Doubletake: Evidence Unseen

Summary

Doubletake: Evidence Unseen – A Centennial Reflection on the Scopes Trial

July 19, 2025 | WORLD Radio’s "The World and Everything In It"

As the centennial of the Scopes Trial approaches, WORLD Radio's "Doubletake" episode titled "Evidence Unseen" delves deep into the intricacies of one of America's most iconic legal battles. Hosted by Les Sellers and featuring insights from contributors Jenny Ruff, Lynn Vincent, and expert guests, the episode re-examines the famed "Monkey Trial" beyond its popular depiction as a mere clash between science and Christianity.

---

1. The Setting: Dayton, Tennessee in 1925

The story begins in the modest town of Dayton, Tennessee, known as the "buckle of the Bible Belt." By 1925, Dayton was grappling with economic decline, prompting city leaders to seek innovative ways to rejuvenate their community.

Jenny Ruff narrates:

"Jobs were scarce. Dayton's businesses had been closing, and that prompted people to move away."
(02:01)

In a strategic move, the town's leaders convened at Robinson's Drugstore to brainstorm solutions, ultimately deciding to leverage the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) offer to challenge the Butler Act—a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution.

2. The Butler Act and the Genesis of the Trial

The Butler Act was Tennessee's pioneering legislation against the teaching of evolution, stating:

"Any theory that denies the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."
(02:01)

To spotlight Dayton and rejuvenate the town's image, the leaders devised a plan to have a teacher, John Scopes, deliberately teach evolution, thus setting the stage for a legal showdown.

Les Sellers explains:

"People often cite the Scopes trial as a pit that pitted science against Christianity, evolution versus creation. But the reality is much more complex."
(00:00)

3. Recruiting John Scopes: The Reluctant Defendant

John Scopes, primarily Dayton's football coach and a part-time science instructor, was chosen for his minimal entanglements—being young, single, and with no ongoing teaching obligations that a full-time educator might have faced.

Kevin Woodruff recounts:

"He came in from playing tennis and they called him over the table and said, hey, would you be willing to do us a favor?"
(02:33)

Despite not being a biology teacher, Scopes agreed to the proposition, understanding the gravity and publicity the trial would bring to Dayton.

4. The Titans of the Trial: Bryan vs. Darrow

The prosecution featured William Jennings Bryan, a renowned politician and fervent advocate against evolution, while the defense was spearheaded by the legendary Clarence Darrow, despite the ACLU's initial reservations about involving him.

Edward Larson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, provides context:

"The Scopes trial from the start has been carried on in a manner exactly fitted to the anti-evolution law and the simian imbecility under it."
(16:27)

Casey Luskin, from the Discovery Institute, highlights Darrow’s strategic maneuvers:

"If some diabolical higher power will intervene on Darrow's side... Clarence Darrow offered his services directly to John Scopes himself and he accepted."
(14:02)

5. The Trial Proceedings: A Battle of Wits and Ideologies

The courtroom became a national spectacle, broadcast live over radio for the first time, drawing thousands to Dayton. Journalist H.L. Mencken provided vivid accounts:

"The trial started like a breeze... But on jury selection, it became clear the jury was overwhelmingly against evolution."
(18:24)

Key moments included Darrow's expert witness, Dr. Maynard Metcalfe, whose testimony was skillfully undermined by Bryan, showcasing the courtroom as a battleground for academic freedom versus majority rule.

Lynn Vincent summarizes the legal dynamics:

"It was about freedom versus democracy. That's the issue. It was about American democracy and American freedom."
(10:36)

6. The Verdict and Its Aftermath

Despite Darrow's relentless defense, the jury found Scopes guilty after a mere nine minutes of deliberation, imposing a $100 fine. Shortly after, William Jennings Bryan passed away, heightening the trial's dramatic legacy.

Jenny Ruff reflects:

"The jury deliberated for just nine minutes before returning a verdict. Guilty."
(31:56)

7. Legacy and Misrepresentation in Popular Culture

The episode critically examines how the Scopes Trial has been romanticized and distorted in works like the Broadway play and movie "Inherit the Wind," which portrayed Christians as antagonistic and evolutionists as progressive heroes.

Kevin Woodruff asserts:

"Most people know about the Scopes Trial primarily because of the play and movie 'Inherit the Wind,' which is the worst possible way to learn about the trial."
(33:59)

8. Modern Perspectives: Evolution and Faith Still at Odds

Fast forward to 2025, the debate persists. Experts like Casey Luskin and Lagarde Smith argue that evolutionary theory remains flawed and irreconcilable with Christian faith, citing issues like the origins of sexual reproduction.

Casey Luskin notes:

"Evolution is very scientifically weak. I don't think the evidence supports... macroevolutionary claims that... all the history of life is the result of a strictly unguided, blind material process."
(35:15)

Lagarde Smith adds:

"Is there truth to it? Is there factual credibility behind that theory?"
(36:48)

9. The Enduring Debate and Conclusion

The Scopes Trial, far from a simple dichotomy of science versus religion, was a complex interplay of legal strategy, societal norms, and evolving worldviews. As the episode concludes, it underscores the trial's lasting impact on American education, law, and cultural discourse.

