Original subtitles

So, Charles Darwin, when he visited the Galapagos Islands,

noticed in that isolated environment

that the same species he had observed elsewhere,

had in fact, evolved with different traits.

Like a turtle with a longer neck

was able to reach the higher Galapagos leaves,

as opposed to the short necks the same species had elsewhere.

Yes?

Is this that theory of evolution thing they were talking about in the news?

Yes, that's right. And it goes even further.

The theory hypothesizes that a whole species could,

in fact, evolve into other species.

Like for instance, man could have even evolved from the ape.

Yes, Michael?

Okay. The Bible says that God created all the earth, right?

And man arose from the earth itself.

Well, this is Biology class, Michael.

I'm here to show you that science comes up with new ideas all the time.

John Scopes?

What's the meaning of this?

I'm sorry, John. You're under arrest for violation of the Butler Act.

The Butler Act?

We've been over this, John.

It's illegal to deny the teachings of Genesis in a public classroom.

I'm not denying anything.

I'm just trying to open their minds.

I'm Judy Sheindlin.

Before I was a judge on TV,

I was a judge in New York City for 15 years,

and a lawyer for 17 years before that.

While serving on both sides of the bench,

I learned that justice doesn't always end up feeling...

just.

Sometimes, the impact of one decision by a police officer, a lawyer,

or even a judge, can change the way justice is delivered.

We're going to demonstrate this by taking landmark cases

from actual crimes committed by real people,

and we'll recreate them with our trial lawyers

and yours truly as the trial judge.

While we're not going to recreate the trials verbatim,

all the court's ultimate decisions are accurate.

It will be up to you to decide whether the case was fair

and the outcome just.

Real cases, actual lawyers, surprising verdicts.

Justice on Trial.

This episode of Justice on Trial is going to retry

one of the most famous cases in the history of America,

The State of Tennessee v. John Scopes,

better known as the Scopes Monkey Trial.

You might ask why are we looking at a trial from 1925

about a teacher's attempt to teach Darwin's theory of evolution of man

in a small Tennessee town.

You'll see that the issues presented are still a hot button today.

Can or should states define what can and cannot

be taught in our public schools?

The Scopes trial was one of the first to explore that concept.

Yet, the law is still unresolved.

Members of the jury, the Defendant in this case,

John Scopes, is charged with violation of this State's Butler Act,

which makes it a crime to teach any theory that denies the story

of the divine creation as it's taught in the Bible,

and to teach instead that man was descended from a lower order of animal.

The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that the Defendant violated that act and therefore is guilty of a crime.

Counsel, note your appearance, please.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the State of Tennessee,

along with my esteemed co-counsel, Mr. William Jennings Bryan,

I'm Dan Mentzer.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. Larry Bakman on behalf of John Scopes,

the Defendant in this case, who is present in court.

Thank you. Counsel, you wish to make an opening statement?

I do, Your Honor. This Defendant right here, Mr. John Scopes,

was hired by the Rhea High School School District.

This man just graduated from college from some school up north.

Came down here to teach chemistry, and I believe also to teach football.

But as soon as our biology teacher called in sick,

this man jumped at the chance to come into our school

and teach our children a theory of the origin of man

that conflicted with the Bible.

Well, thank God, in this state, as the judge has already told you,

that is a crime.

Because in this state, the state of Tennessee,

the only thing that may be taught as to the origin of man

has to come from the Bible.

In this very courtroom, what's gonna be on trial is more than just Mr. John Scopes.

Our values are gonna be on trial.

Our beliefs are gonna be on trial.

Our very way of life is on trial in this courtroom.

And you are called upon to save it.

Thank you, Mr. Mentzer. Mr. Bakman?

Thank you, Your Honor. I agree with almost everything

Mr. Mentzer had to say.

This case is larger than John Scopes.

This case is larger than the Butler Act.

This case is a case that will decide whether or not the people in this state

are going to confine the minds of their children

to thinking only in terms of one literal interpretation

of the Book of Genesis,

as opposed to any other theory as to evolution.

Do you want government to dictate

what you kids can learn in the classroom?

Be it race, be it gender, be it history.

Because if you subscribe to what Mentzer is selling,

that's exactly what you're going to do.

