Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion

by Edward Larson

  12 C. H. Thurber to W. J. Bryan, 21 November 1923, in Bryan Papers; W. J. Bryan to C. H. Thurber, 22 December 1923, in Bryan Papers.

  13 Compare George William Hunter, A Civic Biology (New York: American, 1914), 193-96, 235, 404-6, 423, with George William Hunter, A New Civic Biology (New York: American, 1926), 250, 383, 411-12, 436. For a broad analysis of multiple texts, see Judith V. Grabner and Peter D. Miller, “Effect of the Scopes Trial,” Science 185 (1974), 832-37; Gerald Skoog, “The Topic of Evolution in Secondary School Biology Textbooks: 1900-1977,” Science Education 63 (1979), 620—36; Edward J. Larson, Trial and Error: The American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 84-88.

  14 Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (New York: Knopf, 1992), ioo; Edward B. Davis, “Introduction,” in Edward B. Davis, ed., The Antievolution Pamphlets of Harry Rimmer (New York: Garland, 1995), xvi-xix.

  15 George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, r87o-rgas (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 184—85.

  16 Joel A. Carpenter, “Fundamentalist Institutions and the Rise of Evangelical Protestantism, 1929—1942,” Church History 49 (1980), 62-75 (Carpenter quote from Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 194).

  17 Ronald L. Numbers, “The Creationists,” in Martin E. Marty, ed., Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Munich: Saur, 1993), 261.

  18 John 18:36 (AV); 1 Cor. 1:20 (AV).

  19 “I’ll Fly Away,” in Wonderful Melody (Hartford, Conn.: Hartford Music, I932).

  20 Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition: And the Men Who Made It (New York: Knopf, 1948), 199-202. For later, more balanced presentations, see Lawrence W. Levine, Defender of the Faith: William Jennings Bryan, The Last Decade, 1915-1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965); Paolo E. Coletta, William Jennings Bryan. Vol. 3. Political Puritan, 1915—1925 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1969).

  21 Norman F. Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918—1931 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1954), 3.

  22 William E. Leuchtenburg, The Perils of Prosperity, 1914- 1932 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), 217-23.

  23 Ray Ginger, Six Days or Forever? Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes (London: Oxford University Press, 1958), 190-217, 238.

  24 Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. (New York: Knopf, 1955), 286.

  25 Richard Hofstadter, William Miller, and Daniel Aaron, The United States: The History of a Republic (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1957), 636; Irwin Unger, These United States: The Questions of Our Past, vol. 2, 6th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1995), 712; Samuel Eliot Morison, Henry Steele Commanger, and William E. Leuchtenburg, A Concise History of the American Republic, rev. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), 588; William Miller, A New History of the United States (New York: Braziller, 1958), 356. A half-dozen other collegiate textbooks published between 1960 and 1995 contain similar accounts of the trial.

  26 See Michael Lienesch, Redeeming America: Piety and Politics in the New Christian Right (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993), 154.

  27 Compare Harry Rimmer, “The Theories of Evolution and the Facts of Human Antiquity” (1929), in Davis, ed., Antievolution Pamphlets, 84-85, with later pamphlets in this collection; compare with Arthur I. Brown, “Science Speaks to Osborn,” in Ronald L. Numbers, ed., The Antievolution Works of Arthur I. Brown (New York: Garland, 1995), 134-75, with other works in this collection.

  28 George McCready Price to William Jennings Bryan, 1 July 1925, in Bryan Papers; “Says Millions Here Oppose Darwinism,” New York Times, 8 September 1925, p. 9; George McCready Price, “What Christians Believe About Creation,” Bulletin of Deluge Geology 2 (1942), 76.

  29 Henry M. Morris, History of Modern Creationism (San Diego: Master, 1984), 73.

  30 Jerry Falwell, The Fundamentalist Phenomenon: The Resurgence of Conservative Christianity (Garden City: Doubleday, 1981), 86.

  31 “House Decides State to Keep Evolution Act,” Chattanooga Times, 20 February 1935, p. 2.

  32 Judson A. Rudd to Members of the Legislature, 15 March 1951, in Scopes trial file, Bryan College Archives, Dayton, Tennessee.

  33 Ibid. For a discussion of this period of anti-Communist activity by fundamentalists, see James Davison Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 121-24.

