In 1925, there was a minor criminal trial in a small town in Tennessee that riveted the attention of the nation, because it focused on some issues of eugenics. The focus was not clear and sharp; neither side presented its arguments with complete clarity, and the word eugenics was never used in the trial. But many issues came out clearly.
The trial was The State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes. It was sometimes called more simply "the monkey trial." It concerned a teacher who broke the state's law against teaching the theory of evolution in a public school. The trial lasted eight days, getting press coverage all over the nation. Scopes was convicted, but that was a trivial detail. The real question was about the relationship between science and faith in American life. A play about the trial, called Inherit the Wind, simplified and distorted the real events; this bit of fiction left many people thinking that they had to choose between scientific progress and religious teaching.
Clarence Darrow, who was recognized as one of the best trial lawyers in the nation, defended Scopes; he spoke of the trial "as if it was a death struggle between two civilizations." William Jennings Bryan, a Midwest politician who had been candidate for President of the United States three times, took part in the prosecution; he said the case was a "battle-royal between unbelief that attempts to speak through so-called science and the defenders of the Christian faith."
The Offending Book
Scopes taught science, including biology, at the Rhea County Central High School in Dayton, Tennessee. In 1925, during the spring semester of his first year as a teacher, the state passed a law against teaching evolution. Scopes thought that he could not teach biology properly without teaching evolution, and considered the law to be unconstitutional. He broke the law, and was arrested for it.
The statute said that it was unlawful "to teach any theory that denies the story of Divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."
The book that Scopes used was A Civic Biology Presented in Problems, by George William Hunter. The book, published in 1914, had been used in Tennessee for some years. The book presents standard biological facts about cells, muscles, respiration and such topics; but it also teaches eugenics.
The title Civic Biology is similar to one of the phrases used to refer to eugenics, "social biology." In a front page of the book, facing the title page, there is a mild but clear piece of propaganda. There are two photographs, a city street and a country lane. The caption: "Compare the unfavorable artificial environment of a crowded city with the more favorable environment of the country."
Chapter 14 includes the material on evolution, with protozoa, worms, insects, reptiles, birds and mammals. Man is grouped with the apelike mammals. Hunter writes that "there is an immense mental gap between monkey and man" [emphasis added]. He adds that monkeys "seem to have many of the mental attributes of man," and this "justifies his inclusion with man in a separate mental genus." Hunter states that "early man must have been little better than one of the lower animals." The chapter concludes with a claim of white supremacy.
Later in the book, in chapter 17, Hunter returns to the subject of eugenics. "If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved upon, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection."
In marriage, Hunter says, there are some things that "the individual as well as the race should demand." To have children with tuberculosis, syphilis, epilepsy or feeble-mindedness is "not only unfair but criminal."
He reviews the Jukes and Kallikaks stories, the family trees that were supposed to show the need for eugenics (see chapter 3), and says that there are hundreds of families like them. He calls them "true parasites," and says, "If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading."
The book would not be acceptable in any school system in the United States today, because of the things that it says about the poor, blacks, and people with disabilities.
When people talk about the Scopes trial, their ideas are usually shaped by the distorted propaganda in the movie, not by the actual trial. The real event concerned a book that asserted the supremacy of whites, encouraged contempt for the poor, and hinted at forced sterilization or even more violent acts.
Testimony at the Trial
The first witness for the defense was Maynard M. Metcalf, a member of the American Eugenics Society. Metcalf was a zoologist, and he described evolution in general terms. Darrow intended to teach the jury about evolution with a series of witnesses, but the judge excluded all such testimony and asked the jury to ignore as much of it as they had already heard. Darrow submitted a series of statements by scientists, which became part of the public debate but not the criminal trial.
Scopes himself never testified at his own trial. He spoke briefly when he was sentenced -- he was convicted and got the minimum penalty ($100 fine), which he called unjust. The real action at the trial was a debate between William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow. In fact, Darrow called Bryan (a lawyer for the prosecution) as a witness and interrogated him. Their whole debate was stricken from the official record of the trial, when the judge decided it was all irrelevant to the charge against Scopes. But for the press and for history, this was the real show.
On the witness stand, Bryan defended the Bible, but did not insist on a literal interpretation of every line in Genesis. When Darrow asked about the six days of creation, Bryan said "I do not think it necessarily means a twenty-four hour day." When Darrow pressed him about whether they were literal days, Bryan replied, "My impression is that they were periods, but I would not attempt to argue as against anybody who wanted to believe in literal days."
