“Inherit the Wind”: A Hollywood History of the Scopes Trial-Part 2

By: Dr. David Menton; ©1999

Dr. Menton continues his examination of the difference between the actual trial, as seen from trial transcripts, and the Hollywood version of the story.

Contents

“INHERIT THE WIND”: A HOLLYWOOD HISTORY OF THE SCOPES TRIAL—Part 2

Written and revised by David N. Menton, Ph.D.St. Louis, MO; 1991 Copyright (c) 1985 by the Bible-Science Association, P.O. Box 32475, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432. Used by permission.

[MovieGuide] EDITOR’S NOTE: In this excellent article, Dr. Menton shows that there are profound discrepancies between the film “Inherit The Wind” and the historical evidence. Furthermore, the film is not simply inaccurate, in the way of “Hollywood history,” but rather is highly biased in its intent. The historical inaccuracies present a consistent bias of slan­derous proportions against a particular class of people and their beliefs. In the observations that follow, segments of the film are presented under the heading “MOVIE”; immediately following, under the heading “FACT”, is a discussion of each film segment in the light of the Scopes trial transcript as well as historical sources. Although the story lines and criticisms refer to the 1960 film version of “Inherit The Wind,” in most instances they apply with equal validity to the original play as well as the CBS television remake.

The author hopes that you will copy and pass his article on to as many people as possible. However, if you want to reprint it please contact the Bible-Science Association

MOVIE: The defense is unable to get permission to use their several expert witnesses because Bryan is afraid of their testimony and considers it irrelevant. One by one, Darrow calls his distinguished scientists to the stand but each time, thanks to an ignorant and biased judge, Bryan needs only to say, “objection—irrelevant,” and that is the end of it.

FACT: Technically, the only point at issue in the trial was whether or not John Scopes actually taught the evolution of man from lower orders of animals, so naturally the lawyers for the prosecution did question the relevance of the testimony of expert witnesses. The verbal testimony of the evolutionists assembled by the defense was prevented, however, because Darrow adamantly refused to let his scientific witnesses be cross-examined by the prosecution (transcript, pages 206-208). Bryan had asked for, and received, the right to cross-examine the expert witnesses, but Darrow was so opposed to allowing his experts to be questioned that he never called them to the witness stand! Bryan pointed out that under the conditions demanded by Darrow, the evolutionists could take the witness stand and merely express their speculations and opinions on evolution without fear of being contra­dicted. The wisdom of this position was amply demonstrated by the confused and convo­luted opinions of the one scientist who had been permitted to testify earlier for the defense. Throughout the trial the definition of the term evolution was so hopelessly muddled by the defense and its witnesses that it seems unlikely that any of the jurors could have known exactly what evolution is and is not. Evolution, for example, was repeatedly confused with embryology and even aging! The defense lawyer, Dudley Field Malone, is a case in point:

The embryo becomes a human being when it is born. Evolution never stops from the beginning of the one cell until the human being returns in death to lifeless dust. We wish to set before you evidence of this character in order to stress the importance of the theory of evolution. (transcript, page 116)

Another lawyer for the defense, Arthur Garfield Hays, added chaos to confusion when he said:

I know that in the womb of the mother the very first thing is a cell and that cell grows and it subdivides and it grows into a human being and a human being is born. Does that statement, as the boy stated on the stand, that he was taught that man comes from a cell, is that a theory that man descended from a lower order of animals? I don’t know and I dare say your honor has some doubt about it. Are we entitled to find out whether it is or not in presenting this case to the jury? (transcript, page 156)

Darrow himself gave the impression that he had almost no understanding of the mean­ing of the term evolution. When judge Raulston, who became understandably confused by all of the double talk on the subject of evolution, asked Darrow if he believed that all life came from one cell, Darrow replied:

“Well I am not quite so clear, but I think it did.” “— All human life comes from one cell. You came from one and I came from one—nothing else a single cell.” (transcript, page 189)

Even Dr. Maynard M. Metcalf, a zoologist from Johns Hopkins University, made this same mistake in his expert testimony and then went on to obfuscate the definition of evolu­tion beyond recognition. First Dr. Metcalf assured the Court of his qualifications as an evolutionist by stating:

I have always been particularly interested in the evolution of the individual organism from the egg, and also the evolution of the organism as a whole from the beginning of life, that has been a sort of peculiar interest of mine, always. (transcript, page 136)

When asked by Darrow to tell what is meant by “the fact of evolution,” Dr. Metcalf responded with this:

Evolution I think means the change; in the final analysis I think it means the change of an organism from one character into a different character, and by character I mean its structure, or its behavior, or its functions or its method of development from the egg or anything else—the change of an organism from one set characteristic which characterizes it into a different condition, characterized by a different set of characteristics either structural or functional could be properly called, I think, evolution—to be the evolution of that organism; but the term in general means the whole series of such changes which have taken place during hundreds of millions of years which have produced from lowly beginnings the nature of which is not by any means fully understood to organism of much more complex character, whose structure and function we are still studying, because we haven’t begun to learn what we need to know about them. (transcript, pages 139- 140)

So much for the fact of evolution. One can only imagine what questions Bryan might have asked Dr. Metcalf if Darrow would have allowed his expert witness to be questioned.

Bryan was clearly aware of the confusion that was being introduced by the defense on the definition of evolution and pointed out that even one of the school children who had testified seemed to have a better grasp of evolution than the lawyers for the defense:

“The little boy understood what he was talking about and to my surprise the attorneys didn’t seem to catch the significance of the theory of evolution—he thought that little boy was talking about individuals coming up from one cell.” Bryan emphasized that evolution was “Not the growth of an individual from one cell, but the growth of all life from one cell.” (transcript, page 173)

Bryan pointed out that even the National Education Association was confused on the subject and as a result, their attempt to make an official statement condemning Tennessee for “ignorance and bigotry” was frustrated by their inability to agree on a definition for evolu­tion (transcript, page 173). Perhaps the most significant fact is that the movie “Inherit The Wind” chose to ignore virtually all of the scientific commentary and testimony that was presented during the trial including that of Dr. Maynard Metcalf. While this may have been just as well for reasons I have described, the movie certainly does not depict a “triumph of science over religious dogma.” As for dogma, the trial transcript reveals that there was plenty of that on both sides of this dispute.

MOVIE: Bryan admits that he takes every word of the Bible literally.

FACT: From the transcript (page 285) we read:

Darrow: “Do you claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?”

Bryan: “I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there; some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: ‘Ye are the salt of the earth.’ I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God’s people.”

MOVIE: Darrow asks about sex in the Bible and Bryan replies that all sex is sinful.

FACT: Nothing was discussed about sex in the trial. Apparently Hollywood just couldn’t resist introducing a little sex in the film and implying that Bryan was a prude.

MOVIE: Bryan claims that he knows that the age of the earth is the exact date calcu­lated by Archbishop Ussher which placed the date of creation at 9 o’clock in the morning on the 23rd of October in 4004 BC.

FACT: Bryan didn’t claim to know how old the earth was. From the trial transcript (page 296) we read:

Darrow: “Mr. Bryan could you tell me how old the earth is?”

Bryan: “No sir, I couldn’t.”

Darrow: “Could you come anywhere near it?”

Bryan: “I wouldn’t attempt to. I could possibly come as near as the scientists do, but I had rather be more accurate before I give a guess.”

MOVIE: As the trial grinds to an end, Darrow fights valiantly to establish the innocence of his client John Scopes. On one occasion when it appeared that Scopes wanted give up the fight to prove his innocence, Darrow asks “Are you going to find yourself guilty before the jury does?”

FACT: After spending much of the seventh day of the trial systematically grilling and ridiculing Bryan for his belief in numerous miracles of the Bible, Darrow abruptly ended the trial by asking the Court to instruct the jury to find his client guilty (abstract page 306)! This incredible concession, together with the judge’s decision to strike Bryan’s testimony from the record, was very much to Darrow’s personal benefit because it prevented him from being subjected to the same kind of inquisition he had just put Bryan through. Bryan had agreed to take the witness stand to answer questions on his Christian beliefs with the understanding that Darrow would then also be required to take the stand to answer ques­tions about his own agnostic and evolutionary beliefs (transcript page 284). Both judge Raulston and Darrow had agreed to this condition. When Bryan asked if Darrow, himself, knew the answer to some of his more ludicrous questions (i.e., “Do you know how many people there were on this earth 3000 years ago?”), Darrow responded with “wait until you get to me.” Despite the increasing hostility of Darrow’s questioning, Bryan thwarted re­peated attempts by his colleagues to stop it.