  34 Ferenc M. Szasz, “William Jennings Bryan, Evolution and the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy,” in Marty, ed., Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 109. For an example of a later defense of Bryan, see Robert D. Linder, “Fifty Years After Scopes: Lessons to Learn, a Heritage to Reclaim,” Christianity Today, 18 July 1975, pp. 7-10.

  35 Hunter, Evangelicalism, 120.

  36 Ginger, Six Days or Forever? 238.

  37 Richard Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (New York: Knopf, 1963), 3, 125, 130-31.

  38 Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, “Inherit the Wind: The Genesis & Exodus of the Play,” Theater Arts (August 1957), 33; Elizabeth J. Haybe, “A Comparison Study of Inherit the Wind and the Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’,” Master’s thesis, University of Tennessee, 1964, p. 66; Tony Randall, personal communication, April 1996.

  39 Lawrence and Lee, “Genesis & Exodus,” 33.

  40 Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, Inherit the Wind (New York: Bantam, 1960), vii, 4; John T. Scopes, The Center of the Storm: Memoirs of John T. Scopes (New York: Holt, 1967), 270.

  41 Lawrence and Lee, Inherit the Wind, 3, 7, 64.

  42 Joseph Wood Krutch, “The Monkey Trial,” Commentary (May 1967), 84.

  43 Lawrence and Lee, Inherit the Wind, 7, 30, 63.

  44 Ronald L. Numbers, “Inherit the Wind,” Isis 84 (1993), 764.

  45 Lawrence and Lee, Inherit the Wind, 85, 91, 103; Gerald Gunther, personal communication, 17 November 1995.

  46 Lawrence and Lee, Inherit the Wind, 32, 42.

  47 Ibid., 112-15.

  48 Andrew Sarris, “Movie Guide,” Village Voice, 10 November 1960, p. 11.

  49 “Mixed Bag,” The New Yorker, 30 April 1955, p. 67; “The New Pictures,” Time, 17 October 1960, p. 95; Robert Hayes, “Our American Cousin,” Commonweal 62 (1955), 278; Walter Kerr, “Inherit the Wind,” New York Herald Tribune, 22 April 1955, p. 10; Stanley Kauffmann, “O Come All Ye Faithful,” The New Republic, 31 October 1960, pp. 29—30; Sarris, “Movie Guide,” 11. The movie version did not win any academy awards, although Tracy was nominated as Best Actor for his portrayal of Drummond-Darrow. Interestingly, he lost to Burt Lancaster, who won it for his performance in the title role of Elmer Gantry, a part loosely based on the antievolutionist pastor John Roach Straton.

  50 Scopes, Center of the Storm, 210; Juanita Glenn, “Judge Still Recalls ‘Monkey Trial’—50 Years Later,” Knoxville Journal, 11 July 1975, p. 17. As a fiercely loyal Democratic politician, Bryan would have had one consolation: the release of the movie coincided with the 1960 presidential election, and its thinly veiled attack on McCarthyism may have contributed to the narrow defeat of the Republican party’s red-baiting nominee, Richard M. Nixon.

  51 Krutch, “Monkey Trial,” 83.

  52 Ibid.; National Center for History in Schools, National Standards for United States History: Exploring the American Experience (Los Angeles: National Center, [1994]), 180.

  53 Carl Sagan, personal communication, 21 November 1995; Howard J. Van Till, personal communication, 27 December 1995.

  54 Morris, History of Modern Creationism, 76-77. For examples of these attempts, see David N. Menton, “Inherit the Wind: A Hollywood History of the Scopes Trial,” Contrast (January 1985), p. 1; Euphemia Van Rensselaer Wyatt, “Theater,” Catholic World 181 (1955), 226; Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1991), 4—6.

  55 Martin E. Marty, Righteous Empire: The Protestant Experience in America (New York: Dial, 1970), 220;
Martin E. Marty, personal communication, 29 November 1995.

  56 Stephen Jay Gould, Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes (New York: Norton, 1983), 270, 273.

  57 Allen, Only Yesterday, 171; Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism, 129; Lawrence and Lee, Inherit the Wind, 109; Randall, personal communication, April 1996; Kauffman, “O Come All Ye Faithful,” 29.

  CHAPTER TEN. DISTANT ECHOES

  1 “The Conduct of the Scopes Trial,” The New Republic 43 (1925), 332.

