1. What is the author arguing?
John Scopes was on trial for teaching evolution in Dayton, Tennessee after it was made a crime to do so when the antievolution Butler Act was passed in March 1925. The act forbade to teach “any theory that denies the story o£ the Divine Creation of man as taught by the Bible, and to teach instead that man descended from a lower order of animals” (156). Even though it was not allowed, Scopes tested the law and lectured on evolution in a high school classroom. There were two key players that partook in the trial of Scopes: William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow. Bryan had studied the Bible for 50 years with fundamentalist interpretations. He volunteered in July 1925 for the Scopes Trial to appear as a witness and defend the Bible’s creation story. Darrow was a well-known criminal lawyer that defended Scopes and other educators for freedom of education. Darrow believed that all educators should be allowed to teach evolution in all public school settings. This document was the transcript of Bryan’s testimony (his stance on the Bible) as he was questioned by Darrow.
2. How does the author appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos with their argument?
Bryan was widely known as the former Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson, a presidential candidate for the Democratic Party in 1896, 1900, and 1908, and a famous orator. Darrow again was a famous criminal lawyer. Both of their perceived characters impacted the trial before it even commenced. As for their logic and pathos arguments it is undeniable that Bryan and Darrow both had immense knowledge of the Bible. Darrow cross-examined Bryan repeatedly with dates and events that occurred in the Bible. Bryan however made a very valid point which appealed to his logic, “If I had nothing else to do except speculate on what our remote ancestors were and what our remote descendants have been, but I have more interested in Christians going on right now to make it much more important than speculation on either the past or the future” (161). Neither Bryan nor Darrow budged from their line of reasoning.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
The Scopes Trial was a fight of faith, and the beginning of disputes between liberalism and fundamentalism. Per fundamentalists teaching evolution in public schools including universities was taboo. Scopes decided to challenge the Butler Act; which led to the renowned court trial involving Bryan and Darrow, who both engaged in continuous bantering back and forth about the existence of life.
4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or Why not?
Bryan’s reaction to the evolution controversy was appropriate for 1925. He was a fundamentalist and was defending his religious views. In court how can one argue faith? It was humorous to read that Bryan and Darrow both attempted to disprove one another, but instead caused them public embarrassment as they squabbled about the Bible. The Fundamentalists prevailed in the end; however it was interesting to know that Bryan never examined any other religion but the Christian religion. Darrow called Bryan out on the carpet for that too. Overall, I thought their arguments were not convincing but childish. It was comparable to two small boys fighting on the playground, but neither one willing to give up.
I completely agree with you, Val, and the some-odd people who believe that this trial is “monkey business”. I think this trial should have been more about the rights of teachers to teach both theories, not about which theory is right. The court states at the very beginning that this trial is questioning “whether or not Mr. Scoops taught man descended from the lower order of animals”, but Darrow and Bryan are consistently off topic, determined to continue their petty argument about which theory is better. The fact that the court would even allow the debate of “which belief is right” shows a great deal of contrast between the court system back then and today’s court system. I think the notion of “separation of church and state” is being ignored. I also think it’s interesting that the court would call to witness a man who is so narrow minded: to claim to be an expert on the bible, but have no knowledge of other religions? Experts need to be as knowledgeable about the opposing views as they are the views they support.
ReplyDeleteVal, thank you for sharing your analysis on the text of "In Defense of the Bible." I really enjoyed reading through your analysis and I would have to agree with most of your viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteThe text describes a courtroom dialogue between a William Jennings Bryan and a Clarence Darrow. Darrow's position was to defend John T. Scopes on the matter of "...whether Scopes had taught evolution to his high-school class." Bryan was to stand as an authority on the Bible, who had agreed to testify. The text describes from the onset however that Darrow may have in fact had different intentions of putting Bryan, fundamentalism, as well as the Bible on trial instead.
Darrow sets out on a path of questioning that begins with Bryan's knowledge of the Bible and quickly shifts to disproving Bryan's credibility and knowledge as a Christian fundamentalist who had studied the Bible for "..about fifty years." Darrow focuses his attention on Bryan's knowledge of the great flood and its presumed date of occurrence, followed by a sequence of questions and statements that would disprove the date and occurrence of the great flood as well as Bryan's credibility, the credibility of the Bible and perhaps Christianity.
Darrow's argument seemed to be more of an attack on the credibility of the Bible to force the notion that the courts should consider the idea of allowing students and teachers to question and examine the existence of life through evolution. Bryan did little to strengthen his side of the argument, but faith is strengthened within itself and does not always require an argument or logic to back it up.
Regardless of the argument of faith, the Bible, or even evolution. Darrow failed to stay on point with the trial of whether or not Scopes was teaching evolution to his students by focusing his questioning on Bryan's credibility as well as the credibility of the Bible. This seemed more like a performance for Darrow to draw more attention to the idea of other theories beyond that of Christian fundamentalism, which in turn may have helped strengthen the idea of broadening our knowledge in different areas other than from just one viewpoint.