The debate referred to evolution in general, but it was the beginnings of human life that people really cared about. The Tennessee law did not prohibit teaching that monkeys were descended from protozoa; it prohibited teaching that man is descended from lower animals. Bryan wrote a summation of the case for the jury (which he did not give, because both sides agreed to dispense with arguments) which was later published. In it, he attacked "evolution," saying, "Its only program for man is scientific breeding, a system under which a few supposedly superior intellects, self-appointed, would direct the mating and the movements of the mass of mankind -- an impossible system!" Bryan's word was evolution, but he described eugenics.
Bryan said that the views taught by Scopes were the unrelenting enemy of the Gospel: "Darwin says that science has nothing to do with the Christ ... and yet this spirit is the only hope of human progress. A heart can be changed in a twinkling of an eye and a change in the life follows a change in the heart. If one heart can be changed, it is possible that many hearts can be changed, and if many hearts can be changed, it is possible that all hearts can be changed -- that a world can be born in a day. It is this fact that inspires all who labor for man's betterment. It is because Christians believe in individual regeneration and in the regeneration of society through the regeneration of individuals that they pray, 'Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.'"
Bryan charged that evolutionary views "if taken seriously and made the basis of a philosophy of life ... would eliminate love and carry man back to a struggle of tooth and claw."
He quoted a recent publication from Britain which said, "The greatest danger menacing our civilization is the abuse of the achievements of science. Mastery over the forces of nature has endowed twentieth century man with a power which he is not fit to exercise. Unless the development of morality catches up with the development of technique, humanity is bound to destroy itself." At the end of the 20th century, most readers would agree with Bryan's point that science without morality can destroy humanity, because we have seen the power of the nuclear bomb. But there is still a great deal of debate about whether biological sciences without morality can be as destructive as physics without morality.
"Science," Bryan said, "has made war more terrible than it ever was before. ... If civilization is to be saved from the wreckage threatened by intelligence not consecrated by love, it must be saved by the moral code of the meek and lowly Nazarene [i.e., Jesus Christ]."
William Jennings Bryan and the gold standardBryan ran for President three times as the candidate of the Democratic Party. He is remembered principally for arguing against the gold standard. The gold standard was not eugenics in disguise, but there is a point worth noting. The question was: should paper money be backed up by gold sitting in a vault somewhere, or would it be acceptable to have paper money backed by silver as well? Bankers in the East wanted to stick with the gold standard; Bryan spoke for people who wanted a more relaxed money policy. The point that is relevant here is simple. Malthus and his followers argued that the resources of the world are limited, and that a growing population will eventually bump against that ceiling and people will starve. More hopeful people argue that the resources of the world are immense, and can be increased by care and hard work. There is a limited amount of gold in the world. If the wealth of the globe is measured in gold, then the wealth is limited. Bryan spoke for the people who looked at the vast nation and saw immense wealth that could not and should not be limited by the amount of gold in a vault somewhere. |
Pushing Faith and Science Apart
Bryan defended the Bible, and made predictions about the eugenics ideology that were borne out a few years later. However, he did not make a clear distinction between real science and false ideologies promoted by some scientists. He described at length how Charles Darwin had lost his faith as he developed his theories, and defended the Bible against Darwin's ideas. In retrospect, some people argue that Bryan might have served the truth better if he had defended the Bible and also urged more careful scientific research that might have answered Darwin's questions.
Darrow and the other lawyers who were defending Scopes offered a number of interesting ideas about how to reconcile religion and science. However, they undercut any impact those ideas might have had by picking unnecessary fights. Twice, Darrow spent time objecting to the prayers that different pastors offered at the beginning of the day in court. He made himself look like an opponent of religion in general.
Darrow and the others put a lengthy series of statements from various scientists into the record of the trial. After introducing the expert testimony, Darrow picked an unnecessary fight about religion, asking that the judge remove a sign that said, "Read Your Bible." The extensive testimony from experts -- that Darrow was urging the nation to read, whether or not the jurors heard it all -- included many arguments about ways that you could fit the Bible and evolution together. But all those lengthy and sometimes technical arguments were completely boring compared to Darrow's antics and the response he got.
One of the attorneys for the prosecution argued for keeping the sign up, speaking out heatedly against "a force that is aligned with the devil." If people cannot remind each other to read the Bible, he said, "that then is time for us to tear up all of the Bibles, throw them in the fire and let the country go to Hell." An officer trying to restore order in the court said, "People, this is no circus. There are no monkeys up here." Darrow suggested that they put up a second sign, saying, "Read your evolution."
How do you get back from that to an analytical study of variation and heredity, or 129 different species of beetles on the island of St. Helena, in the testimony of the scientific expert whose testimony was submitted for the record just before the ruckus? The judge had the sign removed, but the damage was done.
