July 4th, 2005 Scopes Trial Reenactment/BBQ Compiled from the July 1925 trial transcripts by Nat Friedman Copyright (C) 2005 Nat Friedman (nat@nat.org) Licensed under the Creative Commons attribution license v2.5 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Characters WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN CLARENCE DARROW JUDGE HAULSTON ATTORNEY-GENERAL STEWART JOHN SCOPES REVEREND CARTWRIGHT BAILIFF NARRATOR NARRATOR Welcome to historical barbecue theater! (Extended cheers from the audience) This play marks an embarrassment of historic proportions in the life of our young country. Tonight, our tipsy amateur players will take us back four score years, to a sweltering Tennessee courtroom in July of 1925, where good battled evil...and evil won. In America, the period between the great wars was a time of dramatic social change. It was the era of prohibition...and it was the era of flagrant violation of prohibition. It was the time of Al Capone, the flappers, of Jazz. Traditionalists worried that everything they'd ever valued was dying. A revivalist movement sprung up in the South. The term "bible belt" was coined. It was the progressives versus the old Victorians, and journalists were looking for a fight. They found one, in Dayton, Tennessee, where the town's businessmen crafted a plan to put Dayton on the map. You see, in February the state's legislature had just enacted something called the Butler Act: a law forbidding the teaching of the evolution of man in Tennessee's public schools. Dayton's leading lights saw that by testing this law in court, they could craft a story so interesting and popular that it would shine a spotlight on their tiny town, and that commerce would follow. Let's meet our players. The Tennessee boys first. (As each of the following intros is given, the character walks to center stage and behaves characteristically.) John Thomas Scopes, 24 years old, a teacher of Biology and a high school football coach. Scopes is accused of teaching evolution to his students, in violation of Tennessee's freshly-minted February 1925 Butler Act...also known as the antievolution act. Attorney-General A. Thomas Stewart, the state's lead prosecutor. A home-grown Tennessee boy, Stewart is a man well-known for his good sense and for his belief in the law. And the aged and Honorable Judge Haulston (waves his gavel), presiding over the case. When the national journalists got wind of what was happening in Dayton, the case attracted the attention of the country's most important and powerful men. And oh no, they weren't going to leave all the fun to these three boys from Tennessee. Who should be the first to take notice? None other than the world-famous orator and politician William Jennings Bryan! (Bryan storms onto stage beaming, the perfect politician: shaking hands, reaching into the audience. Narrator reads the next several lines over the extended cheering of the audience.) Three-time presidential candidate, author of the famed "Cross of Gold" speech of 1896, one-time secretary of state, speaker, prohibitionist, advocate of women's suffrage, Biblical commentator and a powerful literalist in the interpretation of scripture. When Bryan showed up in Dayton, he announced that he would be leading the prosecution of the Scopes case. A goliath, descended from on high. But who could match him? In came Clarence Darrow. Liberal attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, Darrow was already well-known for his defense of Leopold and Loeb, the blueblood Nietszche-inspired "perfect murder" culprits whose dropped spectacles were their great weakness. Darrow took up the mantle of the defense. And now, ladies and gentlemen, our stage is set, and we will let the play begin. (Narrator exits) JUDGE Open court, Mr. Sheriff. BAILIFF Oyez, oyez, this honorable circuit court is now open pursuant to adjournment. Sit down, please. JUDGE The court will come to order. The Reverend Cartwright will open court with prayer. (All members of court stand for the prayer. Darrow stands, reluctantly but with dignity.) REVEREND (in tones of adulation and holiness) Oh, God, our divine Father, we recognize Thee as the Supreme Ruler of the universe, in whose hands are the lives and destinies of all men, and of all the world. (The Reverend pauses for one beat. Darrow appears very annoyed. All members of court move to sit down, but the Reverend continues.) We are conscious, our Father, that Thou art the source of our wisdom, and of our power, and that unaided by Thee and Thy divine spirit, we are incapable of thinking pure thoughts or performing righteous deeds. With the consciousness of our weakness and our frailty, and our ignorance, we come to Thee this morn-- (Darrow steps forward and interrupts) DARROW Your Honor, I object vigorously to the court being opened with this prayer, and I object to the jury being present when this objection is ruled on. I understand from the court himself that he has sometimes opened the court with prayer and sometimes not but the nature of this case being one where it is claimed by the state that