  2 Gitlow v. New York, 208 U.S. 652 (1925) (free speech); Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (establishment clause); McCullum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) (religious instruction); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)(school prayer); Abington School Dist. v. Shempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) (Bible reading). Following these decisions, the ACLU annual report stated, “We are confident that when more sectarian religious practices are brought to the Court’s attention, they likewise will be declared unconstitutional.” American Civil Liberties Union, Freedom Through Dissent: 42nd Annual Report (New York: ACLU, [1963]), 22.

  3 For discussions of this development, see Arnold B. Grobman, The Changing Classroom: The Role of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (Garden City: Doubleday, 1969), 94-95, 204; Gerald Skoog, “The Topic of Evolution in Secondary School Biology Textbooks: 1900-1977,” Science Education 63 (1979), 632-33.

  4 Bud Lumke, “Science Teacher Takes Stand in Evolution Hearing,” Arkansas Democrat, 1 April 1966, p. 1; “Proceedings,” in Appendix, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), 40-60; “Teacher Fired on Evolution,” Knoxville Journal, 15 April 1967, p. 1.

  5 “The Press-Scimitar Blitzes the Tennessee Anti-Evolution Law,” Scripps-Howard News (August 1967), 9; “Monkey Law Bill May Be Decided,” Nashville Tennessean, 10 May 1967, p. 8.

  6 Lorry Daughtrey, “House Act Fails to Stir Scopes,” Nashville Tennessean, 13 April 1967, p. 1.

  7 “Press-Scimitar Blitzes Tennessee Anti-Evolution Law,” 9.

  8 “House Votes Down ‘Monkey Law’,” Nashville Banner, 12 April 1967, p. 1; “I May Be Leaving,” Nashville Tennessean, 15 April 1967, p. 4 (editorial cartoon); Daughtrey, “House Act Fails to Stir Scopes,” 1.

  9 Bill Kovach, “‘Monkey Law’ Left Out on a Limb,” Nashville Tennessean, 21 April 1967, p. 1; “Seems I’m Still Here,” Nashville Tennessean, 22 April 1967, p. 4.

  10 “‘Monkey Law’ Vote Stalled,” Nashville Tennessean, 12 May 1967, p. 12; “Rehired Teacher to Test ‘Monkey Law’ Anyway,” Nashville Tennessean, 13 May 1927, p. 1; “Overthrow of Monkey Law Asked,” Knoxville Journal, 16 May 1967, p. 3; “Anti-Evolution Law Brings Shame on State,” Nashville Tennessean, 15 May 1976, p. 8; William Bennett, “State’s ’Monkey Law’ Repealed by Senators,” Commercial Appeal (Memphis), 17 May 1967, p. 1; “Scott to End Suit; Scopes Welcomes Action in Assembly,” Nashville Banner, 17 May 1967, p. 2; Walter Smith, “Monkey Law Dead, but Dayton Residents Recall Famed Trial,” Nashville Banner, 19 May 1967, p. 14 (national wire service article).

  11 State v. Epperson, 242 Ark. 922, 416 S.W.2d 322, 322 (1967).

  12 “In Court’s Failure, the Barrier Remains,” Arkansas Gazette, 8 June 1967, p. 6A.

  13 Peter L. Zimroth, “Epperson and Blanchard v. Ark.,” 20 December 1967, in Fortas Papers; Peter L. Zimroth, “Supp. Memo,” 16 February 1968, in Fortas Papers.

  14 Arthur Goldschmidt to Abe Fortas, 22 November 1968, in Fortas Papers.

  15 Louis R. Cohen, “Epperson v. Arkansas,” 14 December 1967, p. 3, in John Marshall Harlan Papers, Princeton University Library; “Brief for Appellants,” Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, p. 8; “Brief for Appellee,” Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, pp. 1, 28-31; “Brief of American Civil Liberties Union and American Jewish Congress,” Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, p. 2; for example (Transcript of Oral Arguments), Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, p. 14.

  16 “No. 7, Epperson v. Arkansas,” 18 October 1968, in Fortas Papers. All but acknowledging the statute’s lack of religious effect, Fortas wrote in the initial handwritten draft of his opinion, “For our purposes, it is unimportant that the theory of evolution continues to live and to command substantial adherence, probably even in Arkansas’ publicly supported institutions of learning.” In Epperson case file, 26 October 1968, in Fortas Papers.

  17 Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. at 102—9.

  18 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612 (1971); Gerald Gunther, personal communication, 17 November 1995; Charles Alan Wright, personal communication, 21 November 1995.

  19 Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. at 239 (Black, J., concurring).