Les Sellers wraps up:

"Smith's book 'Darwin's Secret Sex Problem' highlights evolution's flaw, the mystery of sexual reproduction and its origins... So big they call it the queen of evolutionary problems."
(37:19)

Jenny Ruff finalizes:

"The debate over origins continues. Both Luskin and Smith say standard evolutionary biology will never be reconciled with Christianity because Darwin's theory... takes God out of the equation."
(41:52)

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Les Sellers [00:00]: "People often cite the Scopes trial as a pit that pitted science against Christianity, evolution versus creation. But the reality is much more complex."

• Kevin Woodruff [02:33]: "He came in from playing tennis and they called him over the table and said, hey, would you be willing to do us a favor?"

• H.L. Mencken [16:27]: "What interests everyone is its mere strategy... No one here seems to doubt that Bryan will win."

• Edward Larson [10:36]: "It was about freedom versus democracy. That's the issue."

• Casey Luskin [35:15]: "Evolution is very scientifically weak. I don't think the evidence supports some of the grander, neo Darwinian macroevolutionary claims."

• Lagarde Smith [36:48]: "Is there truth to it? Is there factual credibility behind that theory?"

---

Conclusion

"Doubletake: Evidence Unseen" offers a nuanced exploration of the Scopes Trial, dissecting its historical context, the legal and cultural battles waged within the courtroom, and its enduring legacy in modern debates over science and religion. By challenging the simplistic narratives perpetuated by popular media, WORLD Radio provides listeners with a comprehensive understanding of why the Scopes Trial remains a pivotal moment in American history.

---

Produced by: Les Sellers, Jenny Ruff, Lynn Vincent, and Ben Jaiker
Special Thanks to: Kevin Woodruff, Lagarde Smith, Casey Luskin, Edward Larson, John Fine, and John Gager

---

If you found this summary insightful, support WORLD Radio by sharing this episode, following us on your preferred podcast platform, and leaving a review. We value your feedback and look forward to bringing you more in-depth stories that matter.

Transcript

[Les Sellers]

From World Radio, this is Doubletake. I'm Les Sellers. This July marks the 100th year anniversary of the Scopes Trial, the most famous misdemeanor trial in American history. The Monkey Trial, as it came to be known, centered on a minor legal matter with major lasting effects. Prosecutors in Tennessee charged a school educator, John Scopes, with the crime of teaching evolution, a violation of state law at the time. People often cite the Scopes trial as a pit that pitted science against Christianity, evolution versus creation. But the reality is much more complex. Today on Double Take, we'll look at what the Scopes trial was actually about and why popular culture tried to portray it as a war.

[H.L. Mencken]

Strike down this sinner, lest thou didst thy enemies of old in the days of the pharaoh.

[Les Sellers]

Not just a war between science and Christianity, but between fundamentalist rubbish and common sense, as one reporter put it. We'll also discuss the competing worldviews on human origins and why it matters. One more thing. The podcast might sound a little different today.

[Jenny Ruff]

Hi, I'm Jenny Ruff, features writer and legal correspondent for World Radio.

[Lynn Vincent]

And I'm World Radio producer Lynn Vincent.

[Les Sellers]

Because we have two narrators from our creative team.

[Jenny Ruff]

We'Ll begin in the tiny town of Dayton, Tennessee, the year 1925. Back then, Dayton was known as the buckle of the Bible Belt. But it was a dying town, a struggling community in the foothills of East Tennessee. Jobs were scarce. Dayton's businesses had been closing, and that prompted people to move away. So in a bid to save their community, the city fathers met at Robinson's drugstore to talk about how to attract more people to Dayton.

[Kevin Woodruff]

They sat around and do what you know is called bloviating.

[Jenny Ruff]

Kevin Woodruff is a research literacy librarian and archivist at Bryan College in Dayton.

[Kevin Woodruff]

Just bunch of geezers trying to cook up deals.

[Lynn Vincent]

One of the geezers came across an ad in the Chattanooga Times. The aclu, American Civil Liberties Union, had posted a notice that it wanted to challenge a Tennessee law called the Butler Act. The Butler act was the very first law in the nation to prohibit the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution. Here's what shall be unlawful for any teacher to teach. Any theory that denies the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.

[Jenny Ruff]

The ACLU's ad offered to provide a legal defense for any educator willing to teach evolution and by doing so, defy the law. In the drugstore. One of Dayton's city fathers had an idea. What if the city accepted the ACLU's offer as a PR stunt.

[Kevin Woodruff]

This is how to get attention focused on Dayton. We will say that we have a teacher who taught it.

[Jenny Ruff]

The group agreed. Now all they had to do was find a teacher willing to go on trial. But the actual biology teacher wasn't a good fit. He had a family and a trial would disrupt the defendant's personal life. So they wanted to recruit a teacher without too much at stake. John Scopes was young and single and he had plans to stick around Dayton over summer break. Perfect.

[Kevin Woodruff]

You know, he came in from playing tennis and they called him over the table and said, hey, would you be willing to do us a favor?

[Jenny Ruff]

Scopes didn't even teach biology. He was the football coach and a general science instructor. But he'd served as a substitute for the biology teacher. And Scopes remembered when he subbed he had used a textbook called A Civic Biology.

[Lynn Vincent]

A Civic Biology. That was the title of a popular and best selling textbook by George W. Hunter. Schools all over America used it, including the high school in Dayton, Tennessee. The book laid out Darwin's theory that a simple one celled life form gave rise to more complex life forms and culminated in a group that contains man. This microbe to man theory was said to have happened through a process Darwin dubbed natural selection and through slight successive adaptations over millions of years. Watch any wildlife show today. Nova, Love, Nature, National Geographic. And evolution is presented as fact. Just listen to these excerpts. On the origin of the eye.

