult life. The debate over teaching creation and evolution in our schools cuts right to the heart of that wish. Some parents may see a strong uncompromising belief in G-d as a necessity for becoming a well adjusted adult. Other parents may feel that school is no place for theology and religion. Only secular interest should be taught there. Yet many parents are in the middle on this issue.
Creation
and evolution are representative of this problem. The United States is a nation founded on democratic principles,
and as voter turnout drops in local elections, school boards are increasingly
dominated by the extremes of this issue.
Our elected officials are increasingly put under pressure to support one
side or the other. The statute that
John Scopes was convicted under, the then Governor Austin Peay said was a “Damn
fool” piece of legislation, but he felt he had no choice but to sign it, or
risk being run out of town by the powerful church groups lobbying for its
passage.[176] No doubt there will be many future attempts
at similar legislation, only this time the courts and the over all majority of
the American public will not allow them to be enforced. In Lemon v Kurtzman, the court neatly
summarized the legal question of when religion in schools is to be debated in
court. The court wrote:
It is precisely the kind of issue the Constitution
contemplates this Court must ultimately decide. This is true although neither affirmance nor reversal of any of
these cases follows automatically from the spare language of the First
Amendment, from its history, or from this court construing it…even though
reasonable men can very easily and sensibly differ over the import of that
language. [177]
The
people’s fascination with this debate will never be satisfied. The title of the play Inherit the Wind
came from a line in the Bible, “He that troubleth his own house, Shall inherit
the wind.”[178] This passage may mean that when a people
argue about something so bitterly that they tear their comunities apart, they
shall receive nothing. If we don’t
allow a children to choose creation, evolution, or something else on their own,
we do not create well adjusted thinking adults. We create ignorance and
bigotry. As Drummond said, and no doubt
as Darrow would agree, it is, “the right to think that is very much on trial
here.”[179] Let us hope that this time it is a clear
victory for freedom of thought.
[1] Genesis 1:1,2,20,24, 26.
[2] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection 68-69 (1979).
[3] Online Focus: Interpreting the Word, Online Newshour (April 4, 1996) <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/bible_4-04.html>.
[4] See McLean v. Arkansas Bd. of Ed., 529 F.Supp. 1255 (D.C.Ark. 1982).
[5] Id. at 1264 .
[6] Arkansas Bd. of Ed., 529 F.Supp. at 1264.
[7] Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II , Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man (Oct. 22, 1996) <http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html>.
[8] Antonio Gaspari, Darwin Revisited: John Paul II Reflects in Creation and Evolution and the Mass Media Distorts His Meaning, Inside the Vatican (January 1997) <http://catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Inside-0995/01-97/creation.html>.
[9] See Darwin, supra note 2.
[10] See Charles Darwin, The Decent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex 5-6 (1896).
[11] See Id. at 9.
[12] Michael D. Lemonick, Dumping On Darwin, CNN Interactive (March 18, 1996) <http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/time/9603/18/darwin.shtml >.
[13] Bruce Morton, Presidential Candidates Weigh In On Evolution Debate, CNN Interactive (August 27,1999) <http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/27/president.2000/evolution.create>.
[14] See Id.
[15] See Brian Cabell, Kansas school board's evolution ruling angers science community, CNN.com (August 12, 1999) <http://cnn.com/US/9908/12/kansas.evolution.flap/>.
[16] It's Evolution Only In Nebraska, But Not In Kansas., Curriculum Review, Oct. 1999, at 3.
[17] See Jerome Lawrence & Robert E. Lee, Inherit The Wind (1955).
[18] Id. at 1.
[19] Lawrence & Lee supra note 17 at 1.
[20] See Edward J. Larson, Summer of the Gods 225 (1997).
[21] See Jeffrey L. Harrison & Sarah E. Wilson, Advocacy In Literature: Storytelling, Judicial Opinions, And The Rainmaker, 26 U. Mem. L. Rev. 1285, 1288 (1996).
[22] Id. at 1288.
[23] See Supra note 21, at 1288.
[24] Supra note 21, at 1288.