  20 Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. at 109. For the added language, compare the published opinion with Fortas’s handwritten draft dated 26 October 1968, in Fortas Papers.

  21 “Court Rules in ‘Scopes Case’,” U.S. News and World Report, 22 November 1968, p. 16; “Making Darwin Legal,” Time, 22 November 1968, p. 41; “Evolution Revolution in Arkansas,” Life, 22 November 1968, p. 89; Fred P. Graham, “Court Ends Darwinism Ban,” New York Times, 12 November 1968, p. 1.

  22 Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, Inherit the Wind (New York: Bantam, 1960), 89; Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. at 109. For a typical Bryan plea for neutrality, see William Jennings Bryan, “God and Evolution,” New York Times, 26 February 1922, sec. 7, p. 1.

  23 Transcript, 185-87.

  24 Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. at 109.

  25 Wendell R. Bird, “Freedom from Establishment and Unneutrality in Public School Instruction and Religious School Regulation,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 2 (1979), 179.

  26 This version of the quote—and there are several in various creationist writings, but none with any authoritative reference to Darrow himself—ap—peared as the introduction to Wendell R. Bird, “Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public Schools: A Constitutional Defense in Public Schools,” Northern Kentucky Law Review 9 (1982), 162.

  27 George Gallup, “Public Evenly Divided Between Evolutionists, Creationists,” Los Angeles Times Syndicate, 1982, p. 1 (press release); “76% for Parallel Teaching of Creation Theories,” San Diego Union, 18 November 1981, p. A15 (reporting national poll where over 80 percent of respondents favored either parallel teaching or exclusive teaching of creationism).

  28 Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 49-2008; Ark. Stat. Ann. sec. 80-1663, et. sec. (1981 Supp.); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. sec. 17: 286.3 (1981). For a complete discussion of these statutes and the litigation that they spawned, see Edward J. Larson, Trial and Error: The American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 125-88.

  29 “Remember Scopes Trial? ACLU Does,” Times-Picayune (New Orleans), 22 July 1981, p. 1.

  30 Aguillard v. Edwards, 765 F.2d 1251, 1253 and 1257 (5th Cir. 1985); Aguillard v. Edwards, 778 F.2d 225, 226 (5th Cir. 1985)(Gee, J., dissenting).

  31 Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 590, 590 n. 10 (1986); ibid. at 603 (Powell, J., concurring); ibid. at 638 (Scalia, J., dissenting)(citation omitted).

  32 Stephen L. Carter, The Culture of Disbelief How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion (New York: Basic Books, 1993), 169, 175-76, 178.

  33 Foreword, in Henry M. Morris, ed., Scientific Creationism, gen. ed. (San Diego: Creation-Life, 1974), iii, v.

  34 Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1954), 260. Regarding Graham’s endorsement, see Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (New York: Knopf, 1992), 185.

  35 Tom Curley, “New Life in Evolution Debate,” USA Today, 27 March 1996, p. 3A; Millicent Lawton, “Ala. Board Mulls Taking Stand on Evolution as Theory,” Education Week, 8 November 1995, p. 13.

  36 Peter Applebome, “70 Years After Scopes Trial, Creation Debate Lives,” New York Times, 10 March 1996, p. 1.

  37 Paula Wade, “Attempt to Amend ‘Monkey Bill’ Revives Debate over Darwin, God and Teacher,” Commercial Appeal (Memphis), 5 March 1996, p. A1.

  38 Andy S
her and Alison LaPolt, “Senators Slap Hold on ‘Son of Scopes’ Bill; Sponsor Vows Return,” Nashville Banner, 5 March 1996, p. B4; “Echoes of Scopes Trial,” Nashville Banner, 4 March 1996, p. Aio; “Evolution Bill Makes It Through House Panel,” Jackson Sun (Tenn.), 28 February 1996, p. 10A; Andy Sher, “Evolution-Bill Opponents Toss in Monkey Wrenches,” Nashville Banner, 4 March 1996, p. B2; Vicki Brown, “Evolution Bill Killed in Senate,” Cookeville Herald-Citizen, 29 March 1996, p. 2.

  39 Dan George, “60 Years After Scopes, Town Is Much the Same,” Indianapolis Star, 21 June 1985, p. 19A; Jane DeBose, “New Battle Over Evolution,” Atlanta Constitution, 6 March 1996, p. B5; Ann LoLordo, “Tennessee Legislature Might Try Scopes Again,” Baltimore Sun, March 1996, p. 1A.