[Dr. Maynard Metcalfe]

It is one of evolution's greatest achievements.

[Casey Luskin]

The eye eyes have been evolving for millions of years. It all started with a single cell that could detect light.

[Jenny Ruff]

George Hunter's textbook embraced Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. And any discussion of origins raises big questions.

[Lagarde Smith]

Where did we come from? Why are we here? Is there a why? Or are we just here?

[Jenny Ruff]

Lagarde Smith is a lawyer and author. He's written over two dozen books on the intersection of law, religion and social issues, including a book on Darwin's theory. Any discussion of origins will set at odds the two major theories of how life began.

[Lagarde Smith]

One is that God created the universe and everything that's in it and has regulated sort of everything that's happened ever since.

[Jenny Ruff]

The other theory of origins focuses mainly on Darwin's concept of natural selection.

[Lagarde Smith]

Really, God didn't have anything to do with why we're here or how we got here. There was something primeval like a microbe that eventually evolved by a natural process into what we call humankind or microbe to man process.

[Lynn Vincent]

Of course, these two conflicting views Date back long before the Scopes trial, long even before Jesus walked the earth.

[Casey Luskin]

This debate over intelligent design in nature is very, very old. It goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks.

[Lynn Vincent]

Casey Luskin is a lawyer and geologist with the Discovery Institute. That's an organization that promotes the theory of intelligent design, meaning life is far too complicated to have just happened by chance. It requires some sort of creative designer.

[Casey Luskin]

You had Plato and, and Socrates and Aristotle. They were actually proponents of the view that there was a supreme intelligence that had ordered the universe. And then you had other ancient Greek philosophers like Democritus who said, no, it's just matter in motion. And this is why when people try to frame this as religion versus science, I mean, this debate predates Christianity and it's been dated by some of the greatest minds that the human race has ever seen. Okay? And so this is way beyond science versus religion.

[Lynn Vincent]

And that brings us back to the Scopes trial. We left off at Robinson's drugstore when the city fathers of Dayton, Tennessee asked John Scopes if he'd be willing to go on trial. Scopes remembered he had used Hunter's textbook when he taught biology, but that's all he remembered. Here's Woodruff again.

[Kevin Woodruff]

Scopes himself could not tell you whether he actually taught evolution. He didn't really remember what chapters he covered or anything.

[Lynn Vincent]

Scopes agreed to say he taught evolution and a few students promised to back him up.

[Kevin Woodruff]

And he was willing to do it.

[Jenny Ruff]

Even though this was a criminal case. So he not only volunteered to be a party in a lawsuit, but a criminal defendant at that. Although he wouldn't be put behind bars. The Butler act didn't come with jail time.

[Edward Larson]

Well, it was a misdemeanor trial. It was a hundred dollar fine.

[Jenny Ruff]

Edward Larson teaches law and history at Pepperdine University in southern California. In 1998, he won a Pulitzer Prize for his book Summer for the Gods. It tells the historical account of the Scopes trial. Now, it's probably obvious at this point the case, the State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes was staged, a setup. A lot of high profile cases are deliberately arranged like this.

[Edward Larson]

And it's done by the right and the left. You know, all the cases brought by conservative law firms or, or the aclu, they're all, you know, they're all, they're design cases.

[Jenny Ruff]

It's known as cause litigation.

[Edward Larson]

You think of Brown versus Board of Education. You think of the Dobbs case. Dred Scott. Dred Scott was totally a setup case. Totally designed by the abolitionists out of a whole cloth. So it's just the way the law works.

[Jenny Ruff]

People on opposing sides of an issue set up a case to either establish precedent or or overturn it. Proponents of the Butler act believed in majoritarian rule. What the Democratic majority wants it should get. And the majority of Tennessee parents and taxpayers wanted to prohibit the teaching of evolution. They feared school children would lose faith in a loving God. So that was the concern of those who wanted to keep the anti evolution law on the books.

[Lynn Vincent]

Opponents of the law argued that the Butler act violated academic freedom. They thought science teachers should control their own curriculum.

[Edward Larson]

Are we going to let a bunch of legislators decide what's taught in a science classroom? Or are we going to let science teachers decide it?

[Lynn Vincent]

Opponents also argued the law violated a teacher's free speech rights.

[Jenny Ruff]

Yes. And these days it's easy to forget. But back in 1925, the First Amendment's free speech clause only applied to the federal government. The Constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech speech. States had all sorts of free speech restrictions. But the idea of applying the right to the states was a hot topic.

[Edward Larson]

So beginning in 1920, the court began incorporating. And they started with free exercise of religion. But there was a big debate over whether free speech. Big 1925 when the Scopes trial was being designed. Get at the Supreme Court to try to get free speech, which many people view as the most important right applied to the states. That is the states cannot restrict free speech.

[Lynn Vincent]

So going back to the proponents who wanted to keep the law on the books, they argued teachers were free to believe and speak as they wished. But that didn't mean they could dictate whatever instruction they liked in a classroom such as human evolution as a sound theory. So those were the legal issues at the heart of the case. Not what we think of today. That the Scopes trial pitted Christianity against science.