there is a conflict between science and religion, there should be no attempt by means of prayer to influence the deliberation of the jury of the facts in this case. For that reason we object to the opening of the court with prayer. BRYAN The state makes no contention that this case is a conflict between science and religion. It is a case involving the fact as to whether or not a school-teacher has taught a doctrine prohibited by statute. We, for the state, think it is quite proper to open the court with prayer if the court sees fit to do it, and such an idea extended by the agnostic counsel for the defense is foreign to the thoughts and ideas of the people who do not know anything about infidelity and care less. DARROW May I enter an exception to the statement "agnostic counsel for the defense." JUDGE Noted. DARROW I would like to ask Your Honor whether in all the trials over which Your Honor has presided, this court has had a clergyman every morning of every day of every trial to open the court with prayer? We believe that this daily opening of the court with prayers helps to increase the atmosphere of hostility to our point of view, which already exists in this community by widespread propaganda. JUDGE I constantly invoke divine guidance myself, when I am on the bench and off the bench; I see no reason why I should not continue to do this. It is not the purpose of this court to bias or prejudice the mind of any individual, but to do right in all matters under investigation. I have instructed the ministers who have been invited to my rostrum to open the court with prayer, to make no reference to the issues involved in this case. Therefore, I am pleased to over-rule the objection of counsel and invite Reverend Cartwright to open the court with prayer. DARROW I note an exception, Your Honor. JUDGE Noted. Please finish the prayer, Reverend. REVEREND We pray, our heavenly Father, that the presence of the Holy Spirit may be in this courtroom, and with the jury, and with the accused, and with all the attorneys interested in this case. Amen. JUDGE Please be seated. On May 25, 1925, John T. Scopes was indicted in this county for violating what is generally known as the anti-evolution statute. The statute is Chapter 27 of the acts of 1925, which makes it unlawful to teach in 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, any theory that denies the story of Divine creation of man as taught in the Bible and teach instead thereof that man descended from a lower order of animals. This act became the law in Tennessee on March 21, 1925. How does the defense plead? DARROW Not guilty. JUDGE Gentlemen of the jury, the vital question now involved for your consideration is, has the statute been violated by Mr. Scopes? If you find the statute has been violated, you should indict the guilty person or persons. You will bear in mind that in this investigation you are not interested to inquire into the policy or wisdom of this legislation. The court will now hear the argument for the defense. DARROW The defense maintains that the book of Genesis is in part a hymn, in part an allegory and work of religious interpretations written by men who believe that the earth was flat and whose authority cannot be accepted to control the teachings of science in our schools. The narrow purpose of the defense is to establish the innocence of the defendant Scopes. The broad purpose of the defense will be to prove that the Bible is a work of religious aspiration which must be kept in the field of theology. If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public school, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools, and the next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers. Soon you may set Catholic against Protestant and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the minds of men. If you can do one you can do the other. Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding. After while, your honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth century when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. The defense maintains that there is no more justification for imposing the conflicting views of the Bible on courses of biology than there would be for imposing the views of biologists on courses of comparative religion. We maintain that science and religion embrace two separate and distinct fields of thought and learning. We remember that Jesus said: "Render unto Ceasar's the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." BRYAN (Objecting, addressing the judge, but really the court) This is wholly improper and argumentative. The statute is clearly written and is the law of the land. Any Tennessee boy of sixteen could understand it. DARROW (interrupting) If that is so, they forget it by the time they get to the age of Atty.