What was the significance of Dayton, Tennessee, July, 1925? Was it a
carnival? A rural sideshow? An anachronism? Or, as one observer
put it, was it "a great historic guidepost on the road to emancipation
in the search for truth?" (Tompkins, ed., D-Days at Dayton, 63)
Who won the Scopes case? There were, of course, differing opinions.
An Oklahoma paper declared: "Mr. Bryan came out more than
victorious. He made a monkey out of the defense counsel and left
them gasping." In Little Rock, Arkansas, the Gazette reported, "For
the state of Tennessee the Scopes trial has been a moral disaster. It
will plague the citizen of Tennessee wherever he may go." Dudley
Malone, the Defense attorney, said the trial had been a "victorious
defeat." Students, having read and discussed most of the testimony
of the trial, will be assigned to debate orally one of three positions on
the following resolution:
"RESOLVED, that the Scopes trial was a clear victory for the Anti-
Evolutionists."
The three positions will be the Affirmative (agrees with the
resolution), the Negative (disagrees with the resolution), and the
Middle Position (sees elements of victory for both sides). From the
very beginning of the Scopes case, students should know which
position they will be defending, and should be gathering "evidence"
for their point of view.
Following the classroom debate, students should view the film
"Inherit the Wind" (videocassette available through the Institute
office or your local Video store) in whole or in part, for the students'
critical analysis (See Appendix for "Student Worksheet"). If time
permits only one class period, begin showing from Day Seven of the
trial, the day that Bryan takes the stand, the obvious climax of the
film. Students should note how the film differs from historical fact
and try to determine why the playwriters did so. Was the film in any
way "biased" for or against either side in the case? Good insights
should be gained from this class activity and critical thinking skills
sharpened.
{{/pre>A HREF="#top">To top of this unit/a>PRE}}
{{HR size="1">A NAME="14"}}
Two Modern Cases
To wrap up the unit, a discussion of issues in two modern cases
brings the issues in controversy into the present. In McClean v.
Arkansas (1982) the U.S. District Court decided to strike down, on
constitutional grounds the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment Act" (Act
590) enacted by the General Assembly in March, 1981. The Act
stated:
This is an example of where the paragraph is not separated with 2 hard returns (starts with Treatment pg 52)
Balanced treatment shall be given in the public schools within this
State...to the extent that (teaching methods) deal in any way with the
subject of the origin of man, life, the earth, or the universe.
Treatment of either evolution-science or creation-science shall be
limited to scientific evidence for each model...and must not include
any religious instruction or references to religious writings...
Further the act required "instruction in both scientific models if
public schools choose to teach either." (italics added)
The emphasis appeared to be toward offering students the benefit of
two models: "This legislature enacts this Act for public schools with
the purpose of protecting academic freedom for students' differing
values and beliefs...This legislature does not have the purpose of
causing instruction in religious concepts or making an establishment
of religion." (Quoted in LaFollette, ed., Creationism, Science and the
Law, 15,16,17)
Nevertheless, with all its apparently "good motives," the Arkansas
"Balanced Treatment Act" was struck down as an attempt to bring
"religious instruction into the classroom." The court's conclusion in a
lengthy decision and after months of testimony, concluded that "The
First Amendment principles are not determined by public opinion or
by a majority vote...No group, ... may use the organs of government,
of which the public schools are the most conspicuous and influential,
to foist its religious beliefs on others." (Quoted in LaFollette, 72)
Despite the gains at respectability made by creation-scientists, this
decision had a devastating effect on their credibility. The question
troubling many non-scientific laymen remains: Isn't the court, by
prohibiting creation-science from the classroom, exercising a form of
censorship which denies students and teachers "academic freedom?"
These issues surfaced again, this time in Louisiana, with a court
challenge to its 1981 "Balanced Treatment Instruction Act." This
time, the appeal went all the way to the top of the Judicial ladder.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided, in June, 1987, by a vote of 7 to 2, to
strike down the Louisiana statute. Edwards v. Aguillard featured a
high school science teacher, who, along with parents and other
colleagues, won victories in two lower federal courts before the big
victory in Washington, D.C.
And so, another round has been fought in the science v. religion
controversy. Will there be a next round? Some, in 1925, didn't think
so, but they were proven wrong. Can religion and science be
reconciled in certain areas? Do they have to "agree to disagree" in
others?
A scientist who testified in the Scopes trial brought the issue forward
this way:
"Neither the right kind of mind (scientific) nor the right kind of heart
(religious) will suffice without the other. Both are needed if
civilization is to be saved." (Quoted in Tompkins, ed., 167)
{{/pre>A HREF="#top">To top of this unit/a>PRE}}
{{HR size="1">A NAME="15"}}