Bryan: “I want him to have all the latitude he wants. For I am going to have some latitude when he gets through.”

Darrow: “You can have latitude and longitude.” (transcript page 288)

It is most unlikely that Darrow had any intention of giving Bryan “latitude and longi­tude”. He had, after all, been unwilling to let Bryan question even his expert witnesses on their religious and evolutionary assumptions, how much less likely would he be willing to subject himself to such questioning after what he had put Bryan through? As it turned out, of course, Bryan was given no opportunity to ask Darrow his questions during the trial. In the movie, Darrow is portrayed using these very words, “latitude and longitude”, but in a totally different context (philosophical lecture to the jury) that did not begin to suggest the clever maneuver in which they were actually employed!

MOVIE: The “prisoner”, John Scopes, is found guilty and Darrow is visibly shaken by this great injustice against his client. Bryan, on the other hand, is vindictive and complains bitterly about the paltry $100 fine leveled against John Scopes for a crime of such great magnitude.

FACT: Violation of the Butler Act was punishable by a fine of no less than $100 and no greater than $500; imprisonment was not a provision of the law. Bryan was not the least bit concerned about the fine nor was anyone else, indeed, Bryan himself had offered to pay Scopes’ fine. All of Scopes’ expenses relating to the trial were covered by various vested interests as was the tuition for his graduate education after the trial. John Scopes’ guilt or innocence was not even a primary concern of any of the participants in the trial. The whole purpose for bringing this case to trial was to:

1. declare the Butler act unconstitutional,
2. expose “fundamentalist” Christian views on the subject of origins to public ridicule in the press, and
3. focus the attention of the world on evolution (de Camp, page 492).

In his autobiography, The Story of My Life, Clarence Darrow explained his strategy this way:

My object, and my only object, was to focus the attention of the country on the program of Mr. Bryan and the other Fundamentalists in America.

MOVIE: The movie builds to a noisy and chaotic climax as Bryan loses all sense of dignity and reason and goes into an incoherent tirade in an attempt to read his very lengthy concluding statement. The crowd is bored and walks out while Bryan’s wife looks on in horror at what had become of her once sane and caring husband. Finally, overcome by religious zeal, Bryan mindlessly recites the names of the books of the Bible and collapses in the throes of death on the courtroom floor.

FACT: Neither Bryan nor Darrow ever attempted to give the customary closing argu­ment to the jury. Once Darrow accomplished his purpose of ridiculing Bryan’s beliefs in Biblical miracles he conceded Scopes’ guilt and in so doing, obviated any closing argu­ments. Bryan had put a great deal of effort into his closing statement and this maneuver by Darrow eliminated his opportunity to give what was a rather well supported scientific and religious argument against the theory of evolution. Bryan was quite anxious that the text of his speech be made available to the public and he made provision for its publication only one hour before his death. This speech is appended to the transcript used in this study and provides an excellent insight to Bryan’s views on education, evolution and the implications of the Scopes trial. The speech is cogently argued and hardly the raving of a mad man unless, of course, all Bible believing Christians are to be dismissed as “mad men.”

Finally, Bryan did not die in the court house in a raving frenzy. Bryan died in his sleep of unknown causes five days after the trial. It is believed that his death might have been at least indirectly related to his untreated diabetic condition which, incidentally, was also probably responsible for his frequent eating. On being informed of his death by a reporter who suggested that Bryan might have died of a broken heart, Darrow responded “Broken heart nothing; he died of a busted belly.” A little later Darrow commented to friends: “Now wasn’t that man a God-damned fool?” Even Bryan’s untimely death could not assuage the contempt of many of his detractors who had come to despise him for his stand on creation. In what must be one of the most heartless obituaries ever written, H.L. Menken insisted that Bryan “was deluded by a childish theology full of almost a pathological hatred of all learning, all human dignity, all beauty, all fine and noble things. Imagine a gentleman, and you have imagined everything that he was not.”

