The Scopes Trial: Frequently Rebutted Assertions

The trial of John T. Scopes for teaching the evolution of man from lower animals in 1925 has passed from historical event into cultural legend. The are a number of assertions commonly made concerning the course, meaning, and outcome of the trial, and much of what is asserted is only partially true if not flatly wrong. As with others who were not present at the proceedings, I rely upon sources. In my case, I rely most heavily upon the transcript of the trial [1], which works quite well for many questions concerning the trial.  That version of the transcript is also the source of the illustrations used here.  However, transcripts are limited to what occurs inside the courtroom while it is in session, and for other questions one must look elsewhere. For other relevant background, I refer to Ray Ginger's "Six Days or Forever?" [2]. Other references will be given at the end of this FRA. 

Introduction

An Act prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities, Normals, and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach 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.

Section 2. Be it further enacted, That any teacher found guilty of the violation of this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be fined not less than One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars nor more than Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars for each offense.

Section 3. Be it further enacted, That this Act take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it.

The Assertions

Assertion: Nebraska Man was the main evidence in favor of evolution in the Scopes Trial.

There was no physical evidence presented at the Scopes Trial. No expert witness testified before the jury. Only one expert was allowed to speak directly to the court. Statements from experts were read into the transcript at one point. However, no expert whether speaking directly or via affidavit mentioned Nebraska Man in the trial.

The Scopes Trial generated a lot of publicity, and the possibility remains that commentators outside the trial made mention of Nebraska Man. However, this still renders the original assertion false. The Institute for Creation Research grudgingly admits that Nebraska Man was not entered as evidence.

[...] The imaginative newspaper coverage and the timing of the find made a big impression at the 1925 Scopes Trial. Nebraska man was never introduced into the trial, since the lead paleoanthropologist Dr. Fay Cooper cole had some misgivings about it, but it was there nonetheless.

[End quote -- RM Cornelius & JD Morris, 1995, Scopes: Creation on Trial, ICR, p.40.]

Assertion: The evolutionists won the Scopes Trial.

Trying to flatly state who won or lost the Scopes Trial is a futile endeavor. The facts are that the purpose of the Scopes Trial was to begin a process of judicial review of the Butler Act, which did not proceed to a federal court as the ACLU had planned. Scopes was convicted and fined under the Butler Act, but the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the law while overturning the conviction on a technicality. One cannot appeal acquittal.

The ACLU's primary purpose was thwarted, and the Butler Act remained on the Tennessee books until the 1960's, and its success led to anti-evolution legislation in two other states, as well as proposed legislative action in many more states.

The creationists, however, received quite a lot of bad publicity. This was not an unalloyed negative, though, since to some any publicity is good publicity.

Assertion: Clarence Darrow said that not teaching both viewpoints was bigotry.

This quotation appears to have been either made outside the courtroom or perhaps even entirely fabricated. See Rob Zuber's FAQ on this issue.

This assertion has been cited by SciCre-ists as appearing in "Biology, Zoology, and Genetics". Senator Bill Keith of Louisiana is claimed by SciCre-ists to have stated that Darrow made this comment during his closing argument to the jury. Darrow's closing argument, if it can be called that, is very brief and simply says that the issues have to be taken to a higher court. There is no mention of the word "bigotry" in it at all.

Assertion: Darrow was trying to defend the practice of teaching only evolution.

The Butler Act provides penalties for the teaching of evolution. Darrow was defending the right to teach science in a science classroom, and not arguing for exclusivity.

Assertion: Piltdown Man played a large role in expert testimony.

See the entry concerning Nebraska man above for comments on the expert testimony in the Scopes Trial. Piltdown Man was mentioned by two experts in affidavits, and in each case Piltdown was given no special status. The sense of the affidavits indicates that Piltdown Man was considered to be anomalous.

Assertion: Public opinion following the Scopes trial forced states to permit the teaching of evolution in schools.

The pattern of activity in state legislatures following the Scopes trial would support just about the opposite conclusion.

