One hundred years ago on July 10 in Dayton, Tennessee, jury selection began in the trial of John T. Scopes. Scopes was a high school teacher accused of violating state law by teaching the theory of evolution in biology class. This trial, dubbed by some as the “Monkey Trial,” was probably a set-up to test the law. Ultimately, Scopes was convicted and fined, though the conviction was overturned on appeal for procedural reasons. The trial was reported contemporaneously by H. L. Mencken, a journalist and commentator for the Baltimore Sun known for his ascerbic wit.
The Darwinian theory, today much enhanced by a century of research and study, was — and is — highly controversial among certain populations. Almost all serious practitioners in the biological sciences accept the theory in its current form. Many who continue to be believers in various religions, maintain that their faith in divine creation is not incompatible with the biological theory. The exceptions, today as in 1925, include fundamentalist Christians who insist that the Bible (in whatever version they use) is the final word of God and its stories and statements are literally true.
When I was a freshman (9th grade) at Jesuit High School (now known by the highfalutin title as Jesuit College Preparatory School) in Dallas many decades ago, our teacher who taught both religion and English, brought up in class the stage play by Lawrence and Lee “Inherit the Wind,” a fictional account of the Scope Trial. We discussed the pros and cons of the Darwinian theory and its relation to faith, and were assigned to each write an essay about the compatibility of biological evolution with Christianity. My belief and understanding was that then, and now remains, the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that Christian faith and evolutionary theory are incompatible. Using exegesis to interpret Bible according to the spirit of its meaning, rather that strict literal language (from whatever version one wishes to read), harmonizes the science with faith. Nothing in Genesis, or elsewhere, precludes the intervention of God to endow an already developed creature with a human soul.
The United States in 1925 was a Protestant Christian society, pretty much fundamentalist in rural areas and small towns. Today, we are more pluralistic. There are numerous versions of Christianity, and many religious ideas and sects. And quite a few individuals here are atheists or agnostics. This pluralism is protected by the U. S. Constitution and state constitutions and law. Those who wish to manifest their beliefs publicly may do so, but those beliefs must not be ensconced into law. To paraphrase a wise observation from the New Testament: render unto the scientific study that with which it concerns, and unto faith what is its concerns.
The three main characters in the play are representations of defense lawyer Clarence Darrow, prosecutor William Jennings Bryan, and journalist H. L. Mencken. David Mamet, in todays Wall Street Journal Essay “Political Theater Makes Bad Drama,” criticizes the play as too one-sided — it tends to portray the Darrow character as heroic and dismissive of benighted populations of the town and Christians in general, Bryan as a buffoon, and Mencken as a cynical agnostic. Manet maintains drama should be more ambiguous and not dogmatic. He has a point. Invective rarely persuades the one at whom it is directed. Manet ends his essay opining that Darrow (and we) have learned nothing from the fictional play. I disagree. At the end, the Darrow character, picks up a Bible and Darwin’s book “The Descent of Man.” He balances them in each hand and puts them together in his briefcase. That says a lot other than mere words.
Note: “Inherit the Wind was staged numerous times. It was a 1960 film by Stanley Kramer; starring Spencer Tracy, Fredric March, and Gene Kelly, and a number of made-for-TV movies, including 1999 with Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, and Beau Bridges.
Another anniversary worth noting is the launch in 1962 of Telstar, the first communications satellite. This was a feat comparable to the invention of the printing press that led to widespread literacy, the electric telegraph that enabled direct interpersonal communication from a distance, and microchips that allowed the creation of computers, cell-phones, and more. Each event was a blow to the “tyranny of distance” by enhancement of out ability to communicate. These developments have not been without side-effects, but have, on balance, improved the lives of billions.
