July 8, 2010 3:07 PM

"Monkey Trial" 85 Years Old Today

By
Charles Cooper
Topics
In The News ,
Tech Talk
Later this month Dayton, Tenn. will host a weekend festival capped off by a dramatization of the trial which engraved this small town's name into the nation's cultural narrative. Exactly 85 years ago today, a Dayton schoolteacher named John C. Scopes went on trial, accused of violating a state law prohibiting the teaching of the theory of evolution.

Charles Darwin

What came to be known as the "Monkey Trial" (subsequently immortalized by journalist H.L. Mencken), the case was a showdown between progressives and creationists, who wanted to ban the teaching of Charles Darwin's writing about evolution from local schools.

William Jennings Bryan, a three-time candidate for president, led the prosecution. He was pitted against the famous Chicago attorney Clarence Darrow. The trial lived up to the hype, but it ended on a flat note.

Toward the end of the trial, Darrow asked the jury to find Scopes guilty because he intended to appeal the verdict to the state's Supreme Court. The jury complied and Scopes was fined $100.

The following year, Tennessee's Supreme Court reversed the decision on a technicality.

Writing for the majority, the court's chief justice dismissed the case, saying "We see nothing to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case. On the contrary, we think the peace and dignity of the State, which all criminal prosecutions are brought to redress, will be better conserved by the entry of a nolle prosequi herein. Such a course is suggested to the Attorney-General."

11 Photos

Evolutionism vs Creationism: The Scopes Trial

View the Full Gallery »

But the battle over evolution continues. Only last month, a federal court prevented the Institute for Creation Research's plans to award master's degrees in science education from "a Biblical scientific creationist viewpoint."

Mencken: Homo Neanderthalensis

More about Mencken

Also, check out this clip from a 1996 BBC documentary that focused on a science classroom in Dayton, TN:


  • Charles Cooper is an executive editor at CNET News. He has covered technology and business for more than 25 years, working at CBSNews.com, the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie.

Add a Comment See all 54 Comments
by DBrown1447 July 12, 2010 10:05 AM EDT
Inherit The Wind, one of the greatest movies of all time, was about the monkey trial. Spencer Tracy played the Clarence Darrow character. Gene Kelly played the H.L. Mencken character. About 85% of the courtroom dialog was lifted directly from the trial transcripts. The movie is hilarious in how it portrays the backwater Bible types. I highly recommend everyone rent the movie.
Reply to this comment
by P0ST1ING_AWAY July 9, 2010 6:55 PM EDT
by JosephU2 July 9, 2010 6:16 PM EDT
Q. Creation, evolution ... What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?
===============================================
Thanks for providing us with mindless drivel.
You and your fellow brethren are a bunch of MINDLESS sheep.
Reply to this comment
by JosephU2 July 9, 2010 6:16 PM EDT
Q. Creation, evolution ... What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?

A. - Molecules-to-man evolutionary theory violates the second law of thermodynamics by positing spontaneous increases in order through random interactions of matter.

- Matter from explosions does not condense to form objects like galaxies.

- Chemicals do not react together randomly to form amino acids through natural processes.

- Amino acids do not randomly interact to form living cells through undirected natural processes.

- Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life.

- The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings....

- Many worldwide natural processes indicate an age for the earth of 10,000 years or less. These include population kinetics, influx of radiocarbon into earth?s atmosphere, absence of meteorites from the geologic column, and decay of earth?s magnetic field.
...
- There is no gradualism in the fossil record, no intermediate types.

CONCLUSION: Natural science offers no evidence that would contradict the plain and obvious sense of Genesis 1-11... "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ..."

For more info, Google:
Creation Doctrine What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins? Kolbe Center
Reply to this comment
by rational_1 July 9, 2010 9:34 PM EDT
A. - Molecules-to-man evolutionary theory violates the second law of thermodynamics by positing spontaneous increases in order through random interactions of matter.

Then you must not believe in the spontaneous formation of ice in your freezer. It's a more ordered form of water and thus must also violate the second law of thermodynamics.

- Matter from explosions does not condense to form objects like galaxies.

Ever heard of gravity - or maybe intelligent falling in your case?

- Chemicals do not react together randomly to form amino acids through natural processes.

Look up the Miller-Urey experiment on Google to see just how wrong you are on this point.