You're going to keep your children small-minded.

Thank you, Counsel. Ready to proceed, Mr. Mentzer?

I am, Your Honor.

Would you call your first witness?

The State calls Michael Morgan.

-Swear the witness. -Raise your right hand, please.

You swear to tell the truth in these matters?

-I do. -Thank you. Have a seat.

You may inquire.

Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning, Michael.

-Could you tell the jury how old you are? -I'm 15 years old.

Michael, do you live in Dayton?

I do. I was born and raised here.

Where do you go to school currently, Michael?

I attend Rhea High School.

Now, did you take biology in high school this past school year, son?

Yes. Every kid in my grade has to.

Now, son, did you know Mr. Scopes before this school year?

-No, sir. -Was he new to the school district?

Yes. I had never seen him before this year.

Now, Michael, are you a church goer?

Yes, sir. Every Sunday.

Have you been taught to respect the word of the Bible?

-Yes, sir. -Does the Bible say anything

about man evolving from monkeys?

No, it says that God created man.

That is the origin of man that you've been taught your whole life, is it not?

-Yes. -Now, when Mr. Scopes here,

as a substitute teacher, came into your class

and told you that man evolved from monkeys,

did he tell you that was just one theory as to the origin of man,

or did he say it was a fact?

He said it was a fact.

Thank you for coming in today, Michael.

-You may inquire, Mr. Bakman. -Thank you, Your Honor.

So, Michael, when Mr. Scopes was teaching you about evolution,

he was teaching you from a state-approved textbook.

And that state-approved textbook did not suggest to you

that the only theory of the origin of man

came from the Bible, did it?

-Objection. -Overruled.

He taught from the biology book,

but he also read to us from The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.

In teaching you about evolution,

do you believe that Mr. Scopes hurt you in any way?

No, I do not.

Do you believe he opened your mind and made you think?

Yes.

No further questions.

Michael, do you remember exactly what Mr. Scopes told you

about how our beings today came about?

He told us that there were single-cell organisms

that grew into animals that looked like monkeys and became us humans.

And years and years later, is that what he told you?

We are what we are today because we were originally what?

Monkeys.

Anything else?

-No, Your Honor. -No, Your Honor.

Witness is excused. Thank you, Michael.

Next witness, Mr. Mentzer.

The State rests.

At this time, Your Honor, I would move to dismiss the State's case.

Denied.

Well, I would call John Scopes.

Raise your right hand, please.

You swear to tell the truth in these matters today?

-I do. -Thank you. Have a seat.

You may inquire, sir.

Mr. Scopes, you are a teacher

for the Dayton, Tennessee school district, are you?

Yes, that's correct. I was hired to teach math, chemistry and physics,

and I coach a little football.

And where did you get your teaching degree from?

I graduated from the University of Kentucky

with a degree in law and a minor in geology, sir.

And at the time you were teaching biology,

did you teach from Charles Darwin's book, The Origin of the Species?

Yes, I did.

And what does Charles Darwin's book state

with respect to the creation of man?

He states that us, as men, descended from a lower life form,

even monkeys.

And would you say, sir, that that's consistent or inconsistent

with the teaching of the Bible as to the creation of man?

Well, it's very much inconsistent.

The Bible tells us that God, and God alone, created man.

And you were aware at the time that you were teaching these students

at the high school about the creation of man,

specifically from Darwin's book, that was a violation of the Butler Act.

Is that right?

Yes, I was aware that teaching the theory of evolution was illegal,

but I thought it was hypocritical

that the State of Tennessee also requires us teachers...

Objection to what his feelings are.

Overruled. I'd like to hear it.

Well, Your Honor, it's hypocritical that the State of Tennessee

requires us teachers to teach from George Hunter's A Civic Biology,

which endorses biology.

And I thought it was odd that in a country where we have freedom of speech

that I could only teach biblical interpretations as to the order of man.

But Mr. Scopes, tell me, if you knew it was going to violate the law,

and you knew you were possibly going to be criminally prosecuted

for teaching Darwin's theory, why did you do it?

Because my job as a teacher is to open the minds of these students

and allow them to think freely and not pigeonhole them

into one ideation of the idea of man's creation.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe in the Bible?

