From the beginning the issue was political. On the contrary, the debate between science and religion was more complicated, more entrenched socially, and more profoundly felt than the historical memory of the Scopes Trial suggests. That memory, Larson argues, was generated not so much by the trial itself as by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E.
Lawrence and Lee took advantage of the renewed interest and exploited the symbolism to make a point about McCarthyism. The point stuck to the Scopes trial. This legacy is problematic for Larson because the play distorted the facts, characters, and tenor of the trial, foreclosing on its continued application to American social and political debates.
In fact, English is rapidly becoming the lingua franca of the business world and transnational borders….
As these collaborative efforts and…. All Rights Reserved. The trial was important for setting precedents that had far reaching implications even to the present day, but it was the national cultural attention that likely propelled the disparity between the Creationists and Darwinists throughout the next several decades.
The situation surrounding the events also bled into popular culture with several movie and book adaptations, as well as a number of non-fiction and scholarly materials analyzing the issues leading up and following the Trial. The most famous was the film starring Spencer Tracy and Fredric March; a passionate retelling of the story from the perspective of the polarization of a small town, and the consequences when one has the courage to upset the apple cart.
The Scopes Trial remains important because of the continued efforts from the religious right to challenge the Darwinian view of evolution and natural selection. In fact, this strong and vocal movement against the teaching of evolution continues to reinvent itself; from creationism to creation science and now to intelligent design.
Understanding the precursor and antecedents to Scopes helps educators better prepare when challenged regarding teaching sensitive topics. Download full paper NOW! In response to this legislation, the American Civil Liberties union decided it was appropriate to test the Court's opinion. The elicited the help of John Scopes, a sympathetic high school teacher who intentionally violated the Act and openly taught Darwin's theory of evolution.
Due to the intentional use of Darwin's Origins of Species as a way to understand the development of biological life on earth. The trial involved two of the most famous legal minds of the time: politician and presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution and legal scholar Clarence Darrow for the defense.
The trial was eagerly followed over the radio by a hungry public with the theatrical debates forming commentaries in most of the nation's newspapers as Americans struggled to understand the issues.
The Stakeholders -- Motivation, Political Acumen, and Publicity -- Obviously there were differing views, motivations, and strategies from all the stakeholders surrounding the case.
However, it is interesting to examine the three most visible players to the radio public: Judge John T. This the fundamentalists could not abide. Soon evolution came under attack, natural selection becoming fully identified with all of Darwin. The very nature of science— that is, continual debate— provided ammunition to the forces of darkness although debate and difference of opinion on this subject were not limited to science.
Surely religion has been subject to more difference of opinion than perhaps and other theoretical field being as speculative as it is. William Jennings Bryan, the more vocal of opponents to evolution, had his fear fueled by the development of eugenics, a natural outgrowth of the popularization of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
Some thirty-five states eventually passed legislation compelling the sexual segregation and sterilization of unfortunates that society chose to label as misfits. Soon eugenics became identified with evolutionary theory and more fat was added to the fire.
Bryan was an interesting mix of contradictions. A pacifist and anti-Republican he had resigned from Wilson's Cabinet was war fever erupted. He was a fervent admirer of hard currency yet made millions from land speculation in Florida. Bryan's anti-evolutionist views originated from his view that "the Darwinian theory represents man as reaching his present perfection [!
He was not — contrary to the Inherit the Wind version — opposed to an extended geologic time frame, but he resisted vehemently the notion that humans were not created supernaturally.
Bryan's majoritarian stance — the majority rules and schools should teach what the majority believes — was a major reason for the entry of the ACLU into the case. The NCLU— forerunner to the ACLU— had been founded by the Quakers to help provide support and defense for their anti-war activities and pacifist members who refused to serve in Wilson's war. The president's statements against disloyalty and his support for legislation against any kind of opposition to the war created a climate that fueled majoritarian thinking.
