Editing Scopes trial (section)

=== Examination of Bryan ===

On the sixth day of the trial, the defense ran out of witnesses. The judge declared that all the defense testimony on the Bible was irrelevant and should not be presented to the jury (which had been excluded during the defense). On the seventh day of the trial, the defense asked the judge to call Bryan as a witness to question him on the Bible, as their own experts had been rendered irrelevant; Darrow had planned this the day before and called Bryan a "Bible expert". This move surprised those present in the court, as Bryan was a counsel for the prosecution and Bryan himself (according to a journalist reporting the trial) never made a claim of being an expert, although he did tout his knowledge of the Bible.{{sfn|de Camp|1968|p=412}} This testimony revolved around several questions regarding Biblical stories and Bryan's beliefs (as shown below); this testimony culminated in Bryan declaring that Darrow was using the court to "slur the Bible" while Darrow replied that Bryan's statements on the Bible were "foolish".<ref>{{Citation|last=Scopes|first=John Thomas|title=The world's most famous court trial, State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes; complete stenographic report of the court test of the Tennessee anti-evolution act at Dayton, July 10 to 21, 1925, including speeches and arguments of attorneys|page=304|location=New York|publisher=Da Capo Press|year=1971|isbn=978-1-886363-31-1}}</ref>

[[File:WJBryan.jpg|thumb|right|upright=0.8|[[William Jennings Bryan]] in 1925]]

On the seventh day of the trial, Clarence Darrow took the unorthodox step of calling William Jennings Bryan, counsel for the prosecution, to the stand as a witness in an effort to demonstrate that belief in the historicity of the Bible and its many accounts of miracles was unreasonable. Bryan accepted, on the understanding that Darrow would in turn submit to questioning by Bryan. Although Hays would claim in his autobiography that the examination of Bryan was unplanned, Darrow spent the night before in preparation. The scientists the defense had brought to Dayton—and [[Charles Francis Potter]], a modernist minister who had engaged in a series of public debates on evolution with the fundamentalist preacher [[John Roach Straton]]—prepared topics and questions for Darrow to address to Bryan on the witness stand.<ref>Arthur Garfield Hays, ''Let Freedom Ring'' (New York: Liveright, 1937), pp. 71–72; Charles Francis Potter, ''The Preacher and I'' (New York: Crown, 1951), pp. 275–76.</ref> [[Kirtley Mather]], chairman of the geology department at [[Harvard]] and also a devout Baptist, played Bryan and answered questions as he believed Bryan would.{{sfn|de Camp|1968|pp=364–65}}<ref>Kirtley F. Mather, "Creation and Evolution", in ''Science Ponders Religion'', ed. Harlow Shapley (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1960), pp. 32–45.</ref> Raulston had adjourned court to the stand on the courthouse lawn, ostensibly because he was "afraid of the building" with so many spectators crammed into the courtroom, but probably because of the stifling heat.{{sfn|Scopes|Presley|1967|p=164}}

==== Adam and Eve ====

An area of questioning involved the book of Genesis, including questions about whether [[Eve]] was actually created from Adam's rib, where [[Cain and Abel|Cain]] got his wife, and how many people lived in [[Ancient Egypt]]. Darrow used these examples to suggest that the stories of the Bible could not be scientific and should not be used in teaching science, telling Bryan, "You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion."{{sfn|Moran|2002|p=150}} Bryan's declaration in response was "The reason I am answering is not for the benefit of the superior court. It is to keep these gentlemen from saying I was afraid to meet them and let them question me, and I want the Christian world to know that any atheist, agnostic, unbeliever, can question me anytime as to my belief in God, and I will answer him."{{sfn|Moran|2002|p=157}}

<!-- Plagiarized text -->
Stewart objected for the prosecution, demanding to know the legal purpose of Darrow's questioning. Bryan, gauging the effect the session was having, snapped that its purpose was "to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible". Darrow, with equal vehemence, retorted "We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States."<ref>p. 299</ref>