Absolutely not. It's a great story, but it's pure fiction.

Do you believe you should be criminally prosecuted

because your teachings differ from what's stated in the Bible

as to how mankind was created?

-Objection. -Sustained.

I don't care what he thinks, the law is the law.

Do you believe that the legislature should control how teachers teach students?

Objection.

Same objection, same ruling.

When the witness becomes a legislator, he can change the law.

Well, I think this is a very slippery slope, Your Honor,

and I would ask that the court indulge these questions.

Judge, I would ask that the Defense Attorney save these arguments

for the jury on summation where they're more appropriate.

I agree with you, Mr. Mentzer.

-I have nothing further then. -Mr. Mentzer, you may inquire.

Thank you, Your Honor. Now, Mr. Scopes,

you're not from around these parts, are you?

No, I am new to the district of Dayton.

I believe you said you came from the University of Kentucky?

Yes, correct. I grew up in Kentucky,

went to the University of Illinois, then transferred to Kentucky.

-And this is your first year in our town? -Yes, it is.

Mr. Scopes, I'd ask you to look out amongst this crowd right here you see.

-Mm-hmm. -These are God-fearing people

-in this town, aren't they? -I understand that here, in Dayton,

-God is very important. -Christians in this county, right?

To the best of my knowledge, sir.

On Sunday mornings, you don't see your students walking around the town, do you?

No, I do not. They're usually in church, sir.

You yourself, used to go to church, right?

-Yes, that's correct. -When did you stop?

I suppose, the 12th grade.

And why did you stop?

I stopped believing in organized religion and set my sights on the truth of science.

So, you're an atheist.

I don't see how my religious beliefs are valid here, sir.

Well, you brought them as an issue in this case

when you started teaching our children that the Bible was a pack of lies, sir.

-Didn't you? -I'm a teacher, sir.

There's no evidence that he taught them that the Bible was a pack of lies.

You just told us you started working this year as a teacher

of chemistry and football in our school. Correct?

Yes.

And it was your plan to only spend here one year, then blow on out of town, right?

-Yes, to continue my studies. -And then, you found out

about this Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of evolution as you knew it

-in our school, right? -Yes.

Can you indulge me for a moment, Counselor?

You were aware, according to Mr. Mentzer's question and your response,

that you were aware that the State passed the Butler Act.

-Yes. -Would you tell me

what your understanding of the Butler Act is?

Well, my understanding, absurd as it is,

is that it is illegal to teach the theory of evolution

outside of George Hunter's A Civic Biology in the Tennessee school systems.

And then, you found out there was a need for a substitute teacher

in the biology class because Mr. Jones didn't come to school one day.

-Is that right? -I volunteered to be there.

You raised your hand knowing that you were gonna go in

and teach them something that violated the Butler Act, right?

I suppose so.

Sir, it was your intention to break the law

when you raised your hand and agreed to come in and teach biology.

My intention was to open the minds of my students...

Sir, it was your intention to break the law, was it not?

Objection, argumentative. I ask that counsel step back.

Step back. Yeah, step back, Mr. Mentzer.

Rephrase that question, please, in an appropriate tone, sir.

Judge, I think the question was phrased in the appropriate tone.

It was your intention to break the law, wasn't it, Mr. Scopes?

Yes, it was my intention to break this absurd law.

Now, this theory of evolution was that man was not created in His image,

but rather, that he evolved from monkeys.

-Do I have that right? -Yes.

Now, did you explain to the children when you taught them this theory

that it was just one theory as to the origin of mankind,

or did you tell them that it was the fact?

It is scientifically accepted as a fact, sir.

So, in your mind, the theory of evolution is really the fact of evolution, right?

You could say that.

Now, in the Book of Genesis,

which explains how God says man got here,

created in his own image is, as you say, pure fiction?

Yes. It's a fantastic story, but it's pure fiction.

Now, before you came into class and told these children

that the Bible was pure fiction, did you speak with their parents

to let them know exactly what you were going to do?

I wasn't aware it was my job to run my lessons

by the parents of the students of this school, sir.

Were you at all concerned that by saying that the Bible lied about how we got here,

that you were calling into question

the entire framework of their moral beings?

My job is to teach the truth, sir.