CONCLUSION

One simply cannot escape the conclusion that the writers of the screen play, “Inherit The Wind”, never intended to write a historically accurate account of the Scopes trial, nor did they seriously attempt to portray the principle characters and their beliefs in an unbi­ased and accurate way. But some may argue that criticisms of the type presented in this study are inappropriate for a “documentary-drama” because historical accuracy is only the inadvertent victim of attempts to “liven up” the plot. It is typical, for example, to introduce a fictional love story in “Hollywood history”. The evidence suggests, however, that the inaccu­racies encountered in the film “Inherit The Wind” are substantive, intentional and system­atic. It is actually quite easy to see a pattern in the inaccuracies and from this one can make reasonable guesses as to the motive. The Christian Fundamentalists and particularly William Jennings Bryan are consistently lampooned throughout the film, while skeptics, and agnostics are consistently portrayed as intelligent, kindly and even heroic.

Who, we might ask, are these maligned fundamentalists, and why should we be so concerned about offending them? Today we hear the news media apply the term “funda­mentalist” not only to Christians but to certain Muslim sects as well. The term, “fundamen­talist,” now appears to used by the media only in a pejorative sense to label those who are considered to be highly zealous, inflexible and intolerant in their religious or philosophical beliefs. But such an unrestricted definition of “fundamentalism” might even apply to some evolutionists. Historically the term Fundamentalism applied to a loose association of Chris­tians who were influenced by a series of 12 booklets called The Fundamentals which were published beginning in 1909. Fundamentalism was an attempt to get back to the funda­mental teachings of the Christian faith which had begun to be eroded in some churches by the growing “modernist” trend around the turn of the century.

The “fundamentals” included five basic doctrines; the inerrancy of scripture, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ and Christ’s return in Glory. It should be noted that these beliefs are not simply the creed of a fanatic and insignificant minority in Christendom, as some suggest, but are shared by most Bible believing Christians in the world. Although a miraculous divine creation was not one of the “Fundamentals,” it too is believed by most Christians. A Gallup Poll in 1982 showed that 44% of all Americans believe that “God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.” Another 38% believe God actively guided the pro­cess of evolution and only 9% believe that God had no active part in the process. In short, the beliefs of the much maligned fundamentalists of Dayton Tennessee in 1925 are not greatly different from that of nearly half of the students in the average public school class­room today, and it is these who are offended and demeaned by the film “Inherit The Wind!”

What then is the purpose of showing the film “Inherit The Wind” in the history, social studies or science classroom? As history it is not only inaccurate but highly misleading. As a social study it is highly biased against a particular class of people and their religious beliefs. As science it has nothing to offer at all. If teachers feel compelled to get involved in the evolution-creation controversy in their classroom, they have much more current mate­rial at their disposal. There have recently been many exciting debates on this issue be­tween qualified scientists who are quite sophisticated in their knowledge of the scientific evidence. Most people who have witnessed these debates find that Creationist scientists have held their own quite well, indeed, some evolutionists have conceded that creationists often win these debates! Both audio and video cassettes of debates and lectures, as well as numerous books and pamphlets on the scientific evidence relative to the creation-evolution controversy, are available from several sources.

Finally I should add that my own highly critical observations on the film, “Inherit The Wind” are consistent with those of others who have compared the film with the historical evidence. In his definitive three volume biography of the life and work of William Jennings Bryan, Paolo Coletta said:

Bryan’s Image was badly hurt not so much by the Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee play ‘Inherit The Wind’ as by the moving picture of the same title. In the film , Frederick March portrayed Bryan as a low-comedy stooge, Gene Kelly represented an unrecognizable Mencken, and Spencer Tracy, as Darrow, emerged as the hero. The film also assails the Fundamentalist position without satisfactorily substituting science for religious faith and experience.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The World’s Most Famous Court Trial, Cincinnati, Ohio.: National Book Company, 1925. Darrow, Clarence: The Story of My Life, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965.

de Camp, Sprague L.: The Great Monkey Trial, Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1968.

Coletta, Paolo E.: William Jennings Bryan III. Political Puritan 1915-1925, Lincoln, Ne­braska: University of Nebraska Press, 1969.

Levine, Lawrence W.: Defender of the Faith William Jennings Bryan: The Last Decade 1915-1925, New York: Oxford University Press., 1965.

Read Part 1
Contents