[Edward Larson]

It was about freedom versus democracy. That's the issue. But the most famous trial in America was about an idea. Was about American democracy and American freedom.

[Lynn Vincent]

Larson cares profoundly about both. Many Americans do. But freedoms have limits. And this case was designed to test those limits. That May Scopes was arrested and charged. I'm putting arrested in air quotes because the arrest was basically performance art. A necessary step on the road to the setup trial. Scopes was immediately released.

[Edward Larson]

Nobody thought Scopes was really on trial. The town had guaranteed the guy's job back. It was not adversarial to him.

[Lynn Vincent]

Then on May 25, 1925, the next necessary step. A grand jury indicted Scopes and Judge John T ralston set the trial for July 10. The height of summer.

[Edward Larson]

The judge called it a summer chautauqua.

[Lynn Vincent]

Chautauqua lectures were inspirational speeches designed for enrichment. The original TED Talk, you might say.

[Edward Larson]

It was a cultural event. It was understood that they would try to discuss the merits of the law. The idea was both sides would bring in experts on their side. Like talking about freedom and democracy. And talking about the big issues. And they'd sort of be debated. And the trial would be a vehicle for that.

[Jenny Ruff]

William Jennings Bryan offered to serve on the prosecution's team. Bryan was a prominent public figure. He'd run for president three times, but lost all three races. Archivist Woodruff.

[Kevin Woodruff]

Again, he was in communication with some of the prominent world thinkers at the time. Like when he toured the world, he met with Leo Tolstoy.

[Jenny Ruff]

Bryan had taken up the crusade to pass state laws against teaching evolution in public schools. And Hunter's textbook didn't only teach evolution. And it taught Caucasians were superior to other races. And it promoted eugenics, the selective breeding and forced sterilization. To weed out undesirable humans like the mentally ill, habitual criminals and epileptics. Brian was one of the Bible believing Christians who sounded the alarm. All of these ideas went against the scriptural teaching. That God created one human race in his image. That all people have dignity and value. And that it is God who gives order and meaning to life. Yet Bryan wasn't a conservative. He was a liberal Democrat. He gave about 250 speeches per year. And he was known for his ability to take the moral and ethical teachings of the Bible into government.

[Kevin Woodruff]

The common man was what he was concerned with. And so he was a person who believed that the Bible and the Christian worldview. Could solve the answer of the world. He was a very idealistic man.

[Lynn Vincent]

Bryan hadn't practiced law in nearly 40 years. Still, he feared the prosecution's case would take a dive without him. When word got out Bryan had joined the prosecution. The most famous trial lawyer in America stepped in to join Scopes defense team.

[Kevin Woodruff]

There would not have been a Scopes trial as well known as it was. If it hadn't been for Clarence Darrow, who was the master.

[Lynn Vincent]

But the ACLU didn't want Darrow's help.

[Kevin Woodruff]

Darrow was a little shy of a shyster. He was famous for the stunts he would pull.

[Lynn Vincent]

Just the year before, Darrow had represented Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. Two young men from Chicago who had cooked up a plan to commit the perfect crime. They murdered a neighbor in cold blood. Just to see if they could get away with it at trial, Darrow argued they couldn't help themselves. Quote, evolution made them do it. He convinced the judge to spare the thrill killers from the death penalty.

[Kevin Woodruff]

He was known as the attorney for the damned because he could get people off that couldn't be gotten off by anybody else.

[Jenny Ruff]

Darrow was an atheist, and the ACLU feared he would steal its thunder. The ACLU wanted its test case, and it knew Darrow would turn the focus away from a debate over academic freedom and instead make it a case intent on debunking Christianity. So Darrow went directly to John Scopes himself and offered his services. Scopes accepted. The stage was set in Dayton, Tennessee. Two titanic personalities would face off Larson again.

[Edward Larson]

And the 1920s was a period of celebrity journalism. It was the era of Babe Ruth.

[Lynn Vincent]

I said, I'm gonna hit the next.

[Jenny Ruff]

Pitch ball right past the flag. Mary Pickford, thank you and good night all. And the trial would be broadcast live over radio. A first.

[Edward Larson]

And here were the two most famous orators in America going to go to this small, tiny town in Tennessee and argue this issue, the issue of academic freedom and freedom of speech versus majority rule.

[Lynn Vincent]

So that's how a controversial case in an obscure town caught the attention of the Entire Nation. Journalist H.L. mencken reported on the trial for the Baltimore Sun. His brutal but entertaining reports began with an article published the day before the trial began.

[H.L. Mencken]

The town, I confess, greatly surprised me. I expected to find a squalid southern village, pigs rooting under the houses and the inhabitants full of hookworm and malaria. What I found was a country full of charm and even beauty.

[Lynn Vincent]

Mencken made note of the fact that he didn't hear much discussion on the actual legal issues in the case.

[H.L. Mencken]

What interests everyone is its mere strategy. By what device, precisely, will Brian trim old Clarence Darrow for? No one here seems to doubt that Brian will win. What worries the town is the fear that some diabolical higher power will intervene on Darrow's side. That is, before Brian heaves him through the ropes.

