publicity stunt that was Scopes Monkey Trial (1925) laughed out of court of public opinion?

Most of us here at AH know that John Scopes was asked by some Chamber of Commerce types to stand for trial, and that the purpose was to help the commercial prospects of Dayton, Tennessee.

What if this becomes widely known before the trial?

One consequences that I see is that evangelical Christians in the U.S. feel less persecuted.

Please draw out some further consequences for me. Thanks. :)
 
Last edited:
I had completely forgotten what the trial was about but as an outsider I don’t think any thing could stop radical antiscience christians from feeling persecuted. Like conspiracy theorists feeling persecuted is part of their memeplex without it they would not be the same.
 
I don't know, but striking the law down on a technicality was a genius move by the appeals court.
Huh, that was a thing? I was always taught that the law stayed on the books for another forty-some years. But I guess that's what you get when you go to Jesus school.

I had completely forgotten what the trial was about but as an outsider I don’t think any thing could stop radical antiscience christians from feeling persecuted. Like conspiracy theorists feeling persecuted is part of their memeplex without it they would not be the same.
Absolutely this. I feel like even if they set up a Puritan New England-style society, they'd still say they're being persecuted. But that's just me.
 
. . . but striking the law down on a technicality was a genius move by the appeals court.
*striking down the conviction but not the law.

And for purposes of stopping what had become an unwanted circus.

And, publishers started phasing out evolution from textbooks because it was just too hot a topic. And for decades, it wasn’t in high school biology textbooks.
 
Last edited:
It was a publicity stunt as far as Scopes and the Chamber Of Commerce were concerned, but I suspect that the larger external forces backing both sides, ie. scientific liberals and Christian fundamentalists, took the matter fairly seriously.

For example, when Bryan was humiliated by Darrow during the cross-examination, and then denied the opporunity for a comeback via a procedural trick, I doubt his thought was "Oh well, it's still been a pretty good show, lots of money for the town."
 
. . . I don’t think any thing could stop radical antiscience christians from feeling persecuted. Like conspiracy theorists feeling persecuted is part of their memeplex without it they would not be the same.
But degrees matter.

Just like some people do come down from conspiracy theory and decide most of our problems are institutional, not conspiratorial.
 
Last edited:
I don't know, but striking the law down on a technicality was a genius move by the appeals court.

The Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the law, but struck down the conviction on the grounds that since the fine was $100, it should have imposed by a jury, not a judge. (Tennessee law only allowed judges fo impose fines up to $50.)

At the end of the ruling, the chief justice all but ordered the state not to bother retrying Scopes.

Bryan actually offered to pay Scopes' fine if he didn't appeal his conviction.
 
. . when Bryan was humiliated by Darrow during the cross-examination, and then denied the opporunity for a comeback via a procedural trick, . .
I think Bryan thought he handled himself pretty well, coming up with such zingers as, I’m more interested in the Rock of Ages, than in the ages of rocks.

And Darrow did go on some lines of questioning which can be viewed as making fun of the Bible (probably not the way to win friends and influence people!)

Some fundamentalists thought Bryan had failed to represent them because he basically said that in Genesis, “day” = age. Bryan may termed it, a period.
 
T.T.-Martins-Anti-Evolution-League-stall-Dayton-1925.jpg


daytonscene.jpg


Robinson.jpg

Drug store owner Fred Robinson with family, and chimp.

—> please note, adult chimps are damn dangerous animals


=======

And yes, the whole show would certainly liven up what was otherwise a very boring middle of the Summer!
 
Last edited:
How the evangelical left became the religious right

Pastor Paul Prather, Sept. 2, 2016

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.kentucky.com/living/religion/paul-prather/article99519102.html

“ . . . After the Scopes trial debacle, evangelicals, stung by grossly unfair coverage in the national media, retreated from the public arena. . . ”
Evangelicals withdrawing from public life seems to be the standard narrative.

And this guy adds that evangelicals had been on the left on many issues (for example, against child labor, and in favor of prison reform), but started moving to the right. Mainly because of the cold war.
 
Last edited:
Some fundamentalists thought Bryan had failed to represent them because he basically said that in Genesis, “day” = age. Bryan may termed it, a period.

Yeah this is an important point. The evolutionary debate in that era at its core was the origins of humanity and not over the age of the earth or even whether macro evolution could happen for some or much of it.

Bryan, Warfield and Machen were all long day creationists (meaning millions/billions of years is perfectly fine), and Warfield was pretty comfortable with evolution. And he was no theological liberal, being the foremost defender of the perfect inspiration and infallibility of the original texts.
 
. . . Bryan, Warfield and Machen were all long day creationists (meaning millions/billions of years is perfectly fine), . . .
Although, I’m sure we could find plenty of short day creationists, too!

A lot of Scopes Monkey was about modernity, and about cultural conflict in which rural citizens felt they were viewed with less than full respect by city citizens, etc. And plus,

s-e-x

The idea that if we acknowledge that we’re descended from monkeys we’re somehow justifying all kinds of sex outside marriage.
 
white_cheeked_gibbons_nomascus_leucogenys_benjamin_radzun__flickr_.jpg

If only we had known about gibbons! !

A living species of great ape which is largely monogamous (although they’re finding there’s some exceptions)

I roughly divide humans into a third, a third, a third. A third of humans seem to be naturally monogamous, at least the overwhelmingly majority of the time. A third can be primarily monogamous, although with some difficulty. And a third generally aren’t monogamous, or only for relatively brief periods of time.
 

An interesting 5-minute video. At the beginning, the guy is saying the 1920s was a decade of change like the 1960s in which the newer generation was bumping up against the older.

But then he blows it at the end. He says that because WJB was embarrassed, it was a win for science. No way. Evolution was gradually dropped by textbooks, not to come back for decades.
 
Top