Evening star., 1925-07-17

stCOntlnueO from f1TSL fdSc-t
the Bible But the defendant is not
content to agree with the State in its
theory, but takes issue and says that
before there can be any conviction the
State must prove two things.
First. that the defendant taught
evolution in the sense used in the
statute;
Second, that this teaching was con-
trary to the Bible.
That these are questions of fact,
that the proof must show what evolu-
ton is, so that the jury may determine
whether evolution as taught by the
defendant conflicts with the Bible; that
| is not merely what the defendant or
| what the book taught and that they
cannot do this without evidence. That
| is, that the defendant must have
| taught the descent of man from a
| lower origin of animals and a theory
| contrary to that of divine creation as
taught by the Bible. That the teaching
of either would not be crime.
Holds Theory Truth VaIueless.
Now upon these issues as brought
up it becomes the duty of the court
to determine the question of the ad-
instability of this expert testimony Of
fered by the defendant.
| 1t is not within the province Of the
court under these issues to decide and
determine which is true, the story of
| divine creation as taught in the Bible,
or the story of the creation of man as
| taught by evolution.
IF the State is correct in it's in
| sistence, it is immaterial, so far as
the results of this case are concerned,
as to which theory is true; because it
is within the province of the legisla-
tive branch and not the judicial
! branch of the Government, to pass
| upon the policy of a statute and the
| policy of this statute having been
| passed upon by that department Of
the Government, this court is not fur
| ther concerned as to it's policy. but
is interested only in it's proper inter-
probation, and, if valid, its inforce-
ment.
Let us now inquire what is the
| true Interpretation of this statute.
Did the Legislature mean that before
an accused could be convicted the
States must prove two things:
First, that the accused taught a
theory denying the story of divine
creation as taught in the Bible;
Second. that man descended from
| lower order of animals.
See Two Courses Possible.
IF the first must be specifically
| proven, then we must have proof as
| to what the story of divine creation is
and that theory was taught denying
| that story. But if the second clause
is explanatory of the first, and speaks
! into the act the intention of the Legis-
| lature and the meaning of the first
| clause, 1t would be otherwise.
ITO illustrate, when the Legislature
! had provided that 1t shall be unlawful
to teach a theory that denies the di-
vine story as taught in the Bible; and
then by the second clause merely clar-
| ited their intention and that the real
intention provided by the statute. taken
as whole, was to make it unlawful
| to teach that man descended from a
lower order of animals, then there
would be no such ambiguity and un-
| certainty as to the meaning of the
| statute and as to the offense provided
| against, as to justify the court in
calling in expert testimony to explain.
THE court will seek the aid or opin-
| ion of expert evidence only when the
issues involve facts of such complex
nature that a man or ordinary under
standing Is not competent and Quali-
| fled to form an opinion.
In tennessee an act should be