Monkey Trial in the USA - Essay Example

John Scopes a school teacher from Tennessee was indicted in violation of law by teaching an evolution theory in a public school. The case promised to be an unprecedented show due to the controversial topic and the number of eminent participants. Local town leaders could not but use the publicity to help their small town.

Jennings Bryan considering the evolution theory improbable worried about the erosion of young people’s moral health. According to his logic, the evolution theory and the low percentage of believers among youth presented a real threat to the future of society. Having received strong support from the worried parents he decided to fight teaching Darwinism at schools. In early 1925, his political campaign resulted in a legislative change, known as the Butler Act which prohibited the denial of the Biblical account of man’s origin and teaching of the evolution theory in the public schools of Tennessee. So it was no surprise when Bryan received a request to join the prosecution team in the Dayton trial on behalf of the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association and local prosecutor Sue Hicks (Linder, “William Jennings Bryan”).

In contrast, Clarence Darrow, as a modernist, had opposite views on the religion vs. science issue. He was convinced that religious fundamentalism threatened the entire system of public education by doubting the skepticism of inquiry that moved progress (Linder, “Clarence Darrow”). When Darrow found out that Bryans was going to lead the prosecution team, he decided to volunteer to challenge Bryan’s program and him personally. Despite the reluctant attitude of the American Civil Liberties Union leadership, the defendant John Scopes insisted on Darrow’s participation as a defender.

Though the case resembled with the eternal struggle of the opposite good and evil, it still was a prosecutor and defender matter which strategy was rigidly prepared by both sides. The Prosecution focused on two things: the proof of the actual violation of the Butler´s Act by John Scopes; and the influence on the public and jury by using religious rhetoric and socializing with the local population. The defense in its turn made a stake in repealing the indictment on the state and federal constitutional levels seeking the declaration in higher instances that the prohibiting evolution theory in public schools was unconstitutional.

There should be made a short remark on the constitutional grounds of the issue. The  Establishment Clause of the First Amendment guarantees the protection of US citizens from using public funds or establishments to favor any particular religious tradition over another, or non-religion over the religion, or religion over non-religion. Hence, teaching evolution as a scientific theory does not contradict to the First Amendment.

Today the controversy between evolution and creationism remains an important question in American society. The status of teaching these topics is under constant debate in legal, religious, and political circles. While some religions do not reject the evolution theory several fundamentalist branches of Christianity zealously resist its teaching. However, normally it is taught in science courses. The teaching of creationism and intelligent design as science due to its obvious religious background was declared unconstitutional. The core of the current debate lies in the different views on whether evolution/intelligent design is science or religion.

Nevertheless, I believe there is always an opportunity to find a reasonable way to teach various points of view without prohibition. Especially it is true when we talk about evolution and creationism which do not necessarily contradict one another. By separating science from religion and providing the opportunity to study both things one could obtain a possible solution. This way evolution and creationism could find a place in the school curriculum. If evolution has found its place in science, creationism could perfectly fit in philosophy, history, or civics educating the students about the diversity of political and religious beliefs.

As for the Monkey Trial, the case represents the historical irony of the prohibition of a variety of views that consequently tends to turn all the way around. I’m strongly convinced that pluralism is the right way for a democratic society to educate a truly free person providing him an opportunity to formulate his attitude towards one or another issue with the respect of others.