Assertion: Because of the trial, evolution was required to be taught in the public school system.

No such requirement ensued following the Scopes trial.  As stated above, Tennessee's Butler Act remained the state law until the 1960's.

Assertion: The judge in the Scopes trial was the original "boy named Sue".

The judge in the trial was John T. Raulston. However, the prosecution team did include Sue K. Hicks, so the assertion is not quite as false as it could be.

Assertion: No expert testimony was allowed at the trial.

The prosecution plan was to exclude expert testimony as irrelevant to the facts of the case. Judge Raulston did not permit any testimony in the official presence of the jury, but one witness testified and several affidavits were read into the record when the jury was excused. The portions of the trial that took place when the jury was in were relatively short compared to when the jury was out.

Maynard M. Metcalf did take the witness stand on July 15th, 1925. Statements from experts were read into the trial record. The list of those whose statements went into the transcript is:

Charles Hubbard Judd
Jacob L. Lipman
Fay Cooper Cole
Wilber A. Nelson
Kirtley F. Mather
Maynard M. Metcalf
Winterton C. Curtis
Horatio H. Newman

Assertion: William Jennings Bryan was humiliated by Clarence Darrow's examination, and died a dejected and broken man just a few days later.

It is undeniably true that Bryan did die shortly after the conclusion of the Scopes trial. However, there is no indication that Darrow's courtroom questioning caused Bryan any undue distress. Bryan, it should be remembered, was a prominent public speaker and former adminstrator. He repeatedly ran for the presidency, and lost each time he did so. He served in Woodrow Wilson's cabinet, and resigned over the issue of neutrality. Someone who is prone to bouts of depression does not live the life that Bryan chose for himself. Bryan was just as impervious to criticism as most of his modern counterparts are today, if not more so.

Assertion: There is no transcript of the Scopes trial.

Despite widespread jokes concerning backwardness of Tennessee and its courts, the fact remains that there was a transcript, which was published.

Assertion: William Jennings Bryan was the chief prosecutor at the Scopes trial.

Attorney-General Stewart was the chief prosecutor.  Bryan corrected Hays on this point during the trial.

Assertion: Clarence Darrow cut off testimony by requesting a directed verdict of guilty after questioning Bryan, denying Bryan the opportunity to examine Darrow as a witness.

Court had adjourned during Darrow's questioning of Bryan. At the start of the following day, Judge Raulston decided that questioning would not resume. Because of the judge's ruling, Darrow requested the directed verdict. Bryan made a statement that since he would not be able to put the defense lawyers on the witness stand, that he intended to deliver his questions intended for them to the press. Both Darrow and Malone stated their willingness to answer Bryan's questions wherever the opportunity arose. Attorney-General Stewart made the suggestion that the next thing to be done was to bring in the jury and charge them.
 

Assertion: The evidence presented in the Scopes trial is no longer considered evidence of evolution.

Scopes Trial Timeline

1923 July 4

Clarence Darrow poses 55 questions about the Bible and evolution to William Jennings Bryan in the Chicago Tribune.

1925 January 28

Butler Act passes Tennessee lower house, 71 to 5

1925 March 13

Butler Act passes Tennessee upper house, 24 to 6

1925 March 21

Tennessee Governor Austin Peay signs the Butler Act into law. It takes effect immediately.

1925 April 24

Alleged date when John T. Scopes taught evolutionary theory from Hunter's "Civic Biology" to his class.

1925 ??

ACLU advertises for a teacher willing to be a test case for the Butler Act.

1925 May 4

George W. Rappleyea reads newspaper article relating that Chattanooga had given up on plans to be the site for a test of the Butler Act. The Robinson's drugstore conspiracy to put Dayton, Tennessee on the map is put into motion. John T. Scopes agrees to become the accused in a test case.

1925 May 7

Arrest of John Scopes for violation of the Butler Act

1925 May 10

Preliminary hearing. Scopes bound over to grand jury, scheduled to meet in August.

