Katie+Simpson

Katie Simpson

**__Section A:__**
 * //Thesis// **: **Evaluate the question: Was the 1925 Scopes' "Money Trial" revolutionary or reactionary in the evolution/creationism debate of the time? **

The Scopes Trial in 1925 brought into question the legality of the Butler Act inTennessee. The Butler Act, which was passed in 1925 just before the trial made it illegal to teach evolution in schools. As a result of this law, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worked with John Scopes, a biology teacher to go to court and try the legality of the law. The purpose of this project is to determine if the Scopes Trial was reactionary or revolutionary in the evolution/creationism debate. Pivotal events before and after the trial will be analyzed, as well as the general events of the trial to determine if the trial was reactionary or revolutionary. The research will be organized into evidence for the reactionary position and the revolutionary, which will present clear support for either position.

**__Section B: Summary of Evidence__**  ** Reactionary **** : **
 *  Debates between the beginnings of man and earth have been around as long as science has. The Piltdown skull was discovered in 1909 by Charles Dawson. This was claimed to be the missing link in human evolution, however, “the //Times// editorial cites their classification of the Piltdown hominid as a distinct species to support the conclusion that ‘he was no forebear of our Adam” [[file:///F:/11th%20Grade/IB%20World%20History/final%20investigation.doc#_edn2|[ii]]]
 *  Research done by Georges Cuvier led him to acknowledge that earth had a longer geologic history than what was stated in Genesis, and that breaks in fossil records were caused by catastrophes. However, Christian geologists saw the hand of God at work in these acts [[file:///F:/11th%20Grade/IB%20World%20History/final%20investigation.doc#_edn3|[iii]]]
 *  Darwin’s book, //Origin of Species//, made claims that created a divide based on the ideas that “Beneficial variation was random and natural selection was cruel. If nature reflected the character of its creator, then the God of a Darwinian world acted randomly and cruelly”. [[file:///F:/11th%20Grade/IB%20World%20History/final%20investigation.doc#_edn4|[iv]]]
 * The Butler Act, passed in 1925 before the trial, stated that “it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the state which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, 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. [[file:///F:/11th%20Grade/IB%20World%20History/final%20investigation.doc#_edn5|[v]]]
 * Multiple confrontations between Creationists and Evolutionists have occurred since the time in which science questioned religion. Most notably, after Darwin’s //Origin of Species// was published, and between main figures in the area such as William Jennings Bryan, Harry Ward Beecher, and Arthur Garfield Hays [[file:///F:/11th%20Grade/IB%20World%20History/final%20investigation.doc#_edn6|[vi]]]

**Revolutionary:**
 * The Scopes Trial was planned to deliberately break the Butler Act and act as a test trial. George Rappaeyla, Clarence Darrow and members of the ACLU thought Scopes was the perfect candidate and agreed to go on with the trial, which also gave the town of Dayton, Tennesseea massive amount of publicity as the trial turned into a national debate [[file:///F:/11th%20Grade/IB%20World%20History/final%20investigation.doc#_edn8|[viii]]]
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">The Supreme Court overruled the Tennessee decision and cleared Scopes, “thus practically agreeing with Governor Peay in his message accompanying the passage of the law that it was a statute which was not to be enforced” [[file:///F:/11th%20Grade/IB%20World%20History/final%20investigation.doc#_edn9|[ix]]]
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">The Arkansas Creation-Science Trial was another trial dubbed “Scopes II” in 1981, after the state of Arkansas “considered and enacted Act 590, the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act”. This law required that creationism must be taught in Arkansas schools whenever evolution is taught. The ACLU filed a civil suit against the law in 1981. In 1982, the law was overturned on the grounds that it violated the Constitution. [[file:///F:/11th%20Grade/IB%20World%20History/final%20investigation.doc#_edn10|[x]]]
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Over the years, the Scopes Trial has been followed by multiple other court cases in which individuals fight against the restriction of teaching evolution. Several cases successfully overturned anti-evolution laws, such as the Scott trial in 1967 in which the Butler Act was overturned. [[file:///F:/11th%20Grade/IB%20World%20History/final%20investigation.doc#_edn11|[xi]]]
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">The U.S. Supreme Court ruled decades after the Scopes trial that creationism should not be taught because it is a religious belief; the Constitution calls for separation of church and state. "As a case it is not as much a legal landmark as much as a social landmark. It was a clash between traditionalism and its values and modernism and its values," said Douglas Linder of the University of Missouri-Kansas City law school. "It remains an issue. Darwinism and evolution challenge the notion that we are special as a species." [[file:///F:/11th%20Grade/IB%20World%20History/final%20investigation.doc#_edn12|[xii]]]
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">In Epperson v. Arkansas, the court ruled that “evolution can be taught in public schools because it is a science, but not creationism, because it constitutes religion”, Linder said. The wall between church and state can be found in the establishment clause of the First Amendment. [[file:///F:/11th%20Grade/IB%20World%20History/final%20investigation.doc#_edn13|[xiii]]]

