Alas, Poor Darwin - I Knew Him Well
In Part 6 (Who Needs Darwin, Anyway?) we came across the claim, made by State Geologist Wibur Nelson, that geology in Tennessee had, for the last 97 years, been based on the assumption that evolution had taken place. And we noted that 1925 minus 97 took us back to 1828, 31 years before Darwin's book On the Origin of Species was first published. Strange as this may seem today, in 1925 it made very good sense - in America, at least:
Wibur A Nelson (geologist), in written evidence
"This is not a new study in Tennessee, as geology and its study of buried animal and plant remains has been taught in this state since 1828, at which time Gerard Troost, one of the founders of the Philadelphia Academy of Science, was elected professor of geology at the University of Nashville, and three years later was elected state geologist of Tennessee. From that date to the present time, this science, dealing with the age and study of the earth, and its rocks and the buried life which they contain, has been continuously taught in Tennessee.
Such teaching could not have been carried on through ninety-seven years of time, unless the teaching of evolution had been permitted as it was permitted by our religious ancestors who formed this state.
Winterton C. Curtis (zoologist), in written evidence
"Modern evolutionism dates not from Darwin's "Origin of Species," published in 1859, but from the historic Naturello of Buffen, the first volume of which appeared in 1749, and from the work of the other philosopher-naturalists of the eighteenth century. It is a sad comment upon the state of popular information that the practical facts of biological science are everywhere acknowledged, while the status of its greatest philosophical generalization remains so commonly unknown."
Curtis went on to explain:
"The importance of Darwin's work in the history of scientific thought is that it convinced science of the truth of organic evolution and proposed a then plausible theory of evolutionary causation. Since Darwin's time evolution as the historic fact has received confirmation on every hand. It is now regarded by competent scientists as the only rational explanation of an overwhelming mass of facts. Its strength lies in the extent to which it gives meaning to so many phenomena that would be meaningless without such an hypothesis.
But the case of natural selection is far different. Of recent years this theory of the causes of evolution has suffered a decline. No other hypothesis, however, has completely displaced it. It remains the most satisfactory explanation of the origin of adaptations, although its all-sufficiency is no longer accepted."
Horatio Hackett Newman (zoologist), quoted by Hays
"The secret of the difficulty lies in the fact that there are two Darwinisms, the popular one and the technic [sic] one. The layman uses the term Darwinism as a synonym of evolution in the broadest sense; the evolutionist never uses the word in this sense, but always uses it as a synonym for natural selection, one of Darwin's chief theories. The general principle of evolution has nothing to do with natural selection. The latter might be totally discredited without in the least shaking the validity of the principle. But this situation is not at all understood by the antievolutionists, who believe that Darwinism (the principle of evolution) is inextricably bound up with Darwinism (the theory of natural selection)."
"Christian" Scientists?
In theory (that is to say, according to the ACLU), the scientific experts the defense team wanted to put on the stand were all Christians, thus making their evidence doubly important - once to explain what evolution was all about, and once to demonstrate that any "intelligent" Christian could live comfortably with both the teachings of Christianity and the teaching of evolution.
In practice, after reading the written testimony submitted by the scientists, a rather different picture emerges:
Firstly, it seems that only a minority of the scientific witnesses were prepared to express a view as to how evolutionism and God might comfortably co-exist, thus:
Jacob Lipman (specialist in "soil science")
"In following the laws laid down by the divine Creator, [man] has been able to fashion more perfect forms of plant and animal life."
"We are indebted to science for a clearer vision of the great laws of nature, and of the methods of the divine Creator."
Kirtley Mather (geologist)
"I believe that life as we know it is but one manifestation of the mysterious spiritual powers which permeate the universe."
"Although it is possible to construct a mechanistic evolutionary hypothesis which rules God out of the world, the theories of theistic evolution held by millions of scientifically trained Christian men and women lead inevitably to a better knowledge of God and a firmer faith in His effective presence in the world."
Maynard Metcalf (zoologist)
"God's growing revelation of Himself to the human soul cannot be realized without recognition of the evolutionary method He has chosen."
"God is just as truly and just as intimately acting in the gradual growth of a plant from a seed or a man from a fertilized egg as He would be in creating the full grown plant or man all at once in a thousandth part of a second of time."
"One of God's greatest revelations of Himself to man has come through His showing us His habit of producing results, by gradual growth, by evolution, rather than by immediate fiat."
Winterton Curtis (zoologist) also mentioned a "Creator", but without much enthusiasm or conviction and the passage in question looks more like a hypothetical scenario than a statement of belief:
"Another line of evidence is that of geographical distribution. The facts in this connection are utterly senseless and insulting to an intelligent Creator, if viewed as a result of special creation. One can simply say, 'God did it,; and not ask why. But such explanations do not satisfy modern minds."