1925 May 13

William Jennings Bryan announces his willingness to serve for the prosecution.

1925 May 14

John Randolph Neal becomes Scopes' chief counsel.

1925 May 25

A special session of the grand jury is summoned by Judge John T. Raulston to prevent usurpation of the test case by Chattanooga. Scopes was indicted under the Butler Act and the case set for trial on July 10th.

1925 June 6-7

Scopes, Rappleyea, and Neal travel to New York to consult with the ACLU. The ACLU promised to support the defense financially, and Scopes selected Darrow for counsel.

1925 June 13

Motion to quash Scopes' indictment entered by J.L. Godsey on the grounds that the Butler Act was unconstitutional.

1925 June 24

Tennessee Bar Association cancels invitation to Darrow to speak at its conference on June 26th.

1925 June 25

Darrow publishes a letter from Luther Burbank on the Scopes case.

1925 June ?

Paducah, Kentucky school board dismisses Scopes' sister from her job teaching mathematics.

1925 July 3

Darrow announces that Neal plans to enter a motion to enter an an injunction against the trial at the federal district court in Nashville. Dayton boosters become alarmed.

1925 July 5

Federal Judge John Gore turns down Neal's application for an injunction.

1925 July 7, Tuesday

Bryan arrives in Dayton

1925 July 8, Wednesday

Bainbridge Colby withdraws from defense team. H.L. Mencken arrives in Dayton.

1925 July 9, Thursday

Darrow arrives the evening before the trial starts.

1925 July 10, Friday

Scopes trial begins.

Trial Images (from [1]).

          

Trial information
• Case: State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes
• Judge: John T. Raulston
• Prosecution team:
• A.T. Stewart, chief counsel
• Sue K. Hicks
• J. Gordon McKenzie
• Ben G. McKenzie
• William Jennings Bryan and his son, outside counsel
• Defense team:
• Clarence Darrow, chief counsel
• John Randolph Neal
• Dudley Field Malone
• Arthur Hays
• (??) Thompson

Trial events
• Court opened with prayer by Rev. Cartwright
• Introduction of case
• Introduction of counsel
• Grand jury convened to re-indict Scopes
Grand jury panel
• JB Leuty
• AF Odom
• TA Odom
• HR Thomas
• RM Green
• Lee Parham
• LN Rogers
• EC Byron
• Dr. WT Green
• TH Evans
• John Rose (foreman)
• SP Hood
• TE Benson
• Grand jury moves to indict.
• Stewart moves that the prior indictment, #5231, be quashed, and the trial proceed under the new indictment, #5232.
• Jury selection
• WF Roberson - Accepted
• JW Dagley - Accepted
• Jim Riley - Accepted
• JP Massingill - Darrow challenged for cause; Excused
• JH Harrison - Excused by court on account of age
• WD Taylor - Accepted
• Tom Jackson - Excused by Darrow
• RL Gentry - Accepted
• JC Dunlap - Excused by court; conversations with Scopes
• WA Ault - Excused by Darrow
• Will Weir - Excused by court
• JR Thompson - Accepted
• WB Smith - Accepted
• JT Leuty - Challenged by state; excused
• Jess Goodrich - Accepted
• JH Bowman - Accepted
• Bill Day - Accepted
• HA Davis - Not present
• FS Collins - Not present
• RL West - Accepted
• WP Ferguson - Both Darrow and Stewart challenge for cause; excused
• JS Wright - Accepted

1925 July 13, Monday

Second day of trial.

Trial events
• Court opens with prayer by Rev. Moffett
• Motion to quash presented

1925 July 14, Tuesday

Third day of trial

Trial events
• Call for prayer by Rev. Stribling. Objection to prayer by Darrow. Overruled.
• Neal files demurrer on same issues as motion to quash.
• Hayes enters petition for non-fundamentalist prayers.
• Raulston orders that the pastor to give prayer each morning will be named by the pastor's association of Dayton.
• Raulston orders inquiry into source of press reports concerning his ruling on the motion to quash made before he revealed his decision.