Given your track record on your first three points I have better things to do this evening than to educate you on the rest. If you're going to criticize the supposed failings of science, your credibility would be greatly aided if you weren't so cripplingly ignorant of it.
by M-Creek July 9, 2010 2:40 PM EDT
Several good books on the general topic of faith and science have appeared in recent years. My favorite is: The Prism and the Rainbow (2010, Johns Hopkins Press). There are some good reviews on the Amazon site. I think several of you would enjoy and benefit from what's in there. It lays out the case for evolution from a Christian perspective without being too abrasive toward either side of the issue, I think. Oh, and TV01CITW and bugwhips -- you're both simply, and embarassingly, wrong. If you think you're doing Christianity a favor, you are quite mistaken. Again, read the above-mentioned book.
Reply to this comment
by democracy5 July 12, 2010 4:24 AM EDT
It would be a waste of their time, since they wouldn't have the intelligence to comprehend it.
by afmcalax July 9, 2010 9:59 AM EDT
That creationism can even be remotely believed by anyone of intelligence in the 21st century shows just how dumb Americans are becoming. This lack of scientific intellect will eventually spell our doom as socities willing to embrace science over religious dogma will quickly out pace us. It seems like many Americans take pride in the embracement of ignorance ... creationism is one such fable.
Reply to this comment
by bugwhips July 9, 2010 10:41 AM EDT
So you can explain life? What life is how it came into being, where it goes.......

War it created in the big bang, if so why and how? I know you can guess but that's not scientific and your all about being scientific right? I mean we can postulate all day long on the origin of life but until there is undeniable proof you just guessing.
by GalapagosPete July 9, 2010 11:53 AM EDT
bugwhips, just because we don't know something isn't evidence that some god somewhere must have done it.

We don't understand everything about mental illness; do you believe that it's caused by demonic possession? People used to think that, but that "theory" is no longer considered valid. Not by intelligent people, anyway.

Not understanding something completely or even at all in no way supports belief in gods or demons being the cause.

You'll need to come up with some sort of actual evidence in support of your favored position. The slightest shred of evidence trumps the best argument.
by RickK101 July 9, 2010 9:19 AM EDT
TVO1CITW said: "Let's be clear. Evolution is a scientific "theory" which is based upon a scientific "belief" that man evolved from nothing. "

Let's be clear - it is a fact that current species evolved from earlier species, through the natural mechanisms of reproduction, variation and selection. It is a fact that most (probably all) life on Earth shares common ancestry. These are proved beyond any reasonable doubt by confirming evidence found in: shared & divergent morphology, co-evolved relationships, convergent evolution, observed speciation, Lenski experiments, shared DNA, inherited ERV markers, molecular biology, vestigial traits, atavisms, genetic mutation, embryology, the fossil record, paleontology, archaeology, transitional species predictions, radiometric dating, dendrochronology, thermoluminescence dating, ice core dating, biostratiography, archaeogenetics, biogeography, plate tectonics, geology, chemistry, and physics.

Like I said - you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
Reply to this comment
by bugwhips July 9, 2010 10:09 AM EDT
Nice I dea but it doesn't disprove "Intelligent Design", why? Because for one it doesn't explain life itself. Until we know that then claims that there is no intelligent design is without merit.

"If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." - Charles Darwin

Well in a hundred and fifty years scientists haven't proved it right or wrong.
by RickK101 July 9, 2010 10:21 AM EDT
bugwhips said: "Nice I dea but it doesn't disprove "Intelligent Design""

Nope, nor does it disprove the existence of an incorporeal dragon in my garage. Nor does it disprove that we're all living in the Matrix.

But as I said before - invoking the supernatural designer in the sky has been a failure so very very often, that it simply no longer makes any sense to start with a "god" assumption. Here are just a few examples where the supernatural has failed as an explanation:

The Sun - was a god, now a ball of fusing hydrogen
The Moon - was a god(dess), now a big round dusty rock
The stars - were gods or spirits, more flaming gas balls
The tides - were attributed to gods, now gravity
The seasons - attributed to gods, now Earth's tilt
Earthquakes - were caused by gods, now plate tectonics
Lightning - was thrown by a god, now static electricity
Rain & drought - was God, now atmospheric moisture
Health & disease - was God, now germs & genetics
Schizophrenia - was demonic possession, now brain chemicals
Epilepsy - was divine possession, now neurology
Origin of species - was God, now science (evolution)
Identity & personality - was the soul, now neuroscience

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
? Isaac Asimov
See all 4 Replies
by book_of_wally July 9, 2010 9:12 AM EDT
My theory is you are all figments of my imagination.
Reply to this comment
by RickK101 July 9, 2010 9:05 AM EDT
hdiaz didn't like my comparison of belief in creationism to the belief in the divinity of Charles Manson. He said: "Don't be so ignorant... Religion has been studied for many many years way before evolution was even in the minds of people. "

Witchcraft has been studied for many years too. So has astrology. Both pre-date Christianity by thousands of years. So should we teach witchcraft and astrology in science classes as well? Just because an idea is old doesn't mean it is science.