It is so interesting to read what others thought of this except because I did not know what to make of it. I read it a few times. The first time I read it, I actually laughed out loud. I think it was the part ‘Q: What do you think? A: I do not think about things I don’t think about. Q: Do you think about things you do think about?’. What? Is that some crazy Laurel and Hardy skit? No- it is actually a part of our American history. And then it gets funnier when they start talking about how the fish survived the flood. But, probably the funniest part is when Bryan offers what little information he has about Buddha and Confucius, and Darrow is not interested in hearing it.
ReplyDeleteI understand the intent is not one of humor but it is funny how ridiculous they both sound in trying to get the upper hand. I agree with Val’s comment ‘In court how can one argue faith?’ Faith by its very nature cannot be proven. Darrow makes himself look bad by badgering Bryan and calling his faith ‘fool religion’.
Bryan does not come out looking any better with his ignorance of the fact that there are Chinese civilizations that pre-date what the bible says about how old the earth is and then calls other religions ‘very inferior’. He is really showing off his ignorance.
I think the judge used his best judgment when he expunged all of Bryan’s testimony. Neither side came out looking very credible.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteVal, I enjoyed reading your text analysis. It gave me a better understanding of this document. I also came in agreement with many of your view points. John T. Scopes had taught the theory of evolution to a high school. Scopes had violated the Tennessee Legislature and so there was a trial that was supposed to determine "whether or not Mr. Scopes taught man descended from the lower order of animals." The trial was between William Bryan who was defending the bible's creation story and Clarence Darrow who was defending John Scopes. I agree with you that their dispute over the bible was not only unnecessary but it was off topic as well. The two didn't mention much about Scopes in their dispute. I also found it interesting that through 50 years of bible study, Bryan only had knowledge about the Christian religion. I thought that made him seem biased because he was only coming from one religion's point of view when he should have studied and known about other religions as well.
ReplyDeleteVal, I really enjoyed reading about what you said for question 4 it actually made me laugh a little and thinking back to the reading that is pretty much how it was “two small boys fighting on the playground, but neither one willing to give up.” I must also say that I found your writing was very good and I can tell that you had a full and complete understanding of what you read, I wish I could say that I fully understood what I read but like Barbara I had to read it a few times and even then I still wasn’t sure what to make of it.
ReplyDeleteVal, I completely agree with you on question number four. I also found the arguments between Bryan and Darrow childish. I actually find it amazing that these type of childish arguments were going on in "the trial of the century." I can totally understand why some called it "monkey business." I understand that they were having a trial because John Scopes decided to teach evolution to his class, but I honestly don't understand why they chose William Bryan to be the person that gets questioned. I honestly did not think it was important to know Bryan's opinion on religion and the theories of the Bible. I think that the arguments were pointless and were just between two little boys who would be stubborn and not give up til they got their way. Reading one of the comments above I realized that Darrow was defending Scopes and Bryan was defending the Bible's creation story. I understand that Darrow was asking Bryan these questions to defend Scopes but he was basically just questioning Bryan's knowledge of the creation of the Bible during the whole conversation which doesn't seem like that great of a trial to me. I find it amusing that these two grown men were arguing like two smart-mouthed young kids. I completely agree that the argument was humorous and I believe it was "monkey business" to some point.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis. I completely agree with you on this issue, especially on whether or not you found the argument convincing. I think the line of question involved in this trial was at best off topic, and sometimes even disrespectful to the importance of the courts. Judge John T. Raulston did a tremendous job of getting to the actual issue by instructing the jury to only decide whether John Scopes had violated the Butler Act by teaching evolution to his high school class. On the other hand, I think William Bryan, and Clarence Darrow lost sight of the issue at times and sounded completely childish. An example that stood out to me was the line of questioning that happened near the end – “Q: Do you regard them as competitive? A: No, I think they are very inferior. Would you like for me to tell you what I know about it? Q: No. A: Well, I shall insist on giving it to you. Q: You won’t talk about free silver, will you?” I wonder if this kind of a trial would be allowed to occur in today’s court system. I don’t think I would allow it if I were the judge.
ReplyDeleteHey Val,
ReplyDeleteGreat work on your text analysis and I do agree with most of it. Scopes had disobeyed against the Tennessee Legislature by teaching the theory of evolution. A trial was set against Mr. Scopes, accusing him of teaching mankind had descended from lower order of animals. The trail was held between Clarence Darrow and William Bryan, and although Scope was referred too much in their arguments, I do agree with you some terms of William Bryan’s comments were steered off topic and didn’t contribute to his defense. Since I believe in the theory of evolution myself, my answer may be somewhat bias in favor of Scopes, however, with William Bryan’s 50 years of experience/knowledge of the bible, he mostly knew only about Christianity. Thus, his defense arguments against Scopes seems to come from one view, making himself bias as well.
Val,
ReplyDeleteWonderful work on your text analysis you have a great way of making the text more understandable. I agree with some of this though Scoop went behind the back off his bosses and taught evolution to his student he was punished for his wrong doing even today teachers are not able to teach any form of religion and even though I believe myself in the Bible I feel that students need to learn more of the normal studies such as math, english and so on and religion should be taught outside of schools.