Mencken , who suggested Darrow should defend Scopes. Darrow and Bryan already had a history of butting heads over evolution and the concept of taking the Bible literally, sparring in the press and public debates.
It was the only time in his career he offered to give free legal aid. Bryan and Darrow set the tone by immediately attacking each other in the press. The ACLU attempted to remove Darrow from the case, fearing they would lose control, but none of these efforts worked.
The grand jury met on May 9, In preparation, Scopes recruited and coached students to testify against him. Three of the seven students attending were called to testify, each showing a sketchy understanding of evolution. The case was pushed forward and a trial set for July Bryan arrived in Dayton three days before the trial, stepping off a train to the spectacle of half the town greeting him. He posed for photo opportunities and gave two public speeches, stating his intention to not only defend the anti-evolution law but to use the trial to debunk evolution entirely.
The trial day started with crowds pouring into the courthouse two hours before it was scheduled to begin, filling up the room and causing onlookers to spill into the hallways. There was applause when Bryan entered the court and further when he and Darrow shook hands. The trial began — somewhat ironically — with a lengthy prayer. Outside the courthouse a circus-like atmosphere reigned, with barbecues, concessions and carnival games, though that died down as the trial was adjourned for the weekend, over which Bryan and Darrow sparred through the press and tensions mounted.
It was to a packed courthouse on Monday that arguments began by the defense working to establish the scientific validity of evolution, while the prosecution focused on the Butler Act as an education standard for Tennessee citizens, citing precedents.
The statement Darrow made is considered an example of his best passionate public speaking. He spoke for over two hours. The trial itself began on Wednesday with opening statements. Witnesses followed, establishing that Scopes had taught evolution and zoologist Maynard M. Metcalf gave expert testimony about the science of evolution, a signal that Scopes himself would not take the stand during the trial. Subsequent days saw prosecutors argue about the validity of using expert witnesses.
This provided Bryan with the opportunity for an extended speech on the subject. Defense attorney Dudley Field Malone then countered with a speech of his own and received a thunderous standing ovation. Explain how the first round has been filled in for them using the documents from yesterday. Over the next three days, they are going to read three more rounds of evidence. Each round will point to another way that the controversy surrounding the Scopes trial was more complicated than a simple debate between evolution and creation.
Their job is to figure out what the documents demonstrate about the background for the Scopes trial. Students independently read "Malone" document and answer notebook questions. Remind students to begin by focusing on the head note and asking questions about Malone and his perspective on the Scopes trial. Review answers to "NY Times" document.
Explain to students that the New York Times is a northern city newspaper. On the board, list the different ways that the controversy surrounding the Scopes trial was more complicated than a simple debate between evolutionists and creationists. Ask students to generate hypotheses in response to the question: What role do you think the media played in the Scopes trial?
Then, together, fill in the graphic organizer for "Cartoon" and "Larson" document. Write a thesis statement in response to this prompt and make a list of the documents you would use to support your claim minimum 3 documents. Students share some of their thesis statements.
Classmates give feedback as to whether thesis statements directly respond to prompt. Model how you would use a document to support a thesis statement in response to the prompt. In your presentation, you may want to use the peer review questions listed in Step 4 of this lesson to frame your remarks about how this paragraph models a historical argument.
Ask students to write a paragraph using one of the documents that supports their thesis statement. Please note, this site requires Quicktime 7 Player. Scopes Trial: 5 Day Lesson Overview: Students consider the historical context that framed and stirred public interest in the Scopes trial.
Learning Goals: Students will be able to discuss, using evidence from documentary sources, how historical context, regional differences and mass media shaped the Scopes trial.
Students will build and write more complex stories of the Scopes trial than one that frames it as merely a debate between evolutionists and creationists. Students will read documents historically, using strategies of sourcing, contextualization, careful reading, and corroboration. And he believed the Bible should be interpreted literally. The weather was stiflingly hot and the rhetoric equally heated in this "trial of the century" attended by hundreds of reporters and others who crowded the Rhea County Courthouse in July Rather than the validity of the law under which Scopes was being charged, the authority of the Bible versus the soundness of Darwin's theory became the focus of the arguments.
Bryan and the anti-evolutionists claimed victory, and the Tennessee law would stand for another 42 years. But Clarence Darrow and the ACLU had succeeded in publicizing scientific evidence for evolution, and the press reported that though Bryan had won the case, he had lost the argument.
The verdict did have a chilling effect on teaching evolution in the classroom, however, and not until the s did it reappear in schoolbooks. This slim volume reviews the key aspects, current and historical, of the creation-evolution debate in the United States. Larson discusses such topics as the transatlantic response to Darwinism, the American controversy over teaching evolution in public schools, and the religious views of American scientists.
He recalls the theological qualms about evolution held by some leading scientists of Darwin's time. He looks at the Dover, Pennsylvania, court decision on teaching Intelligent Design and other cases leading back to the landmark Scopes trial. Drawing on surveys that Larson conducted, he discusses attitudes of American scientists toward the existence of God and the afterlife.
By looking at the changing motivations and backgrounds of the stakeholders in the creation-evolution debate--clergy, scientists, lawmakers, educators, and others--Larson promotes a more nuanced view of the question than most of us have.
If we cede the debate to those who would frame it simplistically rather than embrace its complexity, warns Larson, we will not advance beyond the naive regard of organized religion as the enemy of intellectual freedom or the equally myopic myth of the scientist as courageous loner willing to die for the truth.
Author : Gary B. Author : John H. Visit www.
0コメント