[25] See Supra note 21, at 1288.
[26] See Supra note 21, at 1290.
[27] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 4.
[28] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 4.
[29] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 3, 7.
[30] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 44.
[31] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 20.
[32] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 18.
[33] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 23.
[34] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 24.
[35] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 25-26.
[36] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 32.
[37] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 35.
[38] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 102.
[39] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 98, 103.
[40] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 37.
[41] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 56.
[42] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 37.
[43] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 41.
[44] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 42.
[45] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 83, 84, 87.
[46] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 78, 79,81, 86.
[47] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 84, 86, 87.
[48] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 72-74.
[49] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 74, 77.
[50] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 74-76.
[51] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 78.
[52] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 78-79.
[53] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 79-81.
[54] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 83, 84.
[55] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 86-87.
[56] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 87.
[57] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 88.
[58] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 88.
[59] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 89.
[60] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 89.
[61] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 91.
[62] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 98.
[63] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 101.
[64] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 98.
[65] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 103-104.
[66] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 102.
[67] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 104.
[68] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 104.
[69] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 105.
[70] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 106-107, 112.
[71] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 109.
[72] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 112.
[73] See Larson, supra note 20, at 240.
[74] Larson, supra note 20, at 240.
[75] See Larson, supra note 20, at 240.
[76] See Larson, supra note 20, at 243.
[77] See Larson, supra note 20, at 241.
[78] See Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 115.
[79] See Larson, supra note 20, at 243.
[80] Larson, supra note 20, at 244-245.
[81] Larson, supra note 20, at 244-245.
[82] Larson, supra note 20, at 245.
[83] Larson, supra note 20, at 245.
[84] See Edward J. Larson, Trial and Error: The American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution 5 (1985).
[85] See Id. at 5.
[86] See Larson, supra note 84, at 30.
[87] Larson, supra note 84 at 30.
[88] See Joyce F. Francis, Creationism v. Evolution: The Legal History And Tennessee's Role In That History, 63 Tenn. L. Rev. 753, 768 (1996).
[89] Larson, supra note 84, at 58.
[90] Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 289 S.W. 363, 364 (1927).
[91] See Larson, supra note 84, at 61.
[92] See Larson, supra note 84, at 30.
[93] Larson, supra note 84, at 61-62.
[94] Larson, supra note 84, at 63.
[95] See Clarence S. Darrow & William J. Bryan, World's Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case 4 (1997).
[96] See World Still Spinning: Participants Recall Scopes Trial, The Los Angeles Daily Journal, March 6, 1981, at B1.
[97] See Supra note 88, at 757.
[98] See Supra note 88, at 757.
[99] Jerry R. Tompkins, D-Days at Dayton: Reflections on the Scopes Trial 22 (1965).
[100] Id.
[101] See Tompkins, supra note 99, at 23 .
[102] Tompkins, supra note 99, at 23 .
[103] Tompkins, supra note 99, at 25.
[104] Tompkins, supra note 99, at 24-25.
[105] Tompkins, supra note 99, at 27.
[106] Tompkins, supra note 99, at 27.
[107] See Supra note 88, at 768-169.
[108] See David Goetz, The monkey trial, 16 Christian History iss. 3, 10 (1997).
[109] See Id.
[110] See Supra note 108, at 10.
[111] See Supra note 108, at 10.
[112] See Supra note 108, at 10.
[113] Supra note 108, at 10.
[114] Clarence S. Darrow & William J. Bryan, World's Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case 127 (1997).
[115] See Supra note 108, at 10.
[116] See Supra note 108, at 10.
[117] See Tompkins, supra note 99, at 30 .
[118] Darrow & Bryan, supra note 114, at 228.
[119] Darrow & Bryan, supra note 114, at 229.
[120] Darrow & Bryan, supra note 114, at 229.
[121] See Supra note 108, at 10.
[122] See Supra note 108, at 10
[123] See Supra note 108, at 10.
[124] Supra note 88, at 770.
[125] Larson, supra note 20, at 187.
[126] Supra note 108, at 10.