Evidence, not "belief", determines truth in science.

He also didn't like my correcting STBY21's incorrect definition of a scientific "theory".

No, hdiaz, I was not expressing an opinion, I was stating a fact. You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

And no, evolutionary theory is NOT related to the Big Bang - you are wrong. Do you doubt chemistry because it doesn't explain where elements come from? Do you doubt computer science because it doesn't explain the origin of silicon? Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology - that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

But both modern cosmology and evolution are clearly disturbing to your religious beliefs. So what? Your religious beliefs have exactly zero bearing on the truth of evolution or the evidence for the Big Bang.
Reply to this comment
by TVO1CITW July 9, 2010 7:35 AM EDT
displeased said "Because evolution is based on science, religion is based on beliefs. If you want to learn about religion, attend a religious studies course. If you want to learn about evolution or astronomy, attend a science class. The difference should be clear."

Let's be clear. Evolution is a scientific "theory" which is based upon a scientific "belief" that man evolved from nothing. Scientist have been trying to prove that ever since Darwin. That is like the Greeks saying that Zeus was a god and men start a religion trying to "believe" him into existance. There is only one God and we believe in Him because He has revealed Himself to His elect. It is a different kind of belief than what evolutionist think because they think with the brain of a monkey.
Reply to this comment
by rational_1 July 9, 2010 8:31 AM EDT
It certainly is a different kind of belief - one supported by no empirical data. That's why it doesn't belong in a science classroom. A theory (like relativity or evolution) is at its most basic, a self-consistent explanation for a series of observations. In the case of the theory of evolution it explains many, many observations, such as why human DNA sequences are more similar to those of chimps than say dogs. Can a creationist explain that one simple observation with anything other than "well I guess God made it that way"? That just acquiesces to a fact but does not explain it. That's why creationism isn't science and we do our kids a disservice by confusing them how science works if we teach creationism alongside evolution in a science classroom.
by TVO1CITW July 9, 2010 8:54 AM EDT
Performing your science from the perspective of either creation or evolution will produce different results. I am saying that evolutionist scientist cannot work alongside a creationist scientist and allow each to co-exist. There are great scientists who are creationist and visa-versa. The problem I have is how the media, politics and education have chosen NOT to allow creationist to explore science from their perspective. If you are a creationist, you cannot receive grants to do any studies. Maybe, if you were a Muslim you would be given a blank check.
by ndg1979 July 9, 2010 1:49 AM EDT
There are men of science and men of faith and each has their own explanation of the miracle of creation. However, we must remember that in terms of faith, the bible cannot be considered the word of GOD as it was written by man starting with Moses. It has also been re-written over the centuries and Catholicism has omitted several books from the bible (15 if I remember correctly). Although physical evidence has surfaced to support details in some stories of the bible, there are many embellishments that suggest the bible was written more as a moral guide of the time and was only based loosely on actual events. This is just like when Hollywood makes a movie based on actual events - it embellishes a little. The story of Adam and Eve was written by Moses (the first five books were), and as is evidenced in the bible - Moses was a pretty good story-teller, but there is little to no physical evidence to support much of it. Some people believe so strongly in a book though that they will argue tooth and nail about its contents.

It is when we compare science fact to the bible that we end up confused - why are there no dinosaurs mentioned in the bible even though we have found numerous species of them? Simply, if the bible had been written by GOD, he would have included them. Not one person can tell me that a supposedly perfect being could make that mistake. If GOD exists, he isn't perfect (George Carlin already told us why). Factual science has offered up the best physical evidence of our history, and that is where I am placing my faith.
Reply to this comment
by TVO1CITW July 9, 2010 8:11 AM EDT
You have a distorted view of God. You cannot explain the infinite nor can the created point a finger at its creator. We are not smarter than He is.
by displeased July 9, 2010 9:46 AM EDT
ndg, I agree with the dinosaur comment. If god wrote the bible, why wouldn't it mention the creatures that roamed the earth? Or how about some details of space, such as the rings around Saturn? Of course not. Because the bible is not a work of god, but of men, who didn't have access to telescopes during that time. The sheepherders back then dwelled on their existence and came up with some creative and outdated stories.

TVO, of course we can't explain it yet. We haven't acquired enough evidence or knowledge. That's why we must keep researching and exploring. But folks like you have this attitude that if we can't explain it, then there must be a god.
See all 54 Comments
.
Latest CBS News Headlines Popular CBS News Stories
on Facebook Most Discussed Stories
on CBS News

Follow Tech Talk

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...