American History Tellers - Evolution on Trial | Live and Let Live | 4

Episode Date: July 30, 2025

The Scopes ""Monkey"" Trial was set against the backdrop of the roaring twenties, a time of both cultural upheaval and deep social tensions. While ostensibly about science versus religion, the trial became a proxy for larger conflicts over academic freedom, individual rights, and the very nature of American democracy. And the trial's impact extended far beyond its verdict, influencing debates about education, faith, and freedom that continue to resonate today. In this episode, Lindsay is joined by Brenda Wineapple, author of the national bestseller Keeping the Faith: God, Democracy, And The Trial That Riveted A Nation. Together, they explore how the trial, sometimes called a ""victorious defeat"", remains relevant 100 years later.Be the first to know about Wondery’s newest podcasts, curated recommendations, and more! Sign up now at https://wondery.fm/wonderynewsletterListen to American History Tellers on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. Experience all episodes ad-free and be the first to binge the newest season. Unlock exclusive early access by joining Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Start your free trial today by visiting wondery.com/links/american-history-tellers/ now.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Picture this. You're transported back in time, witnessing history unfold right before your eyes, without any modern day interruptions. That's the magic of Wondery Plus. Immerse yourself in the stories that shaped our nation with ad-free episodes, early access to new seasons, and exclusive bonus content. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app or on Apple Podcasts and experience American history like never before. Imagine it's April 1926 in Oxford, Mississippi. The scent of stale pipe smoke greets you as you sit down in a small wood panel office. You're a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, and you've traveled south in search of a high school teacher willing to participate in a test case

to challenge a new Mississippi law that bans the teaching of evolution in public schools. The man you're here to meet, the Lafayette County School Superintendent, sits across from you behind his desk, a bemused expression on his face. Well, I am surprised. I didn't expect you to come all the way down here in person. Well, I had to. No one would respond to my letters and telegrams. The superintendent shrugs. Well, you'd be hard pressed to find a teacher looking to be the new John Scopes. It's only been what? Nine months? Folks hadn't forgotten what happened in Dayton last summer. That was a circus. Well, that might be understandable, but you don't mean to say

you support a law that criminalizes the teaching of evolution here in Mississippi. do you? No, of course not. I'm a learned man, same as you, but it's not worth getting worked up about. They'll never enforce it. No, it's not about that. This is about a higher principle. We're trying to defend academic freedom and the individual liberties of teachers and students. Is that right, a higher principle? I thought it was about mocking the Bible and every man, woman, and child who believes in the scripture. No, that was never our intention, I assure you. The ACLU is dedicated to protecting freedom of religion. And yet your organization hired that atheist Clarence Darrow. You sure put on a show, sneering and scoffing, he made it his mission to humiliate William Jennings

Brian. He practically killed the poor fellow. Now, I wouldn't say that. And besides, you lost last year, didn't you? Scopes was convicted. Who's to say Mississippi would be any different? Well, we planned him out a new legal strategy, and you needn't worry. Darrow won't be involved this time. We really believe this is our chance to win a ruling on the law's constitutionality. To stop this movement before it does any more damage, I just need to find another teacher willing to help us. The superintendent shakes his head, running a hand through his slick back here. You want a teacher who's willing to earn the hostility of his neighbors and the scorn of every pulpit in the state? That's a mighty big ask. And you're willing to let this law stand? Even though it silences teachers,

deny scientific fact? Our teachers and taxpayers are not interested in becoming the laughing stock of northern newspapers. You can travel to every county in the state. They'll tell you the same thing. I believe you're wasting your time. With a curt nod, you stand and walk out of the superintendent's office. You hadn't expected an easy fight in Mississippi, but you did hope to find some sliver of resistance to these anti-evolution laws. Now, though, you fear that after last year's events in Dayton, your efforts to protect academic freedom in the South are doomed. Searchlight Pictures presents the Roses, only in theaters, August 29. The director of Meet the Parents and the writer of Poor Things comes The Roses,

starring Academy Award winner Olivia Coleman, Academy Award nominee Benedict Cumberbatch, Andy Samburg, Kate McKinnon, and Alison Janney. A hilarious new comedy filled with drama, excitement, and a little bit of hatred, proving that marriage isn't always a bed of roses. See The Roses, only in theaters August 29th. Grab a coffee and discover Vegas-level excitement with BetMGM Casino. Now introducing our hottest exclusive, Friends, the one with the Multi-Drop. Your favorite classic television show is being reimagined into your new favorite casino game,