<!-- Plagiarized text -->
A few more questions followed in the charged open-air courtroom. Darrow asked where Cain got his wife; Bryan answered that he would "leave the agnostics to hunt for her".<ref><!-- what book? -->pp. 302–03</ref> When Darrow addressed the issue of the [[Eve#Temptation, fall, and expulsion from the garden|temptation]] of Eve by the [[Serpent (Bible)|serpent]], Bryan insisted that the Bible be quoted verbatim rather than allowing Darrow to paraphrase it in his own terms. However, after another angry exchange, Judge Raulston banged his gavel, adjourning the court.{{sfn|de Camp|1968|p=410}}

==== End of the trial ====
[[File:Scopes trial.jpg|thumb|Darrow (left) and Bryan (right) during the trial]]
The confrontation between Bryan and Darrow lasted approximately two hours on the afternoon of the seventh day of the trial. It is likely that it would have continued the following morning but for Judge Raulston's announcement that he considered the whole examination irrelevant to the case and his decision that it should be "expunged" from the record. Thus Bryan was denied the chance to cross-examine the defense lawyers in return, although after the trial Bryan would distribute nine questions to the press to bring out Darrow's "religious attitude". The questions and Darrow's short answers were published in newspapers the day after the trial ended, with ''The New York Times'' characterizing Darrow as answering Bryan's questions "with his agnostic's creed, 'I don't know,' except where he could deny them with his belief in natural, immutable law".<ref>{{cite news |title=Evolution Battle Rages out of Court |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1925/07/22/archives/evolution-battle-rages-out-of-court-bryan-denounces-opponent-as.html |url-access=subscription |date=July 22, 1925 |page=2}}.</ref>

After the defense's final attempt to present evidence was denied, Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury only to have them come to a guilty verdict:
<blockquote>We claim that the defendant is not guilty, but as the court has excluded any testimony, except as to the one issue as to whether he taught that man descended from a lower order of animals, and we cannot contradict that testimony, there is no logical thing to come except that the jury find a verdict that we may carry to the higher court, purely as a matter of proper procedure. We do not think it is fair to the court or counsel on the other side to waste a lot of time when we know this is the inevitable result and probably the best result for the case.</blockquote>

After they were brought in, Darrow then addressed the jury:
<blockquote>We came down here to offer evidence in this case and the court has held under the law that the evidence we had is not admissible, so all we can do is to take an exception and carry it to a higher court to see whether the evidence is admissible or not{{nbsp}}... we cannot even explain to you that we think you should return a verdict of not guilty. We do not see how you could. We do not ask it.</blockquote>

Darrow closed the case for the defense without a final summation. Under Tennessee law, when the defense waived its right to make a closing speech, the prosecution was also barred from summing up its case, preventing Bryan from presenting his prepared summation.

Scopes never testified since there was never a factual issue as to whether he had taught evolution. Scopes later admitted that, in reality, he was unsure of whether he had taught evolution (another reason the defense did not want him to testify), but the point was not contested at the trial.<ref>Scopes 1967: pp.&nbsp;59–60</ref>

William Jennings Bryan's summation of the Scopes trial, which was distributed to reporters but not read in court, read:
<blockquote>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 endanger 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 as 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 the heart and perplex the world.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.beliefnet.com/News/1999/12/Faith-Of-Our-Fathers.aspx#|title=Faith of Our Fathers|work=Beliefnet}}</ref></blockquote>

After eight days of trial, it took the jury only nine minutes to deliberate. Scopes was found guilty on July 21 and ordered by Raulston to pay a $100 [[Fine (penalty)|fine]] ({{Inflation|US|100|1925|fmt=eq|r=-2}}). Raulston imposed the fine before Scopes was given an opportunity to say anything about why the court should not impose punishment upon him and after Neal brought the error to the judge's attention the defendant spoke for the first and only time in court:
<blockquote>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.<ref>''World's Most Famous Court Trial'', p. 313</ref></blockquote>

Bryan died suddenly five days after the trial's conclusion.<ref>Kazin, M. ''A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan''. Anchor Press (2007), p. 134. {{ISBN|0385720564}}</ref> The connection between the trial and his death is still debated by historians.{{citation needed|date=May 2022}}