In her recent book, Keeping the Faith: God, Democracy, and the Trial that Riveted a Nation, Brenda Wineapple paints the two key figures in the Scopes Trial, William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow, as two old cultural warriors who wanted to give their last hurrah before they faded into obscurity. In fact, both men started off as political and cultural opportunists, who remained committed to their causes of defending organized labor and ensuring the protections of the common person, according to Wineapple's 2024 book.
Both cultural warriors had made their impact before the Scopes Monkey Trial, yet each championed their respective positions. Bryan adhered to a fundamentalist (hyper-literal) reading of the Bible, which stated that the Word of God alone said that the earth was made in six days, and that Darwin's God contradicted the God of the Gospel.1Brenda Wineapple. Keeping the Faith: God, Democracy, and the Trial that Riveted a Nation. New York: Random House. 112-116. Charles Darwin proposed the "theory of natural selection," which detractors called the theory of evolution.2Xvii-xix. Darwin's theory, in a nutshell, is that species develop favorable mutations over time, which favored their selection, that is, allowed them to survive and propose in their environment. As species reproduce, these favorable traits are passed down to their offspring. Other times, these traits become dominant t, or they become recessive.
Darwin's theory of natural selection morphed into a theory of social selection in American culture, notably through the rising corporate class (e.g. Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, J.D. Rockefeller) whose industrial empires consumed the common person, and lead on the so-called scientific side, to scientific testing through genetics (e.g. Tuskegee experiments). Bryan, at first, conflated Darwin and Social Darwinism; however, he later embraced their difference, though argued the two were connected. While he genuinely believed that evolution contradicted the Bible, he also took the position for personal gain. Bryan, as noted by several contemporary observers, jumped at every opportunity presented to him and pursued prestige and made a name for himself.3Ibid, 118-121. Bryan had unsuccessfully ran for President four times, and by the time of the Scopes Trial, had run for office as the moderator for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. He drew criticism from prominent pastors like Harry Emerson Fosdick, who Bryan accused of distorting the truth of the Bible's inerrancy in his sermons. Fosdick later resigned his pulpit in 1925 after coming under fire from the General Assembly. His vision of the world was truly black and white, in racial terms and morality as well.
Clarence Darrow did not see the world in such a way. He saw the complexities the world offered, and like Bryan, sought to remain relevant in a progressing culture. Some observers noted that Darrow looked "a bit bent, a bit scarred, and a bit mutilated."4Ibid, 132. He was no longer the labor lawyer that once made his name, rather, he had become a civil rights lawyer. This change in tactics made him the prime choice to defend John Scopes during his trial.
Bryan and Darrow represented two different worlds that collided at the Scopes Trial. John Scopes did not intend by himself to teach evolution. Rather, the American Civil Liberties Union, known as ACLU, wanted to test the Butler Act, which stated that For the ACLU, this restrictive act invited a challenge, and John Scopes took that challenge. Once Scopes violated the act, Darrow and others defended him. Bryan took on the role as prosecuting attorney. The trial brought actors from all over the country, each person wanting to cement a piece of their legacy in their record books.
The trial itself showed the divisiveness of the country over a particular topic, and yet, the trial itself was not that significant. Scopes lost. William Jennings Bryan died shortly after the trial. Clarence Darrow died a decade later.
While this trial marks a watershed moment in American history, especially as the chasm between science and faith deepened, the Great Depression subsumed the outcome of the trial. I would argue that the trial marked a notable shift in American culture, especially as the Roaring 20's birthed the Great Depression. While average Americans had the science versus scripture in the back of their minds, they were more concerned about surviving and providing for their families.
That being said, the trial's overall implications raises important questions today. What role should state government play in dictating education policy? How expansive or restrictive should curriculums treat certain topics? What do religious liberty and freedom play when faith organizations are caught in the battle between science and faith?
These questions raise further questions about the relationship between science and scripture. While the trial highlighted the dichotomy between the two, the two are not necessarily at odds with one another. Rather, they may engage in conversation with one another. The trial's primary actors (Bryan and Darrow) were talking past each other and not to each other. Maybe they thought they were talking to each other, yet they did not find common ground nor want to entertain the idea of science and religion.
For us today, the trial represents the necessity to learn another's position, even when you disagree with it.
Now as a Lutheran pastor in a publication that speaks to all but has many Lutheran readers, I might point to an important Lutheran take on this. Simply put, Lutheran theology is inclined to hold science and Scripture in tension together because both reflect God's work in creation, one means is the Scriptures and the other means is Nature. Everything points back to God, and as stated in Genesis 1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Full stop. God creates everything, and God calls it good. While this not an exclusively Lutheran doctrine, a Lutheran accent can be seen Luther's explanation of the First Article of the Apostles' Creed. "This is what I mean and believe, that I am a creature of God; that is, that He has given and constantly preserves to me my body, soul, and life, members great and small, all my senses, reason, and understanding, and so on, food and drink, clothing and support, wife and children, domestics, house and home, etc."5Martin Luther. "The Large Catechism." Book of Concord: The German Evangelical Confessions.
On the 100th anniversary, the Scopes trial highlights the importance of continued conversations between science and faith, and ultimately, how it all points to God, the source and ground of all being.