[Jenny Ruff]

According to Darwin, humans descended from lower primates. So outside the courthouse, a chimpanzee dressed in a suit paraded around. Vendors sold stuffed monkey souvenirs. Tourists could pay a nickel for a picture with a gorilla. During the trial, the courtroom was packed with spectators. Journalists, lawyers, scientists and theologians. Newly installed ceiling fans did little to relieve the suffocating summer heat. The red brick courthouse is still there. On a trip to Dayton earlier this year, I stopped by to see it. The courtroom where the trial took Place is on the second floor. Gorgeous.

[Lynn Vincent]

It is, yes.

[Jenny Ruff]

So gorgeous. But a bit messy because it was under renovation. Every summer, Dayton's Ray Heritage Preservation foundation puts on a play reenacting the case. This reenactment will mark the trial's centennial, so workers stood on scaffolding, scraping the walls to prepare them for a fresh coat of paint.

[Lagarde Smith]

The courtroom is the crown jewel. It's about 90% accurate as to what it was during the trial. There's been some cosmetic changes there.

[Jenny Ruff]

That's John Fine. He works at the Scopes Museum, located in the basement of the old courthouse. Glass cases display artifacts like the court reporter's typewriter, and several storyboards summarize the trial. An event Fein describes this it just.

[Lagarde Smith]

Started out kind of like a little bit of a breeze, but it turned into a hurricane.

[Lynn Vincent]

H.L. mencken indeed reported that the trial started like a breeze. A committed atheist, he wrote that he noticed a lack of the poisonous spirit which usually shows itself when Christian men gather. Mencken observed that the evolutionist and anti evolutionists seemed to be on good terms and hard to distinguish from one another. But on Friday, July 10, jury selection began and Mencken reported that the jury wasn't impartial.

[H.L. Mencken]

It was obvious after a few rounds that the jury would be unanimously hot for Genesis. The most that Mr. Darrow could hope for was to sneak in a few bold enough to declare publicly that they would have to hear the evidence against Scopes before condemning him.

[Lynn Vincent]

One prospective juror was struck for admitting he didn't belong to a formal church, Mencken wrote.

[H.L. Mencken]

Another time, a panel man who confessed that he was prejudiced against evolution got a hearty round of applause from the crowd. It has been decided by application, with only a few infidels dissenting, that the hypothesis of evolution is profane, inhumane and against God. And all that remains is to translate that almost unanimous decision to into the jargon of the law.

[Lynn Vincent]

Judge John Ralston said because the Butler act made it unlawful to teach any theory that denies the divine creation as taught in the Bible, it was proper to call attention to the biblical account. He read into the record the entire chapter of Genesis 1.

[H.L. Mencken]

And the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, let there be light. And there was light. And God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from.

[Lynn Vincent]

The darkness for the first three days, the parties argued. Should a daily opening prayer be allowed? The judge ruled yes. Should the defense's motion to quash the indictment be granted? The judge ruled no.

[Jenny Ruff]

On the Fourth day of the trial, John Scopes finally entered his plea. Not guilty. But Bryan abandoned the idea of a big showdown on the merits of majoritarian rule. This was the whole reason they set up the case. And Bryan threw out the plan because he couldn't find able experts to testify. Historian Larson again, even though Bryan had.

[Edward Larson]

Claimed that this was going to be a battle royale over this issue of democracy and liberty, and when they couldn't get the expert witnesses, they said, we're just going to say he violated the law. Let's run up to appeal. So we'll just say he broke the law. Because Scopes wasn't going to deny that he broke the law.

[Jenny Ruff]

The state of Tennessee called only four witnesses, including two teenage students who both said Scopes taught evolution quick and simple. The defense changed strategies, too. Darrow argued the Butler act didn't actually prohibit the teaching of evolution. When read closely, it only prohibited the teaching of evolution in a way that denied the Genesis account in the Bible. And Darrow had been able to find experts believing scientists that he chose very carefully.

[Edward Larson]

I mean, renowned people from Vanderbilt, from Princeton, from Johns Hopkins, from Chicago, from all over the world.

[Jenny Ruff]

Darrow's experts plan to testify. There's no conflict between evolution and the Bible. They're compatible. God worked through natural selection. Today that belief is known as theistic evolution, and many theologically conservative Christians regard it with suspicion. Judge Ralston allowed only one expert to take the stand, a zoologist from Johns Hopkins, Dr. Maynard Metcalfe. Mencken described him like the doctor is.

[H.L. Mencken]

A somewhat chubby man of bland mane.

[Lynn Vincent]

Dr. Metcalf testified that he was a member of a Congregationalist church and led Bible classes. Then Darrow asked him, do you know any scientific man in the world that is not an evolutionist? Mencken documented the action.

[H.L. Mencken]

There was a flurry in the Brian pen with protests, and another question followed with more and hotter protests.

[Lynn Vincent]

The judge then sent the jury out of the courtroom and even prohibited them from listening to Dr. Metcalfe's testimony on the radio. Mencken described Darrow's questioning as masterful.

[H.L. Mencken]

Then began one of the most eloquent presentations of the case for the evolutionist that I have ever heard. The doctor was never at a loss for a word, and his ideas flowed freely and smoothly. There was no cock sureness in him. Instead, he was rather cautious and deprecatory, and sometimes he halted and confessed his ignorance. The jury heard nothing of it.

[Jenny Ruff]

Darrow asked Metcalfe about the term evolution. And this is important, so let's slow down for a Moment earlier, we heard from lawyer and author Legarde Smith, and he points out that the term evolution has different meanings. In general, there is change.