The government had already used the postal service to help suppress any kind of minority point-of-view and the ACLU — originally quite cooperative with the Wilson government — soon became disillusioned. Samuel Walker, ACLU historian, wrote "largely oblivious to civil liberties considerations before the war, the wartime crisis forced them [the ACLU] to abandon their faith in the inevitability of social progress and their majoritarian view of democracy.
They now began to see that majority rule and liberty were not necessarily synonymous and thus discovered the First Amendment as a new principle for advancing human freedom. Darrow just wanted to lampoon the Christian Fundamentalists, a pathetically easy task — it was the only time he volunteered his services. Darrow delighted in challenging the traditional concepts of religion and morality.
He hated "do-gooders" and regarded Christianity as a "slave religion that encouraged acquiescence in injustice, a willingness to make do with the mediocre, and complacency in the face of the intolerable. Many traditional institutions were undergoing radical change at the turn of the century. The university, heretofore, an arm of a church sect, offered little chance for teachers to stray from the party line. The rise of pragmatism led by the French philosopher Auguste Comte, offered a path away from a paradigm of obedience to a central authority and toward "a positive stage ion which empirical investigation would be accepted as the only reliable road to truth.
They wanted to emphasize the deleterious effects of a popularly orchestrated curriculum. Neal was perhaps not the best choice. A brilliant lawyer and teacher, he was usually late for class, often never appearing, rarely lecturing on the topic at hand, preferring political discourses and giving his students grades of 95 without reading their exams.
Following passage of the law forbidding the teaching of evolution that contradicted the biblical teaching this odd phraseology was to provide the opening that Darrow needed the ACLU began looking for a test case site.
Most school superintendents wanted nothing to do with the case simply declaring they did not teach Darwinism. The Knoxville superintendent even declared that, "Our teachers have a hard enough time teaching the children how to distinguish between plant and animal life. The civic boosters in Dayton lusted at the idea of all the publicity. They were perhaps atypical. A relatively new little town, it was a Republican enclave in a predominantly Democratic south.
Even H. Mencken was pleasantly surprised. What I found was a country town full of charm and even beauty. Nor is there any evidence in the town of that poisonous spirit which usually shows itself where Christian men gather to defend the great doctrines of their faith. It eventually blew up in their faces, as Dayton became the laughingstock of the country.
The author of the anti-evolution bill is obviously nearer in mental development to the nomads of early biblical times than he is to the intelligence of the young man [Scopes] who is under trial. Even the biggest young history enthusiast out there learns something new every once and again.
This book was such an occasion. And boy, was it a joyous occasion! After only seeing and never really getting a basic understanding of the term "Monkey Trial" on occasion while passing through a thick history textbook during high school, I took great pleasure during my collegiate studies when my professor assigned our class to read this book about this famed "The Trial of the Century.
I was ready and eager to learn as much as possible about what the heck this "Monkey Trial" was all about. Larson re-discovers the passion that enabled this trial, especially it's pre-hype, to captivate so much of the nation's attention during the mids.
He does an excellent job detailing the changing social climate regarding traditionalism and progressivism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Larson gives the 21st century reader a great overview of what the two big faces of this trial, Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, would've meant to the people - both the locals and the national media - during that time period.
The tiny Tennessee town of Dayton was transformed overnight into a media circus, with every aspect of the trial being transferred across the country and the world through one of the newest forms of communication, the telegraph; these aspects are beautifully covered in this book, as well.
Even if you are not a fan of legal proceedings, I PROMISE YOU that you will not be disappointed with both the courtroom drama and the dramatic events that happen out-of-the-court and following the decision. It's science versus religion! Heads are bound to clash! Finally, a great overview of the evolving status of creationism and evolutionism over the past century is explored, especially in relation to school curriculum but also in religious revivals among the general populace.
Larson impressed me greatly by covering a complex topic that is often overly condensed by text books and explores all aspects of this trial, including its causes and its legacy. As I said before, it would be great especially for the visual learner to watch the parable film of this trial, "Inherit the Wind. Nov 28, Andrew rated it really liked it Shelves: history , religion , nonfiction , education.
