The Scopes Monkey Trial: Modernist-Fundamentalist Debate and Its Constitutional Impact
Introduction
Few legal cases of the twentieth century can contest the controversy and importance that the 1925 John Scopes monkey trial had. Full of arguments of faith, morals, and science, all presented with passion, the case culminated in the existing contest between faith and science. Moreover, the case was renowned for involving eminent lawyers.
The prosecution was led by William Jennings Bryan, a prominent fundamentalist Christian. He was also a presidential candidate and former secretary of state. The defense lawyer was Clarence Darrow, a renowned, experienced, competent attorney assisted by Arthur Garfield, the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) counsel. A high school teacher, John Thomas Scopes, was on trial for violating a Tennessee law that prohibited teaching evolution in school. This essay explores the modernist and fundamentalist debate in relation to the Scopes Monkey Trial.
The Modernist-Fundamentalist Debate
Since the 1870s, a contest against evolutionary teachings has been waged, led by Southern evangelicals. Subsequent to the Civil War, conventional Northern protestants were focused principally on defending the Bible’s authority. They, at times, mobilized to oppose the teachings of evolution. This was sporadic, and mainly, the fight was left for their fellow Southerners.
Subsequently, the 1920s were characterized by clinging to an enduring conflict, culminating in the Butler Act, John Scopes’ violation of the law, and the Monkey Trial. This law’s enactment and the trial led to an escalation of the ideological modernist-fundamentalist debate. The two parties espoused their respective stance, trying to win the argument revolving around the legitimacy, or lack of it, of teaching the theory of evolution in public schools.
The case commenced with excitement following the arrival of William Jennings Bryan, the lead proponent for the prosecution of the Tennessee law. He was a renowned Nebraskan politician, a Presbyterian orator, and one of the best lecturers of the time. His main work was to defend the Butler Act of Tennessee, which had been newly enacted. It outlawed the teaching of the theory of evolution and offered penalties for anyone who violated it.
John Thomas Scopes was being prosecuted for having read a book that the Tennessee legislature had not prescribed for a high school biology lesson. But read from the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, contrary to the act’s section two. John Scopes expected to catch the eye in the creation versus evolution debate, but with the prosecuting attorney being Bryan, the courtroom was already expectant of an imminent duel to the death between Christianity and science, vital to the fundamentalist.
Bryan’s fundamentalism was exemplified in his fervent Christian nature, where he fought to the death to win the debate on the act’s legitimacy. He grounded his arguments on the text in Genesis that points to God creating man. In his reference to the Bible, God first created heaven and earth. He then said Let there be light, and light came into being. The prosecution was vital to ensuring that this belief carried the day.
Clarence Darrow was Scopes’ lead defense, assisted by Arthur Garfield, ACLU General Counsel. The two were proponents of the modernism ideology in the case. Modernism is characterized by a desire to create new ways of life, in this case, embracing science and evolution. Clarence, though, had a quick intuition and an oratory prowess; his lack of religious vigor and his loyalty to science made him ill-reputed in the South.
The defiance was still able to remain valiant in its unyielding support of evolutionism. It affirmed the fact that, instead of God being at the center of man’s creation on the sixth day. Scopes proceeded to present to the students how all humans belong to an identical species of a similar genus or higher group. All of these descendants descend from mutual parents despite being in isolated and distant geographical locations. They can, therefore, be located to have, in the progression of successive generations, moved from one point to their present locations.
Despite the sentiments being unwelcome among the fundamentalists, the defense proceeded to advance its ideology. Fundamentally, homo sapiens had been derived from former origins over multiple millions of years. Through the epochs, humans became slimmer, taller, more complex, and more harrier.
In this concept of humans stemming from monkeys, the trial got its name, which irritated the fervent Christians the most. It appears somewhat patronizing to the Christians to denote humans as descendants of apes instead of heavenly beings. Nonetheless, Scopes was still adamant about educating his students with a new philosophy relating to the roots of man and clashing with his defined limits of speech as a school teacher. He had sparked a perpetual clash questioning the suitability of defying a well-spelt-out law: a culmination of the battle between modernism and fundamentalism.
On the 8th day of the trial, the jury unanimously arrived at a guilty verdict for Sir John Thomas Scopes. They gave the minimum penalty of a hundred dollars, and the decision was appealed at the state court. Though Scopes lost the trials, his image is forever etched, particularly in this ideological debate. His activities echo ensuing debates and the verdict’s effects to attract controversy about the suitability of his actions.
The Debate’s Connection to the Foundations of American Constitutional Order and Its Place in Religious History
The debate is linked to the American constitutional order’s very foundations and connects to the country’s religious history. This is particularly the case as the fundamentalist-modernist debate it triggers is deeply rooted in the country’s constitutional order. The debate touches on the 13th Amendment, the abolition of slavery, and, more directly, the First Amendment and its relation to religion. Regarding the 13th Amendment, US Presbyterianism had a prior split. The division was an imperative antecedent to this debate, resulting in the 1741 division of the Presbyterian church into the new and old sides.
Another division during the Second Great Awakening resulted in the Old and New School controversy, in which the church was divided into two denominations. Particularly, the New School division was over slavery. The New School was the more conservative side and supported the Southerners and the institution of slavery; these were the fundamentalists. The slavery debate was highly heated at the time but was settled by the passing of the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery and, thus settling the slavery debate, and the church later united.
The later awakening of the modern-fundamentalist debate by the monkey trial was a continuity of this Modernist-fundamentalist division that has some relations with the Constitution and the hard stance of religion. This time, the debate was aroused by the case related to the 1st Amendment.
The First Amendment provides that Congress ought not to enact a law that respects religion’s establishment or that prohibits it from being exercised freely. At the time of the case, the Supreme Court had not yet applied the First Amendment to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Any contemplation on whether the act of Tennessee had negated the First Amendment was not entertained.
However, over 40 years later, the debate still lingers, and its effects on America’s constitutional order are patent. This is precisely the case when the Supreme Court ruled that a law comparable to the Tennessee law, the Arkansas law negated the state’s First Amendment prohibition of establishment of religion. Thus, placing the trial as a starting point in the court’s recognition of states law interplay with the First Amendment.
The Significance of the Scopes Monkey Trial
The Scopes Monkey Trial left a lesson that scientists may not really comprehend why their ideas are rejected. Those who supported the anti-evolution law of Tennessee were not close-minded fundamentalists, nor were they founded on evidence-based arguments. To them, science was accompanied by specific values that were offensive.
Scientists failed to comprehend that the objections among the fundamentalists were not fact-based but more value-based. The best demonstration of this emphasis on values is implying that being pro-evolution meant monkey morality. From the case’s legacy, the lesson that basing science on a society’s values is key is deducible. This is also important in lawmaking to ensure a law backing a fact is codified with the values of a society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the paper has analyzed the modernist and fundamentalist debate in light of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Through this exploration, it has been able to offer an ideological stance of the two parties involved and the arguments each espoused to win the debate. It has also presented the debate’s connection to the American constitutional order and located its place in American religious history. Finally, it has presented the legacy that the Scopes Monkey Trials have today.
References
- Srividhya, Jayakumar,. 2022. “Theory of evolution: science education, scopes monkey trial and thereafter.” JBNB: A Multidisciplinary Journal 12: 1-5. Web.
- Schaefer, Donovan. 2022. “Visions of contempt: emotion and the visual culture of the scopes trial.” The Journal of Objects, Art and Belief 18 (2): 250-276. Web.
- Jon, Butler, Grant Wacker, and Randall Balmer. 2018. Religion in American Life: A Short History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.