[Lagarde Smith]

Evolution just simply means change. You could use it outside of a scientific context and everybody would understand something's.

[Jenny Ruff]

Evolving within a scientific context. It also means different things. Microevolution, or what Smith calls little E evolution refers to the fact that animals go through changes over time within their population. Or to use the biblical term, kind like finches in their beak shapes. Charles Darwin's famous example from the Galapagos. Finches with longer beaks can penetrate further into the ground to get insects. Those with shorter, thicker beaks have an easier time cracking seeds.

[Lagarde Smith]

You can go to England and look at the short doorways and you can just see that human beings have changed over time. I mean, we're taller these days. You bump your head everywhere you go. It's always mind your head, mind your head. Because of evolution, you know, we understand that process has taken place and continues to take place.

[Lynn Vincent]

Casey Luskin, the Discovery Institute scientist, uses antibiotic resistance as an example.

[Casey Luskin]

Sometimes somebody takes an antibiotic drug and there might be some bacteria that have evolved resistance to that drug. And so you kill off all the bacteria that are not resistant and what remains are the resistant ones, and then they proliferate. That's fine. Nobody disagrees. And that can happen. But when you dig into the details, what you find, there are always very, very small scale changes. So when we do see evolution working, we don't see complex, new, genuinely new biological features arising.

[Lynn Vincent]

That would be macroevolution or big E evolution. Darwin's grand theory of microbe to man.

[Casey Luskin]

An unguided process of random mutation and natural selection is the driving mechanism of that has produced all the complexity of life.

[Jenny Ruff]

Okay, with that understanding, let's get back to the courtroom. Metcalfe said a series of changes occurred over hundreds of millions of years that caused lowly life forms to evolve into more complex animals. Darrow also asked Metcalf about the origins of man. The doctor said there was a tremendous probability that man evolved from other species. But he didn't explain how. The prosecution objected to Metcalf's testimony. They objected to all the defense's experts scientific testimony on the grounds it was irrelevant. The only question was whether Scopes broke the law, not whether evolution was a reasonable scientific theory.

[Lynn Vincent]

The judge agreed and excluded the expert evidence. Darrow scientists could submit written statements to preserve the issue for appeal. But their statements were read into the record outside the presence of the jury, and that truncated the Case. On the seventh day of the trial, everyone expected the big moment. Closing arguments, that clash of titans everyone had been waiting for. Here's Larson again.

[Edward Larson]

Brian had been bragging about how he'd spent two months preparing the closing arguments. And Darrow was known as a great speaker. So he thought there were going to be these magnificent closing arguments.

[Lynn Vincent]

So many people crowded in to watch this spectacle that the judge feared the second story courtroom floor might collapse. Hugh moved everything outside to the courthouse.

[Edward Larson]

Lawn and so the whole town turned out. There were seats everywhere. Thousands of people turned out to listen to it.

[Jenny Ruff]

Not Mencken, though. He'd already left town. He said he knew how the trial would end.

[H.L. Mencken]

The Scopes trial from the start has been carried on in a manner exactly fitted to the anti evolution law and the simian imbecility under it. There hasn't been the slightest pretense to decorum. The rustic judge, a candidate for re election, has postured the yokels like a clown in a 10 cent sideshow. And almost every word he has uttered has been an undisguised appeal to their prejudices and superstitions.

[Jenny Ruff]

But Mencken missed out on a pivotal plot twist. Before closing arguments, Darrow declared that he wanted to call one last witness to the stand. A Bible expert. The judge reminded him he'd already ruled no experts.

[Edward Larson]

This is an expert witness that even the prosecution won't object to. We call William Jennings Bryan to the stand as an expert on this law.

[Jenny Ruff]

The judge said, no, you can't call opposing counsel to the standard.

[Edward Larson]

And Brian stood up and says, no, I want to take the stand. I want to tell him why this is a good law. I've been stifled. I haven't been able to say what I was going to say.

[Jenny Ruff]

Bryan kept insisting he planned to call Darrow to the stand the next day. Finally, the judge caved.

[Edward Larson]

You can take the stand if you want.

[Lynn Vincent]

It was a mistake. Darrow was able to declare Brian a hostile witness. That made him subject to cross examination and Darrow could ask leading questions.

[Kevin Woodruff]

Woodruff says Darrow was able to really make him look stupid, even though he was not a stupid man. And in fact, in my research I'm really amazed how much he. Although he was not a scientist, he kept up with the scientific discoveries of that time. But this was 1925 and science was with regards to origins. Research was almost non existent or was in its infancy.

[Lynn Vincent]

Darrow asked Brian about Jonah and the whale, where Cain got his wife and the age of the earth. Larson says that contrary to popular belief, Brian didn't fit neatly into the box of a biblical literalist. When Darrow asked him about the age of the earth, Brian said he didn't know.

[Edward Larson]

I don't know. It could be. It could be 6,000 years ago. It could be 600 million years old. I don't care.

[Lynn Vincent]

Still with certain questions, Darrow tied Bryan in knots. Here's an audio clip from Larson's book Summer for the Gods, describing one of their exchanges.