Half of the book is the lead-up to the jury trial, including the ACLU's premeditated solicitation of a case to challenge anti-evolution statues. He was a math "It would be ridiculous to entrust the education of children to an oligarchy of scientists. He was a math and physics teacher who was unmarried, not tied to Dayton, TN, and willing to go through the ordeal.
The aftermath of the trial was both heartening and dispiriting. The appeal of Scopes' "conviction" was neither overturned nor upheld there was deft maneuvering by 3 of 5 judges. This was the depressing part: no judge wanted to take responsibility.
Such decisions are the mainstay of our modern Supreme Court. Furthermore, a poorly researched history text of the s, Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 's , led to widespread misinformation about the trial, its players, its outcome, and later popular adaptions in theatre and film.
The discussion of the aftermath is the most enriching. Most of us have a conception of the events in our mind, and unless we have read deeply, these ideas are certainly misapprehensions about Darrow smashing Bryan, which is not what occurred. This has motivated me to read the transcript itself. WGN broadcast the trial live the first such trial to undergo such dissemination , but no recording was made. One unmistakable difference from modern legal controversies is laid bare: we play rough today.
This was a light-hearted episode by modern standards. Contrast to the s, when authoritarian conspiracy theorists like McCarthy were locking Americans up for contrary opinions.
Contrast to today, wherein any discussion of this magnitude would be all bile and venom, death threats and promises of political or actual annihilation.
Here is a rare instance where I pine for an attitude of the past A interesting and often dramatic account of not only the Scopes Trail but the belief systems which ultimately contended in small town of Dayton Tennessee in In the build-up to the trail Larson describes the rise of Fundamentalist Christianity, the populist and, more importantly, majoritarian movements lead by William Jennings Bryan and finally the advent of groups like the ACLU advocating for individual rights.
Larson remains objective throughout the narrative while conveying a description A interesting and often dramatic account of not only the Scopes Trail but the belief systems which ultimately contended in small town of Dayton Tennessee in Larson remains objective throughout the narrative while conveying a description of time, place and people that makes the reader feel that they are sitting in Dayton's courthouse. One may be saddened to consider that even after ninety years we retain a strand in our culture of politics that mimics those that wanted to deny science and preach to children in public schools a biblically literal creation of humankind.
The braying of Billy Sunday has been replaced with the slick but false marketing of "teach the controversy". An excellent historical account of the first modern media spectacle, when rapid far-reaching communication was young and conservative intolerance was at its most unknown peak, the s unless today counts. Told in a dry, academic tone, this book isn't for the casually interested looking for entertainment - that would have been the event itself.
Yet Larson does a fantastic job researching the event, its causes and effects of its times, and how 80 years later this trial is still being fought in An excellent historical account of the first modern media spectacle, when rapid far-reaching communication was young and conservative intolerance was at its most unknown peak, the s unless today counts.
Yet Larson does a fantastic job researching the event, its causes and effects of its times, and how 80 years later this trial is still being fought in various iterations. Jun 23, Mandy rated it it was amazing. Authoritative, comprehensive, detailed and excellently researched account of the Scopes Trial. All you could ever want or need to know about the trial itself, the people involved, the politics, and the still ongoing controversy and battle between evolution and creationism.
An entertaining, accessible and informative read. Shelves: spcourses , history. This book does precisely what it sets out to do: take a look at the Scopes trial and evaluate what it has meant for American society since that time. In fact, as one reads the book, one finds that Larson accomplishes exactly what he intends to with each chapter.
Is it written so clearly that the reader never has to wonder where Larson will be going in the respective chapter—the chapter thesis is almost always placed at the end of the first paragraph, and summarizes to the reader the happenings during the chapter. Of course, the remainder of the chapter is not redundant, but merely substantiates the initial claim. Truly, the way Larson sets up the arguments for both sides of the case chapters 2 and 3 , create an immense amount of tension within me as I wrestled with the validity of both claims.