To this day, the trial is often remembered as "the monkey trial." An exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington about the history of science has a panel about the trial. As you walk past the exhibit, the image that catches your eye is a monkey.
1. What was the Scopes trial about?
2. What did the textbook used in Tennessee say about eugenics and white supremacy?
3. In the trial, what predictions did William Jennings Bryan make? Was he right?
4. What impact did the American Eugenics Society have on the Scopes trial?
5. During the trial, did reporters focus on monkeys or on white supremacy? Since then, has the emphasis changed?
Discuss: In 1998, an article in Newsweek explored the ways scientists (including physicists and astronomers) and theologians were getting past the sense that science and faith are at war. But none of the scientists in the article were biologists. Why? Was this just an accident?
A Civic Biology Presented in Problemsby George William Hunter, A.M.American Book Company -- New York, Cincinnati, Chicago -- copyright 1914The book that John Scopes was using when he broke Tennessee's law banning the teaching of evolution was Hunter's Civic Biology. Most of the book is straightforward biology, but it also presents some of the author's views and values, including eugenics, white supremacy, contempt for people with disabilities and an impatience with charity. Excerpts follow. Hunter's Civic Biology, p. 195-196 Evolution of Man. -- Undoubtedly there once lived upon the earth races of men who were much lower in their mental organization than the present inhabitants. If we follow the early history of man upon the earth, we find that at first he must have been little better than one of the lower animals. He was a nomad, wandering from place to place, feeding upon whatever living things he could kill with his hands. Gradually he must have learned to use weapons, and thus kill his prey, first using rough stone implements for this purpose. As man became more civilized, implements of bronze and of iron were used. About this time the subjugation and domestication of animals began to take place. Man then began to cultivate the fields, and to have a fixed place of abode other than a cave. The beginnings of civilization were long ago, but even to-day the earth is not entirely civilized. The Races of Man. -- At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; The American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America. Hunter's Civic Biology, p. 261-265 Improvement of Man. -- If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection. This improvement of the future race has a number of factors in which we as individuals may play a part. These are personal hygiene, selection of healthy mates, and the betterment of the environment. Eugenics. -- When people marry there are certain things that the individual as well as the race should demand. The most important of these is freedom from germ diseases which might be handed down to the offspring. Tuberculosis, syphilis, that dread disease which cripples and kills hundreds of thousands of innocent children, epilepsy, and feeble-mindedness are handicaps which it is not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity. The science of being well born is called eugenics. The Jukes. -- Studies have been made on a number of different families in this country, in which mental and moral defects were present in one or both of the original parents. The "Jukes" family is a notorious example. The first mother is known as "Margaret, the mother of criminals." In seventy-five years the progeny of the original generation has cost the state of New York over a million and a quarter dollars, besides giving over to the care of prisons and asylums considerably over a hundred feeble-minded, alcoholic, immoral, or criminal persons. Another case recently studied is the "Kallikak" family. (Footnote: The name Kallikak is fictitious.) This family has been traced back to the War of the Revolution, when a young soldier named Martin Kallikak seduced a feeble-minded girl. She had a feeble-minded son from whom there have been to the present time 480 descendants. Of these 33 were sexually immoral, 24 confirmed drunkards, 3 epileptics, and 143 feeble-minded. The man who started this terrible line of immorality and feeble-mindedness later married a normal Quaker girl. From this couple a line of 496 descendants have come, with no cases of feeble-mindedness. The evidence and the moral speak for themselves! Parasitism and its Cost to Society. -- Hundreds of families such as those described above exist today, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poorhouse and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites. The Remedy. -- If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with some success in this country. Blood Tells. -- Eugenics shows us, on the other hand, in a study of the families in which are brilliant men and women, the fact that the descendants have received the good inheritance from their ancestors. The following, taken from Davenport's Heredity in Relationship to Eugenics, illustrates how one family has been famous in American History. ... Euthenics. -- Euthenics, the betterment of the environment, is another important factor in the production of a stronger race. The strongest physical characteristics may be ruined if the surroundings are unwholesome and unsanitary. The slums of a city are "at once symptom, effect and cause of evil." A city which allows foul tenements, narrow streets, and crowded slums to exist will spend too much for police protection, for charity, and for hospitals. Every improvement in surroundings means improvement of the chances of survival of the race. ...
In the final section of the excerpts from Hunter's book, notice the way he talks about the environment. First, even when he is focusing on the environment, his concern is about how to strengthen the race. Second, he talks about the race and then about "characteristics" of a person, skipping any mention of the person. Third, although he does not state it explicitly, it is clear that the damage to the environment which he describes is caused by dysgenic people. Finally, note that he is concerned not only about improving life, but about the survival of the race. |