1925 July 15, Wednesday

Fourth day of trial

Trial events
• Prayer by Rev. Dr. Potter (non-fundamentalist)
• Objection to opening prayer raised by Neal.
• Stewart apologizes to Hays over "emphatic" rebuttal the previous day.
• Richard Beamish reports to Judge Raulston on "news leak".  The leak, it appeared, originated with Raulston.  A reporter, Mr. Hutchinson, had asked if Raulston would adjourn until the morrow after announcing his decision on the motion to quash.  Raulston's answer in the affirmative was taken as an indication that Raulston had denied the motion to quash, since if it had been granted, the trial would have been over at that point. Hutchinson and the rest of the press are reminded to ask direct questions for information.
• Raulston overrules motion to quash.
• McElwee enters exception to Raulston's ruling.
• Neal files demurrer on the same issues as motion to quash.
• Jury called in.
• Reading of the indictment.
• Jury foreman, J.R. Thompson, requests electric fans.
• Scopes enters plea of not guilty.
• Malone asserts that state must prove not only that Scopes taught evolution, but also that Scopes denied biblical creation.  Cites Bryan's former views.
• Examination of Walter White, witness for the state.  Testified that Scopes taught from Hunter's Civic Biology, at the Rhea County Central High School.
• "Holman's Pronouncing Edition of the Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, text conformable to that of 1611, known as the authorized or King James version" entered as evidence.
• Examination of Howard Morgan, witness for the state.  Testifies as student of Scopes.
• Examination of Harry Shelton, witness for the state.  Testifies as student of Scopes.
• Darrow asks for names of other witnesses who would give the same testimony.  Stewart names Morris Stout and Charles Hagley.
• Stewart rests the state's case.
• Hays moves for dismissal, Raulston overrules.
• Jury excluded.
• Dr. Maynard M. Metcalf testifies to the court.
• Stewart points out that Scopes cannot testify once another witness for the defense has taken the stand, Darrow states that he has already been caught on that then.  Darrow states that Scopes need not go on the stand, anyway.
• Jury is in hearing of the court.  Stewart objects to Metcalf's testimony as to acceptance of evolution among scientists being repeated before the jury.  Raulston rules that that section of testimony be withheld from the newspapers.  Raulston instructs the jury not to linger in the courthouse yard when excused, so that the proceedings carried over the speakers are not heard by the jury members.  Jury excused.
• Metcalf defines evolution, distinguishes fact and theory.
• Court adjourns until 9 AM.

1925 July 16, Thursday

Fifth day of trial

• Dr. J.A. Allen, Glensley Avenue Church of Christ, Nashville, TN, opens court with prayer.
• Raulston orders any jurors present to retire, preparatory to hearing from Metcalf again.
• Confusion over consequences of possible exclusion of evidence among the court and the two sides ironed out.  Metcalf instructed to stand down from the witness stand.
• Stewart moves that all expert testimony from the defense be excluded as incompetent to the issues raised in the Butler Act.  Raulston warns Stewart not to enter an argument in the form of a motion.
• Bryan argues for exclusion of expert testimony.
• Raulston warns counsel on both sides to avoid displays of wit.
• Hays argues for permitting the experts to testify as to what evolution is.
• Hicks and McKenzie argue against permitting expert testimony.
• Bryan argues for the state, Darrow replies.
• Malone argues for the defense.
• Stewart argues for the state.
• Court adjourns until 9AM

1925 July 17, Friday

Sixth day of trial.