-Gen. Stewart, and do not again acquire it by the time they reach the charming age of Mr. Bryan. BRYAN (continuing unruffled) It says that whenever a man teaches that man descended from a lower order of animals as contradistinguished from the record of the creation of man as given by the word of God, that he is guilty. Does the proof show that Professor Scopes taught that man is descended from monkeys or not? That is the only issue. DARROW Their theory seems to be that Professor Scopes taught and that evolution teaches that man has descended from a monkey. If Professor Scopes taught that, he would not be violating this law. JUDGE Explain yourself, Mr. Darrow DARROW The orders of animals were classified by Linnaeus about 200 years ago. In the first order -- the primate order, was man, monkeys, apes and lemurs. That is the first order. To prove that man was descended from a monkey would not prove that man was descended from a lower order of animals, because monkeys and men are in the same order of animals -- the first order. That is the use of the term "order of animals" by zoologists and we have got to interpret this term according to its usual use. And so even if Prof. Scopes taught what the prosecution thinks, he would not have violated this law. That is the scientific fact, and yet yet these men had the audacity to come into court and ask the court to pass upon these questions without offering any evidence. JUDGE You may continue with your defense. DARROW If it please the court I will remark as to whether the law is reasonable or unreasonable under the constitution. I have taken the liberty of drafting a hypothetical law, which it seems to me would be constitutional if this law is constitutional. I have entitled this, "An act prohibiting the teaching of the heliocentric 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 let it be enacted that any teacher found guilty of a violation of this act shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be put to death. Now, my contention is that an act of that sort is clearly unconstitutional in that it is a restriction upon the liberties of the individual, and the only reason Your Honor would draw a distinction between the proposed act and the one before us is that it is so well fixed scientifically that the earth and planets move around the sun. The only distinction you can draw between this statute and the one we are discussing is that evolution is as much a scientific fact as the Copernican theory, but the Copernican theory has been fully accepted, as this must be accepted. There is never a duel with the truth. The truth always wins and we are not afraid of it. The truth is no coward. The truth does not need the law. The truth does not need the force of government. The truth does not need Mr. Bryan. The truth is imperishable, eternal and immortal and needs no human agency to support it. We are ready to tell the truth as we understand it and we do not fear all the truth that they can present as facts. We are ready. We are ready. We feel we stand with progress. We feel we stand with science. We feel we stand with intelligence. We feel we stand with fundamental freedom in America. We are not afraid. Where is the fear? We meet it, where is the fear? We defy it, we ask your honor to admit the evidence as a matter of correct law, as a matter of sound procedure and as a matter of justice to the defense in this case. (Darrow rests his defense and takes a seat) JUDGE Mr Bryan, you may begin the argument for the prosecution. BRYAN They passed a law up in New York repealing the enforcement of prohibition. Suppose the people of Tennessee had sent their attorneys up there to fight that law, or to oppose it after it was passed, and experts to testify how good a thing prohibition is to New York and to the nation. The people of this state passed this law, the people of this state knew what they were doing when they passed the law, and they knew the dangers of the doctrine of evolution -- that they did not want it taught to their children, and my friends, it isn't -- Your Honor, it isn't proper to bring experts in here to try to defeat the purpose of the people of this state by trying to show that this thing that they denounce and outlaw is a beautiful thing that everybody ought to believe in. Earlier this morning the lead counsel for the defense spoke about the order of animals. I may not be as familiar with these scientific experts as he is, but I know the one he referred to put man among the primates. And the monkeys were also among the primates, and he says if he taught that man came from a monkey he didn't violate the law in this state, because the monkey is in the same class of primates with man. The Christian believes man came from above, but the evolutionist believes he must have come from below. Let me read you what Darwin says, if you will pardon me. If I have to use some of these long words -- I have been trying all my life to use short words, and it is kind of hard to turn scientist for a moment. And try to express myself in their language. Here is the family tree of Darwin and remember that is the Darwin that is spoken of in Mr. Scope's textbook. It is Darwin that the defense praises. That is the Darwin who -- DARROW What is that book, Mr. Bryan? BRYAN "The Descent of Man," by Charles Darwin. DARROW Are you offering that book into evidence? BRYAN I should