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**__Section C, Annotated Sources:__**

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Larson, Edward J. //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Summer of the Gods //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. New York City: HarperCollins, 1997. Print.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">This source was written by Edward J. Larson is an American historian and legal scholar. He a university professor and holds the Hugh & Hazel Darling Chair in Law Pepperdine University. He was formerly the <span class="mw-redirect" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Herman E. Talmadge <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Chair of Law and the Richard B. Russell Professor of American History at the University of Georgia. Lawson continues to serve as a Senior Fellow of the University of Georgia's Institute of Higher Education, and is currently a visiting professor at Stanford Law School. His book, //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Summer of the Gods //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">, won the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for History. This book explains and examines the Scopes Trial and America's continuing debate over science and religion. It breaks down the issue and ideas into chronological ideas focusing on before the trial, during the trial and after the trial. The book includes photographs of the important figures and references leading scholars on the issues presented within the book and other books pertaining to the trial or the continuing debate. It also includes 38 pages of notes on the sources used in the book, which allow one to gain further sources for investigation. The value of this source is that it details the trial and the effects of the trial, as well as what was happening socially before the trial. However, because this book begins as far back in time as 1909 with a focus onDarwin and the discovery of the Heidelberg Jaw, it covers much more than the time period surrounding the trial.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Smout, Kary Doyle.//The Creation/Evolution Controversy.// Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1998. Print.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">This book was written by Kary Doyle Smout, who is currently an Associate Professor of English atWashingtonandLeeUniversity. His earlier publications include American Speech, Legal Writing, and Composition Studies. This book was written to discuss the importance of the controversy and debate between creation and evolution theories. It addresses the beginning of the controversy and has an extensive paragraph about the Scopes Trial, as well as other trials that were framed by this debate. It clearly outlines the debates found in the trials and how they were shaped by the debate, which supports the idea that the Scopes Trial was directly affected by the surrounding debate in the time period. However, it only covers the Scopes Trial and the Arkansas Creation-Science Trial, giving it a limited scale of information. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**__Section D: Analysis__** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> The years of debate that preceded the Scopes Trial, cause it to take on a reactionary idea. Ongoing debate that had been fueled by scientific discovery, such as Darwin’s book //Origin of Species//, the discovery of the Piltdown Skull and the research done by George Cuvier, led to harsh responses from the religious community. From these discoveries, religious enthusiasts, like William Jennings Bryan, claimed the hand of God proved the origin of those occurrences that had been deemed science by the evolution community. Additionally, the passage of the Butler Act in 1925, shortly before the trial, demonstrated a clear tendency towards creationism, especially in the South. The long debate over creation and evolution places the Scopes Trial as an inevitable growth from these debates. It is possible to say the trial itself was a reaction to what had been happening for years, a reaction to the Butler Act what legally banned the scientific community from gaining evolutionary ground in schools. Because the Butler Act made a debate something legally binding, the Scopes Trial followed a natural course of events to challenge that law. The Scopes Trial was a legal incarnation of a previously verbal and written debate between creationists and evolutionists that escalated into a legal debate through the trial, demonstrating the idea that the Scopes Trial was a reaction to an extended debate. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> However, it cannot be ignored that the Scopes Trial was the first of its kind. Never before had a legal matter taken on such social issue to the extent at which the trial became an extension of a centuries old debate. The fact that John T. Scopes broke the Butler Act is clear and unquestionable, but the trial revolutionized how the creation/evolution debate was seen in public. The Scopes Trial was planned to gain national attention and bring fame to the small town of Dayton, Tennessee. Members of the ACLU, such as George Rappaeyla and Clarence Darrow, planned to challenge the Butler Act in a legal setting, a step that had never been taken before. Because the Scopes Trial was deliberately planned to contradict the Butler Act, it became a trial to test the foundation and constitutionality of the Act. It tested whether the Act would be both upheld if it were questioned, and if the Act would hold up as constitutional when reviewed in a court of law. After the trial found Scopes guilty of breaking the Butler Act, the Supreme Court overturned that decision, effectively saying that the Butler Act “that it was a statute which was not to be enforced”. Furthermore, the Scopes Trial opened the doors for other trials to question if creation and/or evolution should be taught in schools. The most notable examples include the Arkansas Creation-Science Trial, dubbed “Scopes II” in 1981, after the state of Arkansas “considered and enacted Act 590, the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act”. This law required that creationism must be taught in Arkansas schools whenever evolution is taught. The ACLU filed a civil suit against the law in 1981. In 1982, the law was overturned on the grounds that it violated the Constitution. Epperson V. Arkansas rules in favor of evolution, stating that “evolution can be taught in public schools because it is a science, but not creationism, because it constitutes religion, Linder said. The wall between church and state can be found in the establishment clause of the First Amendment”. As the years since the Scopes Trial have passed, multiple other trials have questioned the same principle as what was challenged in the 1925 Scopes Trial. As of now, it has been determined that creationism should not be taught because it is a religious belief; the Constitution calls for separation of church and state. The Scopes Trial was planned to challenge the Butler Act in a legal setting, an action that had never before been taken in the creation/evolution debate. As a result, the Scopes Trial was revolutionary because it created an opening for others to challenge anti-evolution laws, eventually leading to the current decision that the prevention of teaching evolution in schools violates the constitution as a violation of church and state. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**__Section E: Conclusion__** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> The Scopes Trial was both reactionary and revolutionary in manner. It was based on years of debate between the scientific community and the religious community and the passing of the Butler Act, which sparked a reaction from the American Civil Liberties Union to fight for science. However, it also created an opening for many, many other trials to debate the creation and evolution. Therefore, though it is not determinable if the Scopes Trial was reactionary or revolutionary because it lends itself to both sides of that argument, it is clear, as stated by Douglas Linder, that “As a case it is not as much a legal landmark as much as a social landmark. It was a clash between traditionalism and its values and modernism and its values”.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">**//__Section F: Works Cited and Word Count__//** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">CNN. "75 Years after the Scopes Trial Pitted Science against Religion, the Debate Goes on." //CNN//. Turner Broadcasting System, 13 July 2000. Web. 03 Apr. 2012. http://articles.cnn.com/2000-07-13/justice/scopes.monkey.trial_1_scopes-trial-cumberland-coal-and-iron-creationism/2?_s=PM:LAW