So, that is a yes, you did know that you were questioning

their entire moral framework, did you not,

when you taught them the theory of evolution?

-My job is to teach the truth. -Is that a yes?

Answer the question, Mr. Scopes.

Did you know that you were challenging their entire moral framework

when you taught them the theory of evolution?

Yes.

Were you at all concerned, Mr. Scopes,

that by teaching the children of this town that the Bible was a pack of lies,

that you were questioning their way of life?

I think these students can think for themselves,

and I think opening their minds to the truth of science

-is what my responsibility... -Were you at all concerned, Mr. Scopes...

Step back, sir.

No, I was not concerned.

Thank you.

-Any redirect? -Yes.

Let me see if I understand this correctly, Mr. Scopes.

You've just been attacked by the prosecution...

Can we get to a question, please, sir?

Yes. Is it somewhat hypocritical to be accused

of teaching the evolution of man different from the Bible

when the State's required textbook entitled A Civic Biology,

written by William Hunter, and that book includes the theory of evolution?

-Yes. -Separate and apart

-from what the Bible says. -Yes.

So, every teacher who teaches from that book

violates Tennessee law, the Butler Act.

-Objection, argumentative. -Right?

Sustained. Don't answer the question. He understands the law.

He understands that by teaching evolution from a book

that's authorized by the State, that he's breaking the law.

As is every other teacher in the state of Tennessee, yes?

Who teaches from the required book.

-Correct, Your Honor. -Yes.

-Okay. Anything else? -No, nothing further.

Very good. Witness is excused. Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Before we get back to the trial,

I want to tell you something a little unusual.

You may be wondering who's the man sitting with the prosecutor's lawyer.

He's actually a key historic figure from this trial

whose name was William Jennings Bryan,

a former Congressman and Secretary of State.

He ran for president three times. And he was on the prosecution's team

as an expert on teachings of the Bible.

In fact, William Jennings Bryan delivered a famous speech

in a church after the trial,

which we will show you in pieces throughout the episode.

You'll see how his position on evolution

relates to the larger issues brought up in the trial. Here's the first piece.

Good morning, everyone.

I would like to begin in this blessed house with the word of God,

who said in Genesis 1, verse 26, and I quote,

"Let us make man in Our image, in Our likeness

so that he may rule over the fish in the sea,

over the birds in the sky,

over the livestock and all the wild animals,

"and over the creatures that move along the ground."

How do I know these words are true,

passed down through generations

since the beginning of recorded time itself?

Faith.

And that's what this trial of Jonathan Scopes is all about.

Faith in the absolute word of God,

or faith...

in the hypothesis of evolution?

Next witness, Mr. Bakman.

Your Honor, I call an expert in zoology, Mr. Maynard Metcalf.

-You may inquire, Mr. Bakman. -Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Metcalf, you've been called as an expert witness in this case?

That's correct.

And, sir, can you tell the jury about your expertise?

I have a doctorate in zoology from Johns Hopkins University.

And have you taught zoology, sir?

I have for the past 30 years.

And in teaching zoology, did you ever teach your students

from the work entitled Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin?

I have indeed. I have taught from that book.

Well, given this theory of evolution, can you tell the jury, sir,

based upon your scientific knowledge and your scientific teachings,

what is the origin of man?

Man has a tremendous probability of being evolved from other species.

Fossil evidence shows that there are various forms of primitive man.

And fossil evidence also shows that for other species in their history as well.

And is evolution a generally accepted scientific theory?

Yes, it is accepted by the scientific community.

-I have no further questions. -You may inquire, sir.

Thank you, Your Honor. Doctor, this theory of evolution

that you're discussing here in court, it's relatively recent, is it not?

That's correct.

It was started by a book called Origin of Species

that you mentioned on direct examination by a man named Charles Darwin.

-Is that right? -That's right.

And Mr. Darwin went to the Galapagos Islands

and followed around some animal species for a period of time. Is that right?

That is correct.

And his theory that he developed calls into question

the Holy Bible, that's been around for 2,000 years.

Yes, it does.

It doesn't just call into question the Holy Bible,

it actually calls the Holy Bible a fiction, does it not?

-It does. -All based on some man

walking around the islands, following around some animals?

No, based on scientifically accepted principles.