be glad to offer it. DARROW No, no, no. No, no. BRYAN Let me know if you want it, and it will go in. DARROW I would be glad to have it go in. BRYAN Here we have the diagram entitled the "Tree of Life." Has the court seen this diagram? JUDGE No, sir, I have not. (Bryan Shows "Tree of Life" to Court) BRYAN Well, you must see it (handing book to the court.) (Laughter in the courtroom.) BRYAN On page 194 -- I take it for granted that counsel for the defense have examined it carefully? DARROW We have examined it. BRYAN On page 194, we have a diagram, and this diagram purports to give man's family tree. And in this diagram, beginning with protozoa we have the animals classified. We have circles differing in size according to the number of species in them. I see they are round numbers, and I don't think all of these animals breed in round numbers in nature, and so I think it must be a generalization of them. 8,000 protozoa, 3,500 sponges. 360,000 insects. Two-thirds of all the species of all the animal world are insects. And sometimes, in the summer time we feel that we become intimately acquainted with them. Now, we are getting up near our kinfolks, 13,000 fishes. Then there are the amphibia. I don't know whether they have not yet decided to come out, or have almost decided to go back. (Laughter in the courtroom.) But they seem to be somewhat at home in both elements. And then we have the reptiles, 3,500; and then we have 13,000 birds. Strange that this should be exactly the same as the number of fishes, round numbers. And then we have mammals, 3,500, and there is a little circle and man is in the circle, find him, find man. There is that book! There is the book they were teaching your children that man was a mammal and so indistinguishable among the mammals that they leave him there with thirty-four hundred and ninety-nine other mammals. Including elephants! Talk about putting Daniel in the Lion's den? How dared those scientists put man in a little ring like that with lions and tigers and everything that is bad! Not only the evolution is possible, but the scientists possibly think of shutting man up in a little circle like that with all these animals, that have an odor, that extends beyond the circumference of this circle, my friends. (Extended laughter.) Tell me that the parents of this day have not any right to declare that children are not to be taught this doctrine? Shall be detached from the throne of God and be compelled to link their ancestors with the jungle, tell that to these children? Why, my friend, if they believe it, they go back to scoff at the religion of their parents! And the parents have a right to say that no teacher paid by their money shall rob their children of faith in God and send them back to their homes, skeptical, infidels, or agnostics, or atheists. This doctrine that they want taught, this doctrine that they would force upon the schools, where they will not let the Bible be read! Now, here we have our glorious pedigree, and each child is expected to copy the family tree and take it home to his family to be submitted for the Bible family tree -- that is what Darwin says. JUDGE Let me ask you a question: Do you understand the evolution theory to involve the divine birth of divinity, or Christ's virgin birth, in any way or not? BRYAN I am perfectly willing to answer the question. My contention is that the evolutionary hypothesis is not a theory, Your Honor, and it is not compatible with the Bible. JUDGE Thank you Colonel Bryan. Defense puts Bryan on the stand DARROW Please the court, the defense desires to call Mr. William Jennings Bryan as an expert witness on the Bible and its interpretation. (Gasps fill the courtroom) STEWART (Objecting vigorously) Your honor, I don't think it is necessary to call him, calling a lawyer who represents a client. (JUDGE nods, glances sceptically at DARROW) BRYAN (Unflinching) If your Honor please, I insist that Mr. Darrow be put on the stand as well. JUDGE (obsequiously) Call anybody you desire. Ask them any questions you wish. BRYAN (turning to DARROW) Where do you want me to sit? JUDGE Mr. Bryan, you are not objecting to going on the stand? BRYAN Not at all. JUDGE (Addressing DARROW) Do you want Mr. Bryan sworn? DARROW No. BRYAN I can make affirmation; I can say "So help me God, I will tell the truth." DARROW No, I take it you will tell the truth, Mr. Bryan. (Darrow picks up a Bible off the desk, stands up and walks around leafing through it, giving Bryan time to maneuver his considerable mass into the witness stand.) DARROW (Holding the Bible and addressing Bryan) You have given considerable study to the Bible, haven't you, Mr. Bryan? BRYAN Yes, sir, I have tried to. DARROW You have written and published articles almost weekly, and sometimes have made interpretations of various things? BRYAN Yes I have; I have studied the Bible for about fifty years, or sometime more than that, but, of course, I have studied it more as I have become older than when I was but a boy. DARROW Do you claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted? BRYAN