• Dr. C.G. Eastwood opens court with prayer.
• Raulston sustains the state's motion to exclude expert testimony.
• Hays excepts to the ruling.  Stewart excepts to the manner of exception, claims it reflects upon the court.
• Raulston explains that defense is entitled to enter into the record sufficient amount of proof to indicate to the appellate court what they intended to do had the exclusion been overruled.
• Darrow argues that the state has no right to cross-examine witnesses whose testimony is entered into the record for the sole benefit of the appellate court.  Raulston opines that if witnesses are put on the stand, he expects the state to cross-examine them.  Darrow is brusque in his replies to Raulston, contradicts Raulston's statement that they should always expect the court to rule correctly.
• Darrow requests the rest of the day for preparation of affidavits from experts to be entered into the record.
• Defense argues that affidavits be read into the record; state excepts to that.  Raulston says he will rule on the issue on Monday morning.  Court adjourns until Monday.

1925 July 20, Monday

Seventh day of trial.

• Rev. Standefer opens court with prayer.
• Raulston cites Darrow for contempt of court.
• Hays reads from a note from Governor Peay to the legislature, that the contents of the current textbooks would put no teachers at risk under the law.  Raulston excludes the statement.
• Hays reads from new textbook adopted in Tennessee, "Biology and Human Welfare", byt Peabody and Hunt, showing that it also teaches about evolution.  Stewart objects.  Book entered into evidence.
• Hays wishes to read statements from experts into the record.  Stewart objects, claims propaganda campaign on part of the defense.
• Raulston rules that the defense can have an hour for the reading of statements, and the remainder of statements simply be entered into the record by the court reporter.
• Hays reads statements or summarizes what he expects to prove.
• Rev. Walter C. Whitaker: evolution and belief in God are compatible.
• Dr. Shailer Mathews, dean of the Divinity school of the University of Chicago: Genesis is not denied by evolution.
• Hays read statements of Dr. Fay Cooper Cole, University of Chicago; Kirtley F. Mather, chairman of the department of geology, Harvard University; and Dr. Winterton C. Curtis, zoologist, University of Missouri.
• Court adjourned for lunch.
• Darrow apologizes to Raulston for his statements in contempt of court.  Raulston accepts Darrow's apology and sets aside the contempt citation.  Court moves out of the building and into the yard.
• Any jurors present instructed to retire.
• Hays reads statement of Dr. Herman Rosenwasser on problems in the King James translation of Genesis.
• Hays reads statement of Dr. Herbert E. Murkett on there being no conflict between the bible and evolution.
• Hays reads statement of Donald F. Metcalf.
• Hays reads statement of Herbert A. Nelson, state geologist of Tennessee.
• Hays reads statement of Dr. Jacob Lipman.
• Hays reads letter from Luther Burbank.
• Hays reads statement of Dr. Charles Hubbard Judd.
• Hays reads statement of Dr. Horatio Hackett Newman, zoologist, University of Chicago.
• Defense states as items that it would prove: 1) there is a difference between the soul and the body; 2) the bible teaches that God is a spirit and father of spirits, not the father of spirits; 3) man's soul or spirit is in the image of God, not his body; 4) bible is concerned with the ethical and spiritual side of life, not with the body; 5) natural science is concerned with developmental history, not with religious or ethical questions; 6) the bible states that God created the human body, but not how He did so, and the four separate accounts of this can only be harmonized under this view.
• Order of statements in transcript:
• Charles Hubbard Judd (1, p.231)
• Jacob G. Lipman (1, p.232)
• Dr. Fay-Cooper Cole (1, p.234)
• Wilbur A. Nelson (1, p.238)
• Kirtley F. Mather (1, p.241)
• Maynard M. Metcalf (1, p.251)
• Winterton C. Curtis (1, p.254, includes letters from William Bateson and Woodrow Wilson)
• Horatio Hackett Newman (1, p.263)
• Raulston orders the jury in.
• Darrow objects to large "Read Your Bible" sign in jury's sight.  Raulston orders it removed after arguments.
• Hays enters Catholic bible and translation of Hebrew into evidence.  Issue of correct translation of Genesis in regards to the Butler Act.
• Hays calls Bryan as a witness.  Bryan insists that the defense attorneys can be put on the stand as well.
• Darrow examines Bryan on various issues of literalism and the bible.
• Stewart objects to the questioning.  Bryan states that he feels no fear of agnostics or atheists.  More questioning by Darrow.
• Raulston adjourns court until 9 AM.