Now, according to this theory, man evolved from a single cell.

-Is that right? -That's correct.

And then, if I'm understanding this correctly,

and please tell me if I'm wrong,

that the monkey evolved eventually to the people we are today?

-Yes. -Now, Dr. Metcalf, there are no witnesses

to this evolution that you're discussing, are there?

Of course not. This happened over thousands of years.

There are no pictures showing this evolutionary process

-you're talking about, right? -I believe that there are no pictures.

It is a theory based upon the scientific community's belief

about this man Darwin following around animals.

That is correct. It is based

on the scientific community's acceptance of that theory.

And the only physical evidence, as I understand it in your testimony,

are some fossils that were found throughout the world.

I believe so.

And your theory is just that, a theory, right? A hypothesis.

Yes, but one that is accepted by the scientific community.

But like all theories, could be right, could be wrong, right?

Yes.

Trust me, my friends, evolution is a theory.

It is millions of guesses strung together.

It had not been proven in the time of Darwin,

and it has not been proven up to today.

There is no more reason to believe

that man has descended from some inferior animal,

than there is to believe that a stately mansion

had descended from a small cottage.

Resemblances are not proof.

They are merely curiosity to the eye.

Any other witnesses, sir?

At this point in time, Your Honor, the Defense rests.

-Mr. Mentzer? -Your Honor,

in light of Your Honor accepting the testimony here

presenting to the jury of the zoology expert,

the defense, on rebuttal, calls Mr. William Jennings Bryan

as an expert on the Bible.

Mr. Bryan?

You may inquire, sir.

Thank you, Your Honor.

-Good afternoon, Mr. Bryan. -Good afternoon, sir.

In your long career of serving our nation,

what causes have you supported, Mr. Bryan?

Oh, I've long supported the rights for the common man.

I've fought for the rights of farmers and other laborers.

I've fought for and won the right for women to vote in our elections.

Mr. Bryan, do you subscribe to a particular religion?

Oh, yes. I am a longtime devout Christian.

-Do you go to church regularly? -I go to church just about every day.

Mr. Bryan, do you read the Bible?

I've read the Bible several times.

I read portions of the Bible almost daily.

You might even say that I study the Bible.

Your Honor, I offer Mr. William Jennings Bryan

as an expert on the subject of the King James Bible.

I have absolutely no objection to that.

Witness is so qualified.

Now, Mr. Bryan, have you studied Charles Darwin's theory of evolution?

Yes, I most certainly have.

Do you accept Charles Darwin's theory of evolution

as the true explanation for the origin of man?

No, I do not. You see, Darwin's theory preaches

that man can only seek his highest potential

through the laws of hate. And evolution is a merciless law

where only the strong will crowd out the weak, and kill the weak.

Mr. Bryan, what does the Bible say as to the origin of mankind?

The Book of Genesis clearly states that man was created by God in His image.

And do you take the Bible literally?

Of course, I do. The Bible is the word of God, it is the gospel.

And I believe that everything in the Bible should be accepted as given.

Mr. Bryan, you're not from Tennessee, are you?

-No, sir, I'm not. -Where are you from?

Lincoln, Nebraska.

Why did you come down here to Tennessee to be at this trial?

Well, I came here to defend the Butler Act.

I have been very active in getting laws such as this passed.

Mr. Bryan, is it your hope

that the theory of evolution never be taught in schools?

Oh, dear Lord, no.

I just feel that it should be taught as a hypothesis and not a fact.

But you have outside agitators

that want to throw away the Bible and preach evolution as fact.

Is the Butler Act the only thing you're here to defend?

I am here to defend the rights of parents

to have some say in what our children are being taught in school.

-I am here to defend Christianity itself. -And why is that?

There are many atheist teachers coming into our schools

and teaching that the Bible... That the Bible is an act of fiction.

And I am here to stop them.

Thank you, Mr. Bryan. I have no further questions.

You may inquire, sir.

So, Mr. Bryan, you're a man who's well-versed in the Bible. Is that correct?

Most definitely.

And you believe that the Bible should be interpreted literally.

Absolutely.

And so, Jonah was swallowed by a great big whale

in the Bible. Is that right?

It was a big fish, not a whale. That's my recollection.

