Evening star., 1925-07-22
The Scopes Verdict.

IliS SCopeS case OuSiN lu 30 iio" "
a higher plane of discussion, and coun-
sci may address themselves to the
central question which has been OBJ
scured at Dayton. The verdict of
guilty disappoints no one. Scopes vio-
lated a law of Tennessee. There was
no defense that he had not violated
State law. When Judge Raulston had
charged the jury, Mr.. Darrow, for the
defense, said: I'VE do not ask for q
verdict Of not guilty. ] dor't see how
you (the jury can find our client not
guilty" The Indictment charged that
Scopes taught the theory of evolution.
that man descended from a lower order
of animals, which denied the story
Bible. Counsel for defense sought to
show that teaching evolution is not
denial of the story OF crea ton as writ
ten in the Bible. Defense also sought
to show that evolution is not a theory
that man descended from the ape fam
lily, but that apes and men descended
from some remote precursor. In his
charge TO the jury Judge Raulston
said that the denial of the Divine
story OF creation as contained in the
Bible was not before the jury, the
only question being did the accused
teach that man is descended from a
lower order of animals, which teach.
Ing was contrary to q statute Of the
State. He expunged from the record
the testimony OF Mr.. Bryan as to his
religious belief. saying: Il feel that the
testimony of Mr.. Bryan can shed no
light on any issue that will depending
before the higher courts
The case will pass on appeal TO
higher court, and no doubt to the
highest court. One will hear less Of
the question whether science and the
Bible agree or disagree. The central
question is, was the State of Tennes-
see within its rights under the Con
stitution when it passed the law un-
der which Scopes was convicted. 1t
will probably not be contended that a
State has not certain right to pre-
scribe the subjects to be taught in its
public schools. 1t might legSlate that
biology, geology, arithmetic and gram
mar should not be taught. When the
Legislature enacted law that the
theory of evolution should not be
taught because it denied the Divine
story of creation as told by the Bible
il got upon deba ting ground
There are interpretations and inter
pretations of the Bible. There are
literal and figurative interpretation
Some Christians call themselves funda-
mentalists and others modernists.
Many Christians. perhaps a ma jority,
believe that the scientific theory of
evolution does not deny Genesis. A
host of Americans who are nominal
Christians. but not members of
Christian communion. accept the scien-
tific theory of evolution of man, ami
mails, plants and the earth, whether il
does or does not conflict with the
Bible.
The higher courts will deal with
the question whether Tennessee or
any State may make a law prohibiting
the teaching in public schools of
theory or doctrine contrary to an in
terpretation of the Bible held by
majority of a Legislature or a ma
jority of the people of State. Article
/ of the articles in addition 10 and
amendment of the Constitution saws:
Congress shall make no law respect
ing an establishment OF religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
1t is laid down that Congress shall
not make such a law. 1t is not laid
down that a State shall not pass such
a law. In the enumerated things
which State may not do this matter
is not among them.
Sectarian legislation is contrary to
the spirit of America. Whether this
Tennessee law falls within the term
sectarianism is the question that is to
be argued by able men.