[127] Supra note 108, at 10.
[128] See Supra note 108, at 10.
[129] See Supra note 108, at 10.
[130] Darrow & Bryan, supra note 114, at 287.
[131] Darrow & Bryan, supra note 114, at 287.
[132] See Darrow & Bryan, supra note 114, at 299-301.
[133] See Darrow & Bryan, supra note 114, at 305-306.
[134] Darrow & Bryan, supra note 114, at 306.
[135] Darrow & Bryan, supra note 114, at 307.
[136] Darrow & Bryan, supra note 114, at 309.
[137] See Darrow & Bryan, supra note 114, at 312.
[138] See Darrow & Bryan, supra note 114, at 313.
[139] See Darrow & Bryan, supra note 114, at 313.
[140] See Darrow & Bryan, supra note 114, at 313.
[141] See Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 105 289 S.W. 363, 363 (1927).
[142] Scopes, 154 Tenn. at 112, 289 S.W. at 365.
[143] Scopes, 154 Tenn. at 120, 289 S.W. at 367.
[144] See Scopes, 154 Tenn. at 121, 289 S.W. at 367.
[145] Scopes, 154 Tenn. at 121, 289 S.W. at 367.
[146] See Tompkins, supra note 99, at 30.
[147] See Larson, supra note 84, at 5.
[148] See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2135(1971).
[149] See Kurtzman, 403 U.S. at 661, 91 S.Ct. at 2135.
[150] Nancy Levit, Creationism, Evolution And The First Amendment: The Limits Of Constitutionally Permissible Scientific Inquiry, 14 J.L. & Educ. 211, 213 (1985).
[151] Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
[152] Arkansas, 393 U.S. at 98 89 S. Ct.at 267.
[153] See Arkansas, 393 U.S. at 98 89 S. Ct. at 267.
[154] Arkansas, 393 U.S. at 103, 89 S. Ct. at 270.
[155] Arkansas, 393 U.S. at 10-104, 89 S. Ct. at 267.
[156] See McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, (E.D. Arkansas, Western Division 1982) affirmed 723 F.2d 45 (8th Circt, 1983).
[157] Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. at 1256.
[158] See Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. at 1266-1271.
[159] Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. at 1267.
[160] Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. at 1267.
[161]. See Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. at 1255
[162] See Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 107 S.Ct. 2573 (1987).
[163] See Aguillard, 482 U.S. at 581, 596-597, 107 S.Ct. at 2576, 2584.
[164] Aguillard, 482 U.S. at 585-586, 107 S.Ct. at 2578-2579.
[165] Aguillard, 482 U.S. at 586-587, 107 S.Ct. at 2579.
[166] Aguillard, 482 U.S. at 578-579, 107 S.Ct. at 2575.
[167] Aguillard, 482 U.S. at 579, 107 S.Ct. at 2575.
[168] William Vogeler, Teacher Sues District Over Evolution Order, The Los Angeles Daily Journal, Oct. 1, 1999, at 2.
[169] See New Lenox School Dist. No. 122, 1989 WL 58209 (N.D.Ill. 1989) Affirmed 917 F.2d 1004, 63 Ed. Law Rep. 749 (7th Cir.(Ill.) 1990).
[170] See Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., 782 F.Supp. 1412 (C.D.Cal. 1992), Opinion Superseded 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994), Certiorari Denied 515 U.S. 1173, 115 S.Ct. 2640 (1995).
[171] See Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist, 37 F.3d at, 521.
[172] See William Vogeler, Teacher Sues District Over Evolution Order, The Los Angeles Daily Journal, Oct. 1, 1999, at 2.
[173] Supra note 172, at 2.
[174] New Lenox School Dist. No. 122, 917 F.2d at 1005, 1008; Capistrano Unified School Dist., 37 F.3d at 524.
[175] Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
[176] World Still Spinning: Participants Recall Scopes Trial, supra note 96, at B16.
[177] Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602,661, 91 S.Ct. 2135, 2135 (1971).
[178] Proverbs 11:29
[179] Lawrence & Lee , supra note 17, at 64.