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">//Elsberry, Wesley R. "Anti-Evolution and the Law."// Anti-Evolution: The Critic's Resource//. N.p., 4 Jan. 2003. Web. 23 Mar. 2012.<http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/#courtcases>.//

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">//Kennedy, Gail.// Evolution and Religion: The Conflict between Science and Theology in Modern America//. Boston: D.C. Health and Company, 1957. Print.//

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Larson, Edward J. //Summer of the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion//. New York City: HarperCollins, 1997.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">State of Tennessee. "Tennessee Evolution Statutes." //About.com//. School of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2011. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. <http://evolution.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=evolution&cdn=education&tm=20&f=00&tt=8&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/tennstat.htm>.//

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Word Count: 2,000

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> The Scopes Trial was a logical progression of a lengthy debate stemming over many years, a reaction to what had happened before the trial. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Larson, Edward J. //Summer of the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing// <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">//Debate Over Science and Religion//. New York City: HarperCollins, 1997.Print.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Ibid. 15 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">  Ibid. 17 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">  State of Tennessee. "Tennessee Evolution Statutes." //About.com//. School of Law, <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2011. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> <http://evolution.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">XJ&zTi=1&sdn=evolution&cdn=education&tm=20&f=00&tt=8&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/tennstat.htm>. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Kennedy, Gail. //Evolution and Religion: The Conflict between Science and Theology// <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"> //in Modern America//. Boston: D.C. Health and Company, 1957. Print. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> The Scopes Trial was original in its intent and sparked new debate and actions in the debate between creationism and evolutionism. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Larson 89 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Kennedy 51 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Smout, Kary Doyle. // The Creation/Evolution Controversy //. Westport: Praeger <span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">Publishers, 1998. Print. 104 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Elsberry, Wesley R. "Anti-Evolution and the Law." //Anti-Evolution: The Critic's// <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> //Resource//. N.p., 4 Jan. 2003. Web. 23 Mar. 2012. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/#courtcases>. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> CNN. "75 Years after the Scopes Trial Pitted Science against Religion, the Debate Goes on." //CNN//. Turner Broadcasting System, 13 July 2000. Web. 03 Apr. 2012. http://articles.cnn.com/2000-07-13/justice/scopes.monkey.trial_1_scopes-trial-cumberland-coal-and-iron-creationism/2?_s=PM:LAW <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Ibid. 3 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">  Larson 15, 17 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Kennedy 51 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Smout 104 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> CNN <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Ibid. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Ibid.