1925 July 21

Eighth day of trial.

• Dr. R.C. Camper opens court with prayer.
• Raulston orders Bryan's testimony expunged, as it could not help the higher courts.  Darrow objects that there were hours of testimony, and he had more questions for Bryan.  Darrow makes an exception to the judge's ruling.
• Darrow suggests that the jury be brought in, have the charges read, and be instructed to find the defendant guilty.  Stewart accepts the suggestion.
• Hays excepts to Raulston's ruling against entering the evidence of expert testimony.
• Bryan speaks to court on relying upon the fairness of the press to disseminate the questions he would have put to the defense counsel had it been permitted.  Darrow replies that they can both speak to the press, which would then have both the questions and the answers.
• Jury brought in.
• Darrow speaks at the bar to the court that asking for a directed verdict is not an admission of guilt, simply a time-saving measure since the court disallowed the defense's testimony and evidences.  Stewart agrees, states that he will aid in getting the case to the state supreme court.
• Raulston charges the jury.
• Darrow speaks to the jury.  States that court held the defense's evidence not admissible, and thus need to take it to a higher court, that he cannot argue, by decision of the court, that they should bring in a verdict of not guilty.  Says that he doesn't see how the jury could bring in a not guilty verdict, and the he doesn't expect it of them.
• Stewart suggests that jury simply find guilty if the minimum fine is acceptable.  Raulston says the jury can find guilty, and leave the fixing of the fine to him.  Stewart says that to his mind, the jury was supposed to fix the fine.  Raulston says that the judge can always impose the minimum fine under the statute, referring to his experience in whisky cases.
• Stewart tells jury that Darrow wanted to say was to find his client guilty, but could not plead guilty, for that would destroy his rights to appeal.
• Jury confers for nine minutes.  Scopes found guilty.  Jury did not fix a fine, indicate that they will leave that to the court.
• Raulston addresses Scopes, sentences him to pay a $100 fine.
• Hays interjects for Scopes, Scopes tells Raulston that he thinks the law and the fine are unjust.
• Raulston confirms the $100 fine, sets a bond of $500.  Malone announces that the Baltimore Evening Sun have promised Scopes bond.
• Talk between the lawyers and the court concerning dates for perfecting an appeal, set by Raulston at thirty days.
• Hays makes motion for arrest of judgment, is overruled.
• Hays makes motion for a new trial, is overruled.
• Mr. Tony Muto makes a statement on behalf of the press.
• Various other courtesy-noises from Bryan, Darrow, Rappelyea, and others.
• Raulston makes statement.
• Hays offers to send Raulston a copy of "Origin of Species" and "Descent of Man"; Raulston accepts the offer.
• Court adjourns.
• Dr. Brown pronounces a benediction.

I wish to extend the timeline from the end of the trial, but fear that I must postpone that endeavor for a while.  If anyone is interested in aiding me in finding dates for the following events, I would much appreciate it.  Email me at welsberr@inia.cls.org.

Events to be dated:
Bryan's death, and deaths of other participants.
Founding of Bryan College.
Review of case by higher court in TN.
Supreme Court decision overturning all such state laws as the Butler Act.

References

1. Anonymous. 1925. The World's Most Famous Court Trial. Cincinnati, Ohio: National Book Company.
2. Ginger, Ray. 1958. Six Days or Forever? Oxford University Press.
3. Larson, Edward J. 1989. Trial And Error: The American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution. Oxford University Press.
4. Thompson, A. 1983. Biology, Zoology, and Genetics: Evolution Model vs. Creation Model 2, 271.

Bryan College
Dayton, TN 37321-7000
Contact Dr. Richard Cornelius, English Dept.
Tel. (615)775-2041

Acknowledgements

• Phil Nicholls (info on HF Osborn)
• Barbara Forrest
• John Rice Cole
• Larry Meyering
• Scott Faust