[Dr. Maynard Metcalfe]

Do you believe Joshua made the sun stand still? I believe what the Bible says. I suppose you mean that the earth stood still, brian replied, anticipating the standard jibe against biblical literalism under a Copernican cosmology. Darrow feigned innocence. I don't know. I am talking about the Bible now. I accept the Bible absolutely, bryan affirmed. I believe it was inspired by the Almighty, and he may have used language that could be understood at that time, instead of using language that could not be understood until Darrow was born. This rejoinder evoked laughter and applause from the partisan Tennessee audience. Yet Darrow had struck a blow.

[Jenny Ruff]

If Darrow could show that Bryan interpreted Joshua 10 to mean the earth stood still, not the sun as the Bible says, he could make his point. Scripture needs interpretation in light of modern science. And if Brian could interpret the Bible, others should have that right. Like Scopes, school educators should be free to interpret Genesis to mean creation happened through evolution. Darrow continued his questioning.

[Dr. Maynard Metcalfe]

If the day was lengthened by stopping either the earth or the sun, it must have been the earth. Well, I should say so. An exasperated Brian sighed. Now, Mr. Brian, have you ever pondered what would have happened to the earth if it had stood still? Don't you know it would have been converted into a molten mass of matter? Darrow asked rhetorically.

[Jenny Ruff]

Darrow's onslaught lasted for two solid hours. Finally, Judge Ralston ended the exchange, and the next day he struck Brian's testimony from the record for being irrelevant. Why did Brian agree to go on the stand in the first place? Larson says it's simple pride. And Darrow? Well, he had another trick up his sleeve. Darrow asked the jury to find John Scopes guilty. Given that Darrow said he had no need for a closing argument.

[Edward Larson]

Larson again, under Tennessee jurisprudence, if the defense doesn't give a closing argument in a criminal case, the prosecution can't. So there was no closing arguments.

[Jenny Ruff]

So the famed William Jennings Bryan never got to give his speech, the one he'd worked so hard on at the trial. And that was Darrow's secret plan all along. The jury deliberated for just nine Minutes before returning a verdict. Guilty.

[Edward Larson]

The room was so packed that they couldn't even get out. They just huddled together and turned around and said, guilty. They never even left the room.

[Jenny Ruff]

The judge asked if the jury had imposed a fine. When the foreman said no, the judge imposed it himself. $100.

[Lynn Vincent]

Just five days after the trial, William Jennings Bryan died. Complications from diabetes. But some say he died of a broken heart. Brian was able to publish his closing argument after the trial, and it was shared far and wide.

[H.L. Mencken]

Evolutionists do not feel that it is incumbent upon them to show how life began or at what point in their long drawn out scheme of changing species, man became endowed with hope and promise of immortal life.

[Lynn Vincent]

The clash between Bryan and Darrow contributes to the narrative today that the Scopes trial served as the dividing line between science and Christianity. But Larson says, 100 years ago, it really wasn't seen that way.

[Edward Larson]

I looked very carefully over 200 newspapers and not just, not just the New York Times. I'm talking about conservative papers, I'm talking about religious papers, Baptist newspapers. I'm talking about farm journals. They all were following it. Everybody in America, really conservative, also real liberal. They were all commenting on it. Black newspapers, union papers. And I read them all. And there's not a single one that viewed it as a decisive event. And it wasn't viewed at the time as science versus religion at all because religion was on all sides of this thing. Religion had been both views.

[Lynn Vincent]

The true story has been lost in the retelling. The Broadway play Inherit the wind opened in 1955. A movie version and a couple of TV miniseries followed. Archivist Kevin Woodruff Most people know about.

[Kevin Woodruff]

The Scopes Child primarily because of the play and movie Inherit the Wind, which is the worst possible way to learn about the the Scopes trial. Because some people think Inherit the Wind was like a documentary.

[Lynn Vincent]

It wasn't. The play and movie fictionalized the trial. Taking its cue from Mencken, Inherit the Wind portrayed Christians as angry and illogical. And it's been used to belittle and dismiss Christian conservatives ever since. Even so, Luskin says the movie is shown in high schools and colleges across the nation.

[Jenny Ruff]

Here's a clip from the 1999 movie Do we believe the truth of the word?

[H.L. Mencken]

Do we curse the man who denies the word?

[Casey Luskin]

Yes.

[H.L. Mencken]

Do we call down hell fire on the man who has sins against the word?

[Casey Luskin]

The film basically flaunts its agenda to depict Darwin skeptics or the religious people as ignorant, backwards, closed minded, power hungry, intolerant religious bigots. While it classed the Evolutionists as enlightened, winsome, progressive, freedom loving scientists and educators.

[Jenny Ruff]

Luskin himself questions evolution.

[Casey Luskin]

I find it to be very scientifically weak. I don't think the evidence supports some of the grander, neo Darwinian macroevolutionary claims that, you know, all the history of life is the result of a strictly unguided, blind material. Natural selection, random mutation, genetic drift.

[Jenny Ruff]

Even so, he says the Butler act was misguided, that scientific theory shouldn't be barred from the classroom.

[Casey Luskin]

Of course, we should never be banning or criminalizing the teaching of a scientific idea. I might disagree with the modern theory of evolution, but I think students should learn about evolution in public schools.

[Jenny Ruff]

He's worked with teachers who have been censored and discriminated against for poking holes in the theory. He says these days, classrooms are full of scopes in reverse. That turn of phrase came from the pen of the late U.S. supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, where basically evolution is.

