Comparison Of 1860 And The Scopes Monkey Trial

To assume that the Wilberforce-Huxley debate of 1860, and the Scopes “Monkey” Trial of 1925 are even remotely similar in their actual arguments is to fall prey to decades of intentional propaganda. Both of these events are continuously set up as groundbreaking struggles between science and religion that ended in the latter being dealt a crushing blow. Yet in reality, during neither event was either topic the sole focus. Both the 19th century debate and the 20th century trial have been warped by contemporary and future writers alike into similar molds that stray far from the truth. Though from the outset they bear some similarities, any amount of in depth research reveals the simple fact that neither case fits into the commonly held views.

178). Some months after the passing of the Butler Act, the American Civil Liberties Union took up the cause of academic freedom against this new, fairly popular law. The Butler Act illegalized the teaching of any scientific theory contradictory to the teachings of the Bible in any public school in the state of Tennessee (Handout, “The Scopes Trial”, Barnes, The Butler Act, p. 1). The goal was quite simply to get the law into the Supreme Courts so that it might be judged unconstitutional. Consequentially, the plan was to set up an adequate trial. Members of the ACLU met with officials of the town of Dayton, Tennessee to arrange a “friendly indictment”, and recruited public high school football coach, and substitute science teacher, John T. Scopes to serve as the defendant (Numbers, p. 178). Local attorneys were hired for the prosecution, and a defence argument introduced that had little to do with the alleged “crime”. Though pleading guilty as charged, Scopes original head defence lawyer, Dudley Field Malone of New York, intended to prove that the theory of evolution did not interfere with the teachings of the Bible if some level of individual interpretation was permitted (Larson, p. 171). To garner support for future appeal, Scopes was portrayed to the press as an “all-American” man. This image was cultivated by

Having followed the case from its inception, Darrow had remained aloof despite being highly interested, but once Bryan was involved, he could not restrain himself. Darrow joined the defence team against the wishes of the ACLU who attempted to be rid of him multiple times. A member of the ACLU council later confessed, “In my belief, a great mistake has been made at the start in accepting the services of Mr. Darrow, thereby…present[ing] the issue as a clash between religion…and anti-religion” (Larson, p. 102). Darrow’s intention from the beginning of the trial was to get Bryan on the stand to debate his personal doctrines. Never once did he ask Bryan directly about the theory of evolution; the trial had been entirely redefined (Numbers, p. 183). The verdict of guilty was achieved as the ACLU desired, but the publicity of the trial had been lost to the anti-evolution campaign. The trial was later thrown out of an appeals court on a technicality, thus was a complete waste of time, funds, and effort for the ACLU (Handout, “The Scopes Trial”, Barnes, Outcome, p.