I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there; some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: "Ye are the salt of the earth." I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people. DARROW But when you read that Jonah swallowed the whale -- or that the whale swallowed Jonah -- excuse me please -- how do you literally interpret that? BRYAN A big fish swallowed Jonah -- it does not say whale. A big fish, not a whale, and I believe it, and I believe in a God who can make a whale and can make a man and make both do what He pleases. (Applause in the courtyard) DARROW (Unaffected) Now, you say, the big fish swallowed Jonah, and he there remained how long -- three days -- and then he spewed him upon the land. Was this the ordinary run of fish, or was it made for that purpose? BRYAN You may guess; you evolutionists guess. DARROW But when we do guess, we have a sense to guess right. BRYAN But do not do it often. Let me add: One miracle is just as easy to believe as another. A miracle is a thing performed beyond what man can perform. When you get beyond what man can do, you get within the realm of miracles; and it is just as easy to believe the miracle of Jonah as any other miracle in the Bible. DARROW And so it is as easy to believe that Jonah swallowed the whale as that the whale swallowed Jonah? BRYAN If the Bible said so; the Bible doesn't make as extreme statements as evolutionists do. The only thing is, you have a definition of fact that includes imagination. DARROW And you have a definition that excludes everything but imagination! (Hostile murmurs) BAILIFF Order in the court! (Darrow paces in front of the witness, thumbing through the Bible.) DARROW (Turning to the witness) Do you believe Joshua made the sun stand still? BRYAN I believe what the Bible says. DARROW The Bible says Joshua commanded the sun to stand still for the purpose of lengthening the day, doesn't it, and you believe it? BRYAN I do. I accept the Bible absolutely. DARROW Do you believe at that time the entire sun went around the earth? BRYAN No, I believe that the earth goes around the sun. DARROW Do you believe that the men who wrote it thought that the day could be lengthened or that the sun could be stopped? BRYAN I believe that the Bible was written by an inspired author. Whether one who wrote as he was directed to write understood the things he was writing about, I don't know. DARROW Do you think whoever inspired it believed that the sun went around the earth? BRYAN I believe it was inspired by the Almighty, and He may have used language that could be understood at that time. DARROW Was-- BRYAN Instead of using language that could not be understood until Darrow was born. (Laughter and applause in the court.) DARROW Don't you believe that in order to lengthen the day it would have been construed that the earth stood still? BRYAN I would not attempt to say what would have been necessary, but I know this, that I can take a glass of water that would fall to the ground without the strength of my hand and to the extent of the glass of water I can overcome the law of gravitation and lift it up. Whereas without my hand it would fall to the ground. If my puny hand can overcome the law of gravitation, the most universally understood, to that extent, I would not set power to the hand of Almighty God that made the universe. DARROW Mr. Bryan, have you ever pondered what would have happened to the earth if it had stood still suddenly? Don't you know it would have been converted into a molten mass of matter? BRYAN The God I believe in could have taken care of that, Mr. Darrow. (Tremendous applause) DARROW Great applause from the bleachers. BRYAN From those whom you call "yokels." DARROW I have never called them yokels. BRYAN That is the ignorance of Tennessee, the bigotry. DARROW You mean who are applauding you? BRYAN Those are the people whom you insult. DARROW You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion! STEWART This has gone beyond the pale of a lawsuit! Your Honor, I have a public duty to perform under my oath and I ask the court to stop it. Mr. Darrow is making an effort to insult the gentleman on the witness stand, and I ask that it be stopped, for it has gone beyond the pale of a lawsuit. JUDGE To stop it now would not be just to Mr. Bryan. He wants to ask the other gentleman questions along the same line. BRYAN Your Honor, they have not asked a question legally, and the only reason they have asked any question, as the question about Jonah was asked, is to give this agnostic an opportunity to criticize a believer in the word of God; and I answered the question in order to shut his mouth so that he cannot go out and tell his atheistic friends that I would not answer his question. That is the only reason, no more reason in the world. JUDGE I will pass on each question as asked, if it is objected to. DARROW Mr. Bryan, do you believe that the first woman was Eve? BRYAN Yes. DARROW Do you believe she was literally made out of Adam's rib? BRYAN I do. DARROW Yes. All right. Do you believe the story of the temptation of Eve by the serpent? BRYAN