The Monkey Trial:

The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes

The Place:

The Characters:

The Situation:

What's at Stake?

The Conflict:

The Outcome:
Clarence Darrow William
(lawyer for the Jennings
defense) Bryan (lawyer
for the
prosecution)

1. Summarize the main argument for each of the two sides. Why does
Bryan fear the teaching of evolution? Why does Darrow believe that this
case could lead to a “slippery slope”?

2. The boy (Howard Morgan) was a witness for the prosecution. What do
you think his purpose was? How did the Defense use the witness to make
their case? Who do you think was more persuasive? Why?

3. When Clarence Darrow called Bryan to the stand, was there any
discussion about the facts of the case? What did they discuss? How
does the exchange between the two show the conflict between
tradition and modernity in the 1920s?
 William Jennings Bryan's Opening Statement

Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher of morals. It can perfect machinery, but it adds no
moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of the machine. It can also build gigantic intellectual
ships, but it constructs no moral rudders for the control of storm tossed human vessel. It not only fails
to supply the spiritual element needed but some of its unproven hypotheses rob the ship of its compass
and thus endangers its cargo. In war, science has proven itself an evil genius; it has made war more
terrible than it ever was before. Man used to be content to slaughter his fellowmen on a single plane--
the earth's surface. Science has taught him to go down into the water and shoot up from below and to
go up into the clouds and shoot down from above, thus making the battlefield three times a bloody as it
was before; but science does not teach brotherly love. Science has made war so hellish that civilization
was about to commit suicide; and now we are told that newly discovered instruments of destruction
will make the cruelties of the late war seem trivial in comparison with the cruelties of wars that may
come in the future. If civilization is to be saved from the wreckage threatened by intelligence not
consecrated by love, it must be saved by the moral code of the meek and lowly Nazarene. His
teachings, and His teachings, alone, can solve the problems that vex heart and perplex the world....
It is for the jury to determine whether this attack upon the Christian religion shall be permitted in the
public schools of Tennessee by teachers employed by the state and paid out of the public treasury. This
case is no longer local, the defendant ceases to play an important part. The case has assumed the
proportions of a battle-royal between unbelief that attempts to speak through so-called science and the
defenders of the Christian faith, speaking through the legislators of Tennessee. It is again a choice
between God and Baal; it is also a renewal of the issue in Pilate's court....
Again force and love meet face to face, and the question, "What shall I do with Jesus?" must be
answered. A bloody, brutal doctrine--Evolution--demands, as the rabble did nineteen hundred years
ago, that He be crucified. That cannot be the answer of this jury representing a Christian state and
sworn to uphold the laws of Tennessee. Your answer will be heard throughout the world; it is eagerly
awaited by a praying multitude. If the law is nullified, there will be rejoice wherever God is repudiated,
the savior scoffed at and the Bible ridiculed. Every unbeliever of every kind and degree will be happy.
If, on the other hand, the law is upheld and the religion of the school children protected, millions of
Christians will call you blessed and, with hearts full of gratitude to God, will sing again that grand old
song of triumph: "Faith of our fathers, living still, In spite of dungeon, fire and sword; O how our
hearts beat high with joy Whene'er we hear that glorious word--- Faith of our fathers--Holy faith; We
will be true to thee till death!"