[Casey Luskin]

Enforced by the government to be taught very, very dogmatically. And if you question evolution or if you try to, you know, sort of go against that evolutionary orthodoxy, then you will get kicked out of the academic world and you will lose all of your stature. But the irony is that today, in 2025, actually, we still have intolerance, we still have censorship, but it's the other way around.

[Jenny Ruff]

Luskin says students don't get to hear about evolution in a balanced and objective fashion. They should be taught the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. Smith agrees science teachers should put Darwin's theory to the test. Does it stand on its own terms?

[Lagarde Smith]

Is there truth to it? Is there factual credibility behind that theory? If it has inherent problems that are indeed fatal, inherent problems, then it can't stand, regardless of what Genesis says. Well, if it can't stand on its own, then there's no need for anybody to do what a lot of people are trying to do, which is to reconcile that theory with scripture.

[Jenny Ruff]

Smith's book Darwin's Secret Sex Problem highlights evolution's flaw, the mystery of sexual reproduction and its origins, or scientifically speaking, the gap between mitosis and meiosis. Now, I won't spend too much time on this, I promise, but it's big, a huge quandary for Darwinists. So big they call it the queen of evolutionary problems. So mitosis happens in asexual organisms. They're neither male nor female, so they don't reproduce. They replicate to create identical asexual offspring. No genetic variation.

[Lagarde Smith]

Think of a copy machine. Copy, copy, copy. What you see is what you get.

[Jenny Ruff]

But Meiosis requires two sexes.

[Lagarde Smith]

You gotta have a male and a female.

[Jenny Ruff]

It's more like a blender, the mixing of male and female chromosomes to produce offspring of the same species, but not identical, that leap from asexual replication to male female reproduction.

[Lagarde Smith]

It's the queen of evolutionary problems. Because you've got to have a way to move from one package or one system of replication to a completely different kind of package. And so even the evolutionists know there's a gap there that has to be filled. Otherwise Darwin's theory can't get off the ground.

[Jenny Ruff]

Plus it cuts the evolutionary fitness in half. Here's Luskin.

[Casey Luskin]

You're going from passing 100% of your genes to each offspring to only 50% of your genes to each offspring. Why would sexual reproduction evolve from asexual reproduction when it basically entails a 50% drop in fitness?

[Jenny Ruff]

Even ignoring all that evolving reproduction doesn't make sense. Think about it. Even Darwin said when it comes to the eye, it's a stretch to say a light sensitive spot evolved into vision. But an incrementally evolving uterus is not going to get the job done. And half a uterus isn't the half of it.

[Lagarde Smith]

It's not just any male, any female. Each male and each female have different ways of mating. And if you just take the female, the eggs are all different in every species. So you'd have to have all of the bells and whistles there at the same time in the same place.

[Lynn Vincent]

As a theory of origins, evolution has several other problems where a for and against should be looked at honestly and with scientific rigor. Here's Woodruff again.

[Kevin Woodruff]

You know, science is all about repeatable science. You can't repeat the beginning.

[Lynn Vincent]

Not only is it impossible to repeat the beginning, empirical science also relies on what's observable. But at the beginning, no human eye was there to observe.

[Jenny Ruff]

That reminds me of another creation account in the Bible, the Book of job, chapter 38.

[H.L. Mencken]

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding, who determined its measurements? Surely you know. Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

[Jenny Ruff]

A humbling passage. Well, to wrap up the Scopes case never made it to the end. U.S. supreme Court. About a year after his guilty verdict, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed Scopes conviction on a technicality. The jury was supposed to impose the fine, not the judge.

[Lynn Vincent]

Five years after the trial, Bryan College opened its doors in Dayton. A Christian school named after the man. Driven by powerful beliefs, the town finally got what it status as a destination city, a place that drew people in, this time for a good reason. Meanwhile, the Butler act remained on the books for decades, but in 1968, the US Supreme Court struck down a similar anti evolution statute from Arkansas.

[Jenny Ruff]

Of course, the debate over origins continues. Both Luskin and Smith say standard evolutionary biology will never be reconciled with Christianity because Darwin's theory of a blind and unguided process takes God out of the equation. And science can't give you a soul, smith says.

[Lagarde Smith]

Consider what is the most reliable, most credible overall explanation given all the questions we might ask about either one of them?

[Jenny Ruff]

And that in turn leads us to the ultimate ones.

[Lagarde Smith]

Why am I here? Am I here strictly because of some series of chance occurrences? Or am I here because someone really wanted me to be here and will I have a life after this Life? One scenario will give you the possibility of that. The other scenario couldn't possibly give you that. So the Bible gives us an alternative that resonates with us. And so if that's the case, then we take it all the way back to Genesis chapter one and say, I've got questions. Well, don't we all?

[Les Sellers]

Jenny Ruff reported and wrote this story, Lynn Vincent edited it and helped narrate it, Ben Jaiker produced it, and I'm Les Sillers.

[Jenny Ruff]

Special thanks to Kevin Woodruff, Legarde Smith, Casey Luskin, Ed Larson, John Fine, and John Gager for serving as our voice actor.

[Les Sellers]

If you enjoyed this episode, a great way to support us is to share it with someone. It's really easy right from your podcast app. And please don't forget to follow, rate and review us and let us know how we're doing and what you thought of this episode. We really do want to hear from you, so write to [e-mail] or better yet, record a message and send it to us on our [e-mail] thanks for listening and we'll see you next time.