The Monkey Trial debate rages on

July 21, 2008

Eighty-three years ago today John Thomas Scopes, a 24-year-old football coach and substitute science teacher, was found guilty of violating Tennessee’s anti-evolution law in the famous Scopes “Monkey Trial.”

On July 21, 1925, the jury returned its verdict in a Dayton, Tenn. courtroom after a week-long trial that pitted religion and science — and two famous lawyers — against one another.

Scopes’ attorney, Clarence Darrow, argued that the Butler law — which prohibited teaching in public schools “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” — was unconstitutional as it violated the freedom of religion.

William Jennings Bryan, known as a leader in the anti-evolution movement, prosecuted the case and — in an unusual twist —was at one point called by Darrow to testify as a biblical expert.

The verdict was eventually overturned on a technicality, and the Butler law was repealed in 1967.

Today, school boards continue to debate how students should be taught the origins of life. The latest proposal asks the state education board of Texas to include a discussion of the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution in the curriculum.

In the “trial of century,” which lawyer would you have rooted for?

CHRISTINA DORAN, Assistant Legal Editor

Sphere: Related Content

Posted by The Daily Record | Filed Under law 

Comments

2 Responses to “The Monkey Trial debate rages on”

  1. Publicus on July 22nd, 2008 8:07 am

    Is “which lawyer would you have rooted for” intended as parody? I always thought that in trial a person would “root” for the truth. What’s the point of having a legal system if its decisions are not based on truth? Rooting for players is for sports and law is not a game.

    Oh yeah, I would have rooted for the court to recognize the truth of evolution. Whether it did nor not wouldn’t change anything, of course. Evolution happens, as the expression goes, and religion doesn’t.

  2. Aequitas on July 24th, 2008 5:24 pm

    There are certainly many types of cases where some (but not necessarily all) people would “root” for the truth, such as most common law torts or crimes. Is it true that the person was negligently driving the car and hit another car? If yes, then you have a tort. Is it true that this person stole your property? If yes, then we have a crime (and a tort). However, many cases do not lend themselves to manichean categorization like “truth” versus “falsehood” or good versus evil.

    Often, cases revolve around courts (or society generally) grappling with policy decisions or the extent to which society may impose majoritarian values without oppressing fundamental rights of individuals. In the Scopes trial, was it true that he was teaching evolution, which the Tennessee legislature, in its infinite wisdom, deemed a crime? Yes, it was true. But is that the “truth” that Publicus is referring to?

    I can infer from the posting that Publicus is referring to a greater truth, such as whether evolution is “true” or whether the teaching of evolution in a science class should be a crime punishable in a modern, democratic, and just society. But is that necessarily “truth”?

    Or, is a more proper role for the courts, pursuant to the First Amendment, to ensure that courts neither permit nor enforce a law that defines “truth,” thus limiting the role of the courts and the law to that which is necessary for peaceful coexistence in a society?

    Taken from that perspective, where is the truth in this case? I understood the moderator to be asking where people stood in the long-running debate over whether evolution and/or creationism (or intelligent design, if you would rather that euphemism) should be taught in public schools. The “truth” here likely depends on your perspective. The law’s place in this debate, then, is to ensure that each party is entitled to their own truth without impinging on the rights of the other to do the same.

    Finally, from a more limited perspective - in a admittedly adversarial legal system, is the point of the courts still to seek truth? Or are the courts there to ensure some semblance of a level playing field for the parties to contest an issue? In such a contest, the law is surely a game that is played. Why not root for one side or the other?

Got something to say?





Business

The business staff of The Daily Record newspaper will contribute to this section. We'll write about topics ranging from the workplace to energy to the environment, but we'll strive to keep it as local as possible.

RSS Business posts

Law

The Daily Record’s been Maryland’s legal newspaper for 120 years or so. Now, we want to be Maryland’s legal blog, too. Click here to join the discussion and read posts by our legal team, including our Monday law blog round-up.

RSS Law posts

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • Ronald Henry Pierce: Not proud of how we came together, but proud to have her. Want to read about the chld’s...
  • vampire: ROFL - that Bruce, he sure has a way with words. Karma, dude.
  • Any Given Tuesday: To the previous commenter, unless you’re paid to submit comments to blogs, I’m going...
  • Caryn Tamber: You’re right; I should have credited the Romenesko media blog, which is where I read the story...
  • curious: Either you read the Seattle Times on a regular basis (unlikely), or you read about Shakespear...