Whilst most of the experts probably agreed on this point, Professor Newman was almost alone when he made it unambiguously clear that, in his opinion, no god or creator had a hand in the "origin of species".
Horatio Hackett Newman (zoologist)
"All of the lines of evidence presented point strongly to organic evolution, and none are contrary to this principle. Most of the facts, moreover, are utterly incompatible with the only rival explanation, special creation."
Newman's forthright statement was interestingly at odds with the attempts by other witnesses to gloss over this point in order to preserve the idea that a belief in evolution and a belief in the Genesis account were somehow compatible.
The Scopes "Monkey" Trial Site Map
|
Introduction
A brief description of the Scopes Trial - the original proceedings, the effective fictionalising of the event in F.L. Allen's book Only Yesterday, and the confusion surrounding the play Inherit the Wind. Also a short biography of the author.
Part 1: Summary
A short history of the events leading up to the Scopes Trial, the trial itself, and what happened afterwards. Includes lists of the lawyers, witnesses, jurors, etc. involved in the Scopes Trial. Explains why it was called the "Monkey" trial.
Part 2: Inherit the Wind
Looks at the real story behind the writing of the play Inherit the Wind, and some of the key differences between the play and the actual trial. Explains where the title came from, and what it signifies.
Part 3: A Cult of Misinformation
The Scopes Trial has been the subject of a mountain of misinformation from the time of the trial through to the present day. The members of this "cult" include not just journalists and authors but also lawyers, university professors, the Encyclopaedia Britannica and even the Library of Congress. This section shows why the real life events are so widely misunderstood today.
Part 4: How it Began
Discusses the Butler Act (the basis for the charge against John Scopes), the action of the ACLU, the "Drugstore Conspiracy" which led to the trial being staged in Dayton, and how the two sets of lawyers were selected - or in some cases selected themselves. This section includes the names of all of the lawyers on both sides.
Part 5: The Experts - and Others
Details of the expert witnesses due to give evidence for the defense - and two potential witnesses, one of whom did make an appearance (Piltdown Man), and one who didn't (Nebraska Man).
Part 6: The Expert Evidence
Arthur Hays claimed that the expert witnesses would deal only in "facts." This section discusses specific items of "expert testimony" in the light of that claim and subsequent discoveries.
Part 7: Hunter's Civic Biology
Details of the true nature of the contents of Hunter's textbook A Civic Biology.
Part 8: The Trial - Part 1 In preparation
A timeline of the main events of the trial on a day-by-day basis.
Part 9: The Trial - Part 2
A detailed evaluation of the confrontation between Darrow and Bryan on the afternoon of day 7, with numerous quotes from the trial transcript and elsewhere.
Part 10: The Appeal
Many people know that the Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the original result of the trial, but why? Was John Scopes found "not guilty"? What reasons did the Supreme Court give for their decision?
And what the heck is a nolle prosequi anyway?
Part 11: Was Scopes Guilty?
Another remarkable feature of the Scopes Trial was the number of lies involved - the biggest of which centers on the likelihood that the defense lawyers deliberately concealed the fact that Scopes was genuinely "not guilty."
Part 12: 80 Years of Evolution and Species
(Under Construction. Additional material will be added. Existing material may be subject to further editing.)
In Part 6 we looked at the kind of "evidence" offered by the expert witnesses. In this section we look specifically at the meaning of terms such as "evolution" and "species" in 1925 and 2006.
Part 13: Education After the Scopes Trial
This section describes what happened to the teaching of evolutionary theory in American schools after the trial; and what Americans believe about the teaching of evolutionism and creationism today.
Part 14: Clarence Darrow - Attorney for the Damned?
Whilst the ACLU triggered the Scopes Trial, and the "drugstore conspirators" brought it to Dayton, the guiding force behind the events during the trial itself was Clarence Darrow. This section looks at what motivated Darrow to essentially hi-jack the ACLU campaign and use it for his own ends.
Part 15: The Significance of the Scopes Trial
This section considers some of the many clashes in American society in the 1920s and considers whether they were genuine clashes, and if they were, what influence the Scopes Trial had an on any of them. It also reveals what will be, for many people, surprising new information about the role of the University of Chicago in American culture at that time discovered by Professor of the History of Science, Edward Davis.
Part 16: The Play, the Movie and the Trial
(Under Construction. Additional material will be added. Existing material may be subject to further editing.)
A detailed examination of the differences between the play and first (1960) film version of Inherit the Wind, and the real life Scopes Trial.
Part 20: Links and Resources
A list of websites and books related to the Scopes Trial, including the trial transcript and the script of Inherit the Wind.
|