I do. DARROW Do you believe that after Eve ate the apple, or gave it to Adam, whichever way it was, that God cursed Eve, and at that time decreed that all womankind thenceforth and forever should suffer the pains of childbirth in the reproduction of the earth? BRYAN I believe what it says, and I believe the fact as fully -- DARROW That is what it says, doesn't it? BRYAN Yes. DARROW And for that reason, every woman born of woman, who has to carry on the race, the reason they have childbirth pains is because Eve tempted Adam in the Garden of Eden? BRYAN I will believe just what the Bible says. I ask to put that in the language of the Bible, for I prefer that to your language. Read the Bible and I will answer. DARROW I will read it to you from the Bible: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou cat all the days of thy life." Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly? BRYAN I believe that. DARROW Have you any idea how the snake went before that time? BRYAN No, sir. DARROW Do you know whether he walked on his tail or not? BRYAN No, sir. I have no way to know. DARROW Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife? BRYAN No, sir; I leave the agnostics to hunt for her. DARROW You have never found out? BRYAN I have never tried to find. DARROW You have never tried to find? BRYAN No. DARROW The Bible says he got one, doesn't it? Were there other people on the earth at that time? BRYAN I cannot say. DARROW You cannot say. Did that ever enter your consideration? BRYAN Never bothered me. DARROW There were no others recorded, but Cain got a wife. BRYAN That is what the Bible says. DARROW Do you have any idea how old the earth is? BRYAN Bishop Usher has calculated the exact date and time. The earth was created on October 23rd, 4004 B.C., at nine o'clock in the morning. DARROW The exact time! And when was the great flood the Bible speaks of? BRYAN Let me see Bishop Usher's calculation about it? DARROW Surely. (Handing a Bible to the witness.) BRYAN (Flipping through the bible) It has it here as 2348 years B.C. DARROW Well, 2348 years B. C. You believe that all the living things that were not contained in the ark were destroyed. BRYAN I think the fish may have lived. DARROW The Bible you have offered in evidence, says 2,348 years BC the great flood occurred. It is now 1,925 year of Grace. (Makes some calculations with a pencil) So that 4,273 years ago there was not a living thing on the earth, excepting the people on the ark and the animals of the ark... and the fishes of course? BRYAN Yes. According to the Bible there was a civilization before that, destroyed by the flood. DARROW Let me make this definite. You believe that every civilization on the earth and every living thing, except possibly the fishes, that came out of the ark were wiped out by the flood? And then, whatever human beings, including all the tribes, that inhabited the world, and have inhabited the world, and who run their pedigree straight back, and all the animals, have come onto the earth in the 4,273 years since the flood? BRYAN Yes. (An uneasy murmur in the court) DARROW Do you know about how many people there were on this earth 3,000 years ago? Do you know anything about how many people there were in Egypt 3,500 years ago, or how many people there were in China 5,000 years ago? BRYAN No. DARROW Did you ever try to find out? BRYAN No, sir, I have been so well satisfied with the Christian religion that I have spent no time trying to find arguments against it. DARROW You don't care how old the earth is, how old man is and how long the animals have been here? BRYAN I have all the information I want to live by and to die by. DARROW Now, the Bible refers to the cloud that was put in the heaven after the flood, the rainbow. Do you believe in that? BRYAN Read it. DARROW All right, Mr. Bryan, I will read it for you-- BRYAN Your Honor, I think I can shorten this testimony. The only purpose Mr. Darrow has is to slur at the Bible, but I will answer his question. I will answer it all at once, and I have no objection in the world, I want the world to know that this man, who does not believe in a God, is trying to use a court in Tennessee -- DARROW I object to that. BRYAN (Continuing) to slur at it, and while it will require time, I am willing to take it. DARROW I object to your statement. I am examining you on your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes. JUDGE The witness will step down. We will now hear closing arguments. BRYAN (rises from the witness stand, collects his notes, and walks to center stage) Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher of morals. It can perfect machinery, but it adds no moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of the machine. It can also build gigantic intellectual ships, but it constructs no moral rudders for the control of storm tossed human vessel. It not only fails to supply the spiritual element needed but some of its unproven hypotheses rob the ship of its compass and thus endangers its cargo. In war, science has proven itself an evil genius; it has made war more terrible