Clarence Darrow Argues the Law is Unconstitutional

If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public school,
tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools, and the next year you can make it a
crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the
newspapers. Soon you may set Catholic against Protestant and Protestant against Protestant, and try to
foist your own religion upon the minds of men. If you can do one you can do the other. Ignorance and
fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding. Always it is feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the
public school teachers,tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lectures, the
magazines, the books, the newspapers. After while, your honor, it is the setting of man against man and
creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the
glorious ages of the sixteenth century when bigots lighted [sticks] to burn the men who dared to bring
any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind
 Testimony of a Student of Scopes
Direct examination by the Prosecution:
Q--Your name is Howard Morgan?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--You are Mr. Luke Morgan's son?
A--Yes, Sir....
Q--Your Father is in the bank here, Dayton Bank and Trust company?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--How old are you?
A--14 years.
Q--Did you attend school here at Dayton last year?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--What school?
A--High School.
Q--Central High School.
A--Yes, sir.
Q--Did you study anything under Prof. Scopes?
A--Yes sir.
Q--Did you study this book, General Science?
A--Yes, sir....
Q--Were you studying that book in April of this year, Howard?
A-Yes, sir.
Q--Did Prof. Scopes teach it to you?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--When did you complete the book?
A--Latter part of April
Q-When was school out?
A--First or second of May.
Q--You studied it then up to a week or so before school was out?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--Now, you say you were studying this book in April; how did Prof. Scopes teach that book to you? I
mean by that did he ask you questions and you answered them or did he give you lectures, or both? Just
explain to the jury here now, these gentleman here in front of you, how he taught the books to you.
A--Well, sometimes he would ask us questions and then he would lecture to us on different subjects in
the book.
Q--Sometimes he asked you questions and sometimes lectured to you on different subjects in the book?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--Did he ever undertake to teach you anything about evolution?
A--Yes, sir....
Q--Just state in your own words, Howard, what he taught you and when it was.
A--It was along about the 2d of April.
Q--Of this year?
A--Yes, sir; of this year. He said that the earth was once a hot molten mass too hot for plant or animal
life to exist upon it; in the sea the earth cooled off; there was a little germ of one cell organism formed,
and this organism kept evolving until it got to be a pretty good-sized animal, and then came on to be a
land animal and it kept on evolving, and from this was man.
Q--I ask you further, Howard, how did he classify man with reference to other animals; what did he say
about them?
A--Well, the book and he both classified man along with cats and dogs, cows, horses, monkeys, lions,
horses and all that.
Q--What did he say they were?
A--Mammals.
Q--Classified them along with dogs, cats, horses, monkeys and cows?
A--Yes, sir.
Cross examination by Mr. Darrow:
Q--Let's see, your name is what?
A--Howard Morgan.
Q--Now, Howard, what do you mean by classify?
A--Well, it means classify these animals we mentioned, that men were just the same as them, in other
words--
Q--He didn't say a cat was the same as a man?
A--No, sir: he said man had a reasoning power; that these animals did not.
Q--There is some doubt about that, but that is what he said, is it? (Laughter in the courtroom.)
The Court--Order.
Defense--With some men.
Darrow--A great many.
Q--Now, Howard , he said they were all mammals, didn't he?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--Did he tell you what a mammal was, or don't you remember?
A--Well, he just said these animals were mammals and man was a mammal.
Q--No; but did he tell you what distinguished mammals from other animals?
A--I Don't remember.
Q--If he did, you have forgotten it? Didn't he say that mammals were those beings which suckled their
young?
A--I don't remember about that .
Q--You don't remember?
A--No.
Q--Do you remember what he said that made any animal a mammal, what it was or don't you
remember?
A--I don't remember.
Q--But he said that all of them were mammals?
A--All what?
Q--Dogs and horses, monkeys, cows, man, whales, I cannot state all of them, but he said all of those
were mammals?
A--Yes, sir; but I don't know about the whales; he said all those other ones. (Laughter in the
courtroom.)
The Court--Order....
Q--Well, did he tell you anything else that was wicked?
A--No, not that I remember of....
Q--Now, he said the earth was once a molten mass of liquid, didn't he?
A--Yes.
Q--By molten, you understand melted?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--After that, it got cooled enough and the soil came, that plants grew; is that right?
A--Yes, sir, yes, sir.
Q--And that the first life was in the sea? And that it developed into life on the land?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--And finally into the highest organism which is know to man?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--Now, that is about what he taught you?
Q--It has not hurt you any, has it?
A--No, sir.
Darrow--That's all.