It really does make sense for the majority to determine what is taught to their children, but it also makes sense to have the experts determine what should be taught in their field. So, even though the first section may be a bit dry, it is essential to understanding what this trial represents. Of course, it represents different things to different peoples—to some it merely means money. Larson does an excellent job of pulling back the curtain to reveal the actual events that occurred; he is not influenced by later recapitulations of the trial but in fact devotes a whole chapter to explain these and why they are misguided.
His recounting is measured and accurate, and he does not allow subjective interpretation or framing of the events indeed, throughout one is hard pressed to find evidence for which side they believe Larson himself agrees with! The interpretation which he eventually does offer is merely more historical recounting—what people thought and believed about the trial after it was over.
For those who grew up hearing the legends of the Scopes trial, this is for you. Responding to what another reviewer has said regarding Intelligent Design, Larson answers in the new Afterword. Oct 13, Martha Foster rated it really liked it. Much more interesting debate! Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for somethin This was a quite interesting book, especially Parts I and II: Before And my impressions of the two major contenders, Clarence Darrow defense attorney and William Jennings Bryan prosecutor , were tempered somewhat.
The flaws in these sources were explored in Part III The former, by necessity, cut out many details about the trial as the trial was only one chapter in that book , and focused on the carnival atmosphere in the town of Dayton during the trial.
The main characters were drawn a bit cartoonishly, and the whole episode was portrayed in good humor as was the tone throughout his book. Inherit the Wind , was much more somber and menacing in tone, as the play portrayed the Scopes trial as an analogy to McCarthyism ongoing when the play was written. Two flaws brought this book down to 4 stars, in my opinion: 1. It was difficult to keep track of all the minor people involved — and as it was a major historical event, there were major, minor, tertiary, rings of characters swirling around the trial itself.
Maybe there should have been a Cast of Characters at the beginning of the book. And 2. The final portion of the book Overall, though, this was a very informative and interesting book, and I enjoyed it.
I recommend it to anyone who wants to delve more deeply into this important event in American history. Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for providing me with an e-ARC in exchange for a fair and honest review 4. It was essentially a battle between whether or not evolution should be taught in schools, but Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for providing me with an e-ARC in exchange for a fair and honest review 4.
It was essentially a battle between whether or not evolution should be taught in schools, but the trail itself had a very different argument than the modern separation of church and state precedent that we are familiar with today. The book I'm reviewing is the most recent edition of the original release. That is the edition which is the same exact book with a slightly modified afterward. I believe that is an adaptation of the edition which features its own afterword.
I was surprised to learn that Scopes trial was not about separation of church and state as is the modern reasoning for keeping Christianity out and evolution in. I am loosely familiar with the Scopes trial period because I had a phase of extreme atheism i.
However, most of my knowledge, while slightly vague, never really clearly defined the Scopes trial as it really was. To be sure, this requirement also applies to advocates of evolution.
After all these years it has become evident that evolution has also assumed the character of a religion. Gould and Richard Dawkins. How ironic that advocates for evolution must rely on winning the argument by drawing the boundaries of science on their own terms. He who succeeds in excluding his opponents by definition wins the day.
Interestingly, the case for teaching evolution continues to find many supporters from among the clergy. The Scopes Trial took place more than 70 years ago. Nevertheless its legacy continues to be felt in the series of legal battles currently being fought in courts across the USA.
We must admire the Americans for their passionate demands for public accountability for truth claims. Nevertheless I cannot help but wonder how truth can be a matter to be determined in the courts where protagonists are tempted to outmaneuver their opponents in the battles of big egos. In the process the more important task of demonstrating truth claims though painstaking analysis, well founded argumentation and mutual correction is overshadowed.
All too often truth becomes trivialized in the fight between advocates of contesting truth claims. When a dominant community imposes its views on other minority groups through the legislature we end up with the tyranny of the majority. In this regard, the Scopes Trial is not merely about the issue of evolution. Skip to content There is a rumor abroad that the Christian religion has been discredited by the advancement of science.
0コメント