than it ever was before. Man used to be content to slaughter his fellowmen on a single plane -- the earth's surface. Science has taught him to go down into the water and shoot up from below and to go up into the clouds and shoot down from above, thus making the battlefield three times a bloody as it was before; but science does not teach brotherly love. Science has made war so hellish that civilization was about to commit suicide; and now we are told that newly discovered instruments of destruction will make the cruelties of the late war seem trivial in comparison with the cruelties of wars that may come in the future. If civilization is to be saved from the wreckage threatened by intelligence not consecrated by love, it must be saved by the moral code of the meek and lowly Nazarene. His teachings, and His teachings, alone, can solve the problems that vex heart and perplex the world. Again force and love meet face to face, and the question, "What shall I do with Jesus?" must be answered. A bloody, brutal doctrine--Evolution--demands, as the rabble did nineteen hundred years ago, that He be crucified. That cannot be the answer of this jury representing a Christian state and sworn to uphold the laws of Tennessee. Your answer will be heard throughout the world; it is eagerly awaited by a praying multitude. If the law is nullified, there will be rejoice wherever God is repudiated, the savior scoffed at and the Bible ridiculed. Every unbeliever of every kind and degree will be happy. If, on the other hand, the law is upheld and the religion of the school children protected, millions of Christians will call you blessed and, with hearts full of gratitude to God, will sing again that grand old song of triumph: "Faith of our fathers, living still, In spite of dungeon, fire and sword; O how our hearts beat high with joy Whene'er we hear that glorious word--- Faith of our fathers--Holy faith; We will be true to thee till death!" JUDGE And now we will have the closing argument from the defense. DARROW Let me suggest this. We have all been here quite a while and I say it in perfectly good faith, we have no witnesses to offer, no proof to offer on the issues that the court has laid down here, that Mr. Scopes did teach what the children said he taught, that man descended from a lower order of animals -- we do not mean to contradict that, and I think to save time we will ask the court to bring in the jury and instruct the jury to find the defendant guilty. We make no objection to that and it will save a lot of time and I think that should be done. We think we will save our point and take it to the higher court and settle whether the law is good, and also whether he should have permitted the evidence. I guess that is plain enough. (Everyone shrugs) JUDGE Mr. Foreman, will you tell us whether you have agreed on a verdict? FOREMAN Yes, sir. We have, Your Honor. JUDGE What do you find? FOREMAN We have found for the state, found the defendant guilty. JUDGE Did you fix the fine? FOREMAN No, sir. JUDGE You leave it to the court? FOREMAN Leave it to the court. JUDGE Mr Scopes, the court now fixes your fine at $100. SCOPES Your Honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom -- that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our constitution, of personal and religious freedom. I think the fine is unjust. JUDGE Thank you Mr. Scopes. Now, my friends, the people in America are great people. We are great in the South, and they are great in the North. And, let me tell you, there are two things in this world that are indestructible, that man cannot destroy, or no force in the world can destroy. One is truth. You may crush it to the earth but it will rise again. It is indestructible, and the causes of the law of God. Another thing indestructible in America and in Europe and everywhere else, is the Word of God, that He has given to man, that man may use it as a waybill to the other world. Indestructible, my friends, by any force because it is the word of the Man, of the forces that created the universe, and He has said in His word that "My word will not perish" but will live forever. DARROW May I, as one of the counsel for the defense, ask your honor to allow me to send you the "Origin of Species and the Descent of Man," by Charles Darwin? (Laughter) JUDGE Yes; yes. (Chuckling) Adjourn the court, officer. NARRATOR So ended one of the most controversial and extraordinary court cases in American history, and so began the uniquely American phenomenon of the media circus. One sad footnote. Five days after the trial ended, still in Dayton Tennessee, William Jennings Bryan laid down to nap after an enormous dinner and died in his sleep. Died of a broken heart, many said. Or of a busted stomach, some were heard to mutter. It was the passing of a great figure in America. But the spirit that binds Dayton together did not die -- (The entire cast joins arms together in song, Darrow with some initial reluctance) Go, tell it on the mountain, Over the hills and everywhere Go, tell it on the mountain, That Jesus Christ is born. Refrain x 2 (Exeunt) Fin.