-My mistake. -A big fish.

-My mistake. -And I believe it.

And I believe in a God that can make a whale,

that can make a man, that can make both as he pleases.

-Let's talk about Adam and Eve. -Mm.

Eve was created, according to the Bible, from Adam's rib.

-Granted. -Where did Cain's wife come from?

I cannot say because I wasn't there.

Well, neither was I, but we're turning to you as the expert on the Bible, Mr. Bryan.

And the Bible is also an expert.

Documented by many people.

I see. And so, let me focus on one of the questions

your co-counsel asked you about parents being involved

in what teachers teach their students.

You think parents should have a say

in every single area that a teacher teaches?

When it comes to raising their minor children,

I do believe that the parents

should have a strong say so in what's being taught to their children.

Now, whatever may be said about teaching evolution to adults,

it is surely not proper to teach it to our children,

who are not yet able to think and to distinguish

from fact and what is that of mere speculation.

And so, is it your position

that we should only teach students what the Bible says

and nothing else?

I feel that the Bible is one of the most proven documents in history.

It compares heavily with several people backing it up

and writing in the scriptures as compared to one man's whimsical theories.

And so, if a teaching by a teacher

contradicts the Bible, it's your opinion that should not be taught?

If it contradicts the Bible, yes.

If a theory contradicts the Bible,

we should censor that theory because the Bible is contradicted.

If it contradicts the Bible, then yes.

And you're not concerned about limiting

the ability of students to think for themselves?

If it would contradict the Bible, then yes.

No further questions.

If I may briefly on redirect?

I would just like you to clarify your position

as to the teaching of the theory of evolution, if you could, sir.

I have no problem with the teaching students of the theory.

No objection at all.

What I have a problem with is the teachers teaching a theory as a fact,

when it's actually a theory.

A teacher can think as he pleases.

This law places no obligations or restraints on him.

It deals with the Defendant, not as an individual,

but as an employee, an official. A public servant paid by the State.

And therefore, under the instructions from the State.

And the great state of Tennessee has not created a law

to establish a religion or to teach it.

It is merely trying to protect itself

from the efforts of an insolent minority

that seeks to teach our children ill religion

under the guise of teaching science.

Would you like to make a closing argument?

I do, indeed, Your Honor.

Ladies and gentlemen of this jury,

my good friend William Jennings Bryan, he is dangerous.

His conclusions in this case

are an affront to free speech,

free thought, and is tantamount to government censorship.

Here's the problem. It is a slippery slope.

And where do we draw the line?

When we start needing parental consent

for our teachers to teach alternative theories

to open the minds of kids of today, to get them thinking for themselves.

And the danger is, once we start having the government

dictate what our teachers can teach,

that's when we lose out on a free society.

And that's the danger that this prosecution

has brought into this courtroom.

I urge you to reject the prosecution's case

and acquit this young teacher, John Scopes.

-Thank you. -Mr. Mentzer.

Thank you, Your Honor. Ladies and gentlemen,

it sounds as though Mr. Bakman here has a problem with the law.

Well, let me just make this clear

that we, the good people of the state of Tennessee,

did not want to enact laws restricting teachers

and telling them what they can and can't teach.

But we kind of had to do that because you had outside agitators

coming into our state to teach our kids

that everything they've been learning in church was a lie.

John Scopes jammed that theory of his

down the throats of our children, as though it were an absolute fact.

And that's the problem we have. And that's why we enact these laws,

to prevent people like this to let their own agenda invade our children.

And that's why we stood up and created this law.

And that man right there is guilty of it.

Thank you.

Members of the jury, you have now heard all of the evidence in this case.

It is your duty to render a verdict based upon that evidence.

Did the Defendant violate the Butler Act

by teaching the theory of evolution, or did he not?

You may not consider whether you do

or do not believe in the science of evolution.

In that regard, this state's legislature has spoken.

Unless and until that law is changed,

it remains the law in the state of Tennessee.

You may now retire and deliberate.

Court's now in session.

I will now read the jury's verdict.

Would the Defendant rise, please?

Mr. Scopes, the jury, after deliberation,

has found you guilty of violating the Butler Act,

and imposes a fine of $100.