Examination of William Jennings Bryan by Clarence Darrow

Q--You have given considerable study to the Bible, haven't you, Mr. Bryan?
A--Yes, sir, I have tried to.
Q--Then you have made a general study of it?
A--Yes, I have; I have studied the Bible for about fifty years, or sometime more than that, but, of
course, I have studied it more as I have become older than when I was but a boy.
Q--You claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?
A--I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there: some of the Bible is given
illustratively. For instance: "Ye are the salt of the earth." I would not insist that man was actually salt,
or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people.
Q--But when you read that Jonah swallowed the whale--or that the whale swallowed Jonah-- excuse
me please--how do you literally interpret that?
A--When I read that a big fish swallowed Jonah--it does not say whale....That is my recollection of it. A
big fish, and I believe it, and I believe in a God who can make a whale and can make a man and make
both what He pleases.
Q--Now, you say, the big fish swallowed Jonah, and he there remained how long--three days-- and then
he spewed him upon the land. You believe that the big fish was made to swallow Jonah?
A--I am not prepared to say that; the Bible merely says it was done.
Q--You don't know whether it was the ordinary run of fish, or made for that purpose?
A--You may guess; you evolutionists guess.....
Q--You are not prepared to say whether that fish was made especially to swallow a man or not?
A--The Bible doesn't say, so I am not prepared to say.
Q--But do you believe He made them--that He made such a fish and that it was big enough to swallow
Jonah?
A--Yes, sir. Let me add: One miracle is just as easy to believe as another
Q--Just as hard?
A--It is hard to believe for you, but easy for me. A miracle is a thing performed beyond what man can
perform. When you get within the realm of miracles; and it is just as easy to believe the miracle of
Jonah as any other miracle in the Bible.
Q--Perfectly easy to believe that Jonah swallowed the whale?
A--If the Bible said so; the Bible doesn't make as extreme statements as evolutionists do....
Q--The Bible says Joshua commanded the sun to stand still for the purpose of lengthening the day,
doesn't it, and you believe it?
A--I do.
Q--Do you believe at that time the entire sun went around the earth?
A--No, I believe that the earth goes around the sun.
Q--Do you believe that the men who wrote it thought that the day could be lengthened or that the sun
could be stopped?
A--I don't know what they thought.
Q--You don't know?
A--I think they wrote the fact without expressing their own thoughts.
[the crowd applaudes this comment]
Darrow--Great applause from the bleachers.
Witness--From those whom you call "Yokels."
Darrow--I have never called them yokels.
Witness--That is the ignorance of Tennessee, the bigotry.
Darrow--You mean who are applauding you? (Applause.)
Witness--Those are the people whom you insult.
Darrow--You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does believe in your
fool religion. Do you know anything about how many people there were in Egypt 3,500 years ago, or
how many people there were in China 5,000 years ago?
A--No.
Q--Have you ever tried to find out?
A--No, sir. You are the first man I ever heard of who has been in interested in it. (Laughter.)
Q--Mr. Bryan, am I the first man you ever heard of who has been interested in the age of human
societies and primitive man?
A--You are the first man I ever heard speak of the number of people at those different periods.
Q--Where have you lived all your life?
A--Not near you. (Laughter and applause.)
Q--Nor near anybody of learning?
A--Oh, don't assume you know it all.
Q--Do you know there are thousands of books in our libraries on all those subjects I have been asking
you about?
A--I couldn't say, but I will take your word for it....
Q--Have you any idea how old the earth is?
A--No.
Q--The Book you have introduced in evidence tells you, doesn't it?
A--I don't think it does, Mr. Darrow. [And let me be clear] The reason I am answering is not for the
benefit of the superior court. It is to keep these gentlemen from saying I was afraid to meet them and let
them question me, and I want the Christian world to know that any atheist, agnostic, unbeliever, can
question me anytime as to my belief in God, and I will answer him.
Darrow--I want to take an exception to this conduct of this witness. He may be very popular down
here in the hills....
Bryan--Your honor, they have not asked a question legally and the only reason they have asked any
question is for the purpose, as the question about Jonah was asked, for a chance to give this agnostic an
opportunity to criticize a believer in the world of God; and I answered the question in order to shut his
mouth so that he cannot go out and tell his atheistic friends that I would not answer his questions. That
is the only reason, no more reason in the world.
 The Legacy of “The Monkey Trial”
The State of Tennessee v. Scopes is a trial that did not
have any grand legal consequences for the participants;
Mr. Scopes only had to pay a small fine, which was later
rescinded anyway. But the trial was significant in two
very large ways.

To begin, it was the first trial to have a “media circus”;

more words were written about this trial than any other
event in American history up to the day.

Second, it was just another battle royale in the struggle

between “traditionalists” [old values] and the new
generation and their new values during the 1920s.

Your task will be to analyze the Scopes Trial, or its aftermath, from a variety of
different perspectives. You will complete one of the following projects:
• Write the closing statement for either the prosecution or the defense in the
case. Your statement should explain why the client is either guilty or not
guilty, and should state why your particular set of values should triumph in
the debate.
• Create a political cartoon analyzing the Scopes Trial for a major newspaper of
the time. It must include the following:
◦ 3 symbols
◦ Be large, neat, detailed, and colorful
◦ Clearly show the conflict between new and old values in the 1920s
◦ Show the author's opinion of the case
• Read the article provided about the decision of the Kansas School Board.
Compare this relatively recent situation to the Scopes Trial of 1925. How are
the two cases similar? How are they different? What have we learned from
the Scopes Trial, if anything? And how does this situation illustrate the
conflict between old and new values in today's society?

Regardless of which project you choose, it will be worth 20 points, and is due on
______________________.
 Kansas school board's evolution ruling
angers science community
August 12, 1999
Web posted at: 10:08 p.m. EDT (0208 GMT)
From Correspondent Brian Cabell

TOPEKA, Kansas (CNN) -- A decision this week by the Kansas Board of Education to
delete the teaching of evolution from the state's science curriculum has angered the
mainstream science community in the United States.
"This act ... took us back 100 years in science teaching and education," says Barry Lynn,
executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "I hope the
courts will be the one to find time to correct the decision."
The board's decision doesn't require the teaching of creationism, nor does it forbid the
teaching of evolution. The specific curriculum is left to the local school boards -- and to
the teachers who now find themselves with questions.
"Do we touch on those areas? What about students who do not want to hear this
viewpoint?" says Tammy Stauber, an eighth-grade science teacher. "Should they be
allowed to leave the classroom, or is it mandatory that they have to listen to the
teacher?"
Other states, including Texas, California, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Nebraska
and New Hampshire, have witnessed battles between evolutionists and creationists in the
last several years.
But the Kansas decision seems to be a major victory for those who believe that the
Bible's book of Genesis, not the theory of evolution, explains the origin of man.
"You can't apply the scientific method to evolution," says Gary Demar of the group
American Vision. "It's never been observed. You can't repeat the experiment. And so
what's being sold as science, in terms of evolution, really isn't science in terms of the
way they define it."
If the decision stands, some Kansas students will continue to learn about evolution,
while others may learn about creationism. But the courts could intervene and rule that
the school board's decision violates the separation of church and state.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/12/kansas.evolution.flap/