Thank you very much. This concludes the business of the court.

So, John Scopes was found guilty of violating the Butler Act in Tennessee.

The $100 fine was obviously not a big deal.

The issue was challenging the State's rights to have a law

that prohibited the teaching of a proven theory in public schools.

The trial was such a nationwide spectacle that it achieved what Scopes wanted.

State legislatures began passing laws

protecting the teaching of evolution in schools.

Even the State of Tennessee struck down the Butler Act.

But it took 40 years.

That was in 1967.

A year later, in 1968, the United States Supreme Court

finally got to rule on the same issue presented in the Scopes trial.

But that was in another case, Epperson v. Arkansas,

which asked, was it constitutional for a state

to have a law prohibiting the teaching of evolution.

We are using that case of Epperson

to illustrate how the Supreme Court might have ruled in Scopes.

Your Honor, this is case 108, State v. Scopes.

Thank you, officer.

Counsel, please, note your appearance.

Good afternoon, Your Honors. Larry Bakman on behalf of the appellant, John Scopes.

Good afternoon, Your Honors. Dan Mentzer on behalf of the State of Tennessee.

Thank you, Counsel. May a state legislature

consistent with the First Amendment, limit the teaching of certain subjects?

Education, in many instances, is a matter left to the discretion of the States.

But what if the State prevents a school or a teacher

from instructing students as to certain matters?

In this case, the prohibited subject was evolution,

the notion that we humans descended from lesser organisms.

The State of Tennessee banned the teaching of evolution in its schools,

and Petitioner Scopes violated that ban.

The question before this court is whether the law

violates the Tennessee State,

and the United States Federal Constitutions.

We are not here asked to rule on the merits of science.

We are asked to rule on the merits

of whether or not a state can prohibit certain teachings.

Ours is a very special relationship between states and the federal government,

and this case tests the limits of that relationship.

We'll now hear from counsel.

Mr. Bakman, do you have an opening statement for the court?

-I do, thank you, Your Honor. -Please.

This is a case that goes directly to the heart

of teaching our young people.

And what this case exemplified was that John Scopes, my client,

taught his high school students about the theory of evolution.

It differed from community's dictate

and from Tennessee's dictate,

that only religion can be taught with respect to the origin of man.

Anything that differed from that teaching was criminalized.

That's unconstitutional.

That's what makes this case so egregious.

When we give the State of Tennessee, or any State,

the power to dictate, to command what a teacher will teach,

and make that teaching mandated, subject to criminal penalty.

That violates the First Amendment. That violates freedom of speech.

And what it does is it hinders the free thinking of our young.

I urge this court to overturn this conviction.

Thank you, Mr. Bakman. Mr. Mentzer?

Thank you, Your Honor. It is not science that's on trial here today,

and it's not religion that's on trial.

What is on trial here today is a parent's right to know

what their children are being taught at school.

Do we, as parents, have to sit by as our children are taught mere theories

by their teachers as though they were the gospel?

Do we even have a say when our children are taught these theories

which are in violation with our own basic values and beliefs?

Now, the Butler Act was designed to stop teachers like that

from doing what they were doing. Because when parents feel

that they've lost the ability to raise their own children,

when activist teachers are jamming their own political opinions

down the minds of our children,

that's when the need for laws like the Butler Act came.

And that's why we ask the court to uphold the verdict in this case.

-Thank you. -Thank you, Mr. Mentzer.

We will now retire to deliberate.

We have reached a unanimous verdict.

Inherent in any education system is providing an environment

that fosters free and independent thinking and conclusions.

The alternative is indoctrination, not education.

The First Amendment prohibits the government

from favoring or endorsing one religion over another,

or one religion over non-religion.

The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' rights

to practice their religion as they please, provided that their practice

does not compromise a compelling government interest.

The Butler Act violates the First Amendment

by crediting one religion over another,

and unconstitutionally chills the expression and practice

of other faiths with differing beliefs. For this reason,

the conviction against Mr. Scopes is reversed,

and the charges against him dismissed.

The Scopes Monkey Trial was really never about

whether Scopes was guilty of breaking a Tennessee law.

It was about the extent of the government's role

in the education of our children. That debate rages today.

One thing we know for sure about justice,

it always evolves.