featuring iconic images from the show. Spin our new exclusive because we are not on a break. Play Friends, the one with Multidrop, exclusively at BetMGM Casino. Want even more options, pull up a seat, and check out a one. wide variety of table games from blackjack to poker, or head over to the arcade for nostalgic casino thrills. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an

advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. From Wondery, I'm Lindsay Graham, and this is American History Tellers, Our History, Your Story. In March 1926, the Mississippi State Legislature passed a law banning the teaching of evolution in public schools. Less than a year after the trial John Scopes and Dayton, Tennessee, the American Civil Liberties Union tried to sponsor another test case to challenge this law in court. But this time, they were unable to find a teacher willing to serve as the defendant. In the aftermath of the Scopes trial, anti-evolution efforts failed in the, the North, but gathered widespread support in the South, highlighting a growing regional divide

and attitudes towards science and religion. Here with me now to discuss the significance of the Scopes trial a hundred years later is Brenda Wineapple, author of the best-selling book Keeping the Faith, God, Democracy, and the Trial that riveted a nation. Brenda Wineapple, welcome to American History Tellers. Thanks for inviting me. So the Scopes trial took place in 1925. exactly a hundred years ago. Why don't you put us in that era, this time in U.S. history? What were some of the big changes happening at the moment? The 1920s are usually thought of as the roaring 20s or the Jazz Age, and that seems a time of

hilarity, good times for everyone, but not everyone was having a very good time. And not only were their assassinations, labor stoppages, economic disparity, not only did women get the vote was their prohibition. But there was also a fear in the country, fear of otherness, fear of immigrants, fear of too much unemployment, fear of Bolsheviks, which we would know as communist. There was a massive rise in violence against black people. The Ku Klux Klan was enormously powerful at this particular time. So that's a very complicated time. as well as an exciting one. And the reason I say exciting is in 1925 alone.

You have the New Yorker founded, the Great Gatsby published. This is the time of the Harlem Renaissance. There's a lot that's going on. The cities are crowded. And as a result, people think that things are happening much too quickly. I should also mention that it was the end of a brutal slaughter known as World War I. And this decade, the 1920s, pretty much began with the red summer of 1990, certainly a fearful time. Explain what that was and how it might have influenced the context of the Scopes trial.

Well, sure. In 1990 alone, there were bomb scares and actually bombs that were exploded. Attorney General Mitchell Palmer, who is famous, comes down to us as the head of the so-called pomerades. This was the time of the red scare, and people were afraid of red. namely communists. And as a result, there were numbers of socialists and communists and even pacifists who were rounded up and deported. That's something that's going on in the background of the Scopes trial. And in a sense, the Scopes trial is a funnel for all the fear, all the anxiety, all the changes, all in a sense the kind of frenetic hilarity of the decade. The Scopes trial centered around a new act of legislation, the Butler Act, but it also centered around a new organization, the American Civil Liberties Union.

Tell us a little about Roger Baldwin, one of its co-founders. Yeah, Roger Baldwin, very interesting man. He was Harvard-educated, Boston-bred. He had worked in social work. He was also a pacifist who helped pacifists in World War I. He was actually arrested and jailed for his pacifism. He didn't want the United States to partake in the European War. And so what happened was that he helped form something called the National Civil Liberties Bureau. And that morphed or turned into the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, in 1920. And that union then, as now, offered to help anyone who believed constitutional rights had been threatened or violated. So it was only five years old at the time of that.

the Scopes trial. And what was the ACLU's goal in challenging the Butler Act? The ACLU at this particular time was looking for what they call test cases. And what a test case was was a way to advertise their existence and also let people know that they would help protect civil liberties, whether it was free speech, freedom of the press and assembly, any First Amendment rights. And so they wanted to educate people and they also wanted to protect people whose rights had been violated. And as I said, quite a number of people since the Red Summer, since 2019 and before the war, had been enduring violations of civil rights. So when a secretary saw the Butler Act, saw what was going on in Tennessee, she alerted Roger Baldwin and said this

would probably make a very good test case. So let's turn our attention then to the Butler Act first. What was it about the Butler Act that the ACLU objected to? And what was going on in Tennessee that made the legislature there pass it in the first place? Well, in the simplest sense, the Butler Act, which prevents any public school, whether it's a high school, elementary school, college that's supported by the state, any of those schools that teach evolution, which denies creation as taught in the Bible, that would be prohibited. When the ACLU saw this, they wanted the test case because in Tennessee, this legislation had passed in 1925, partly to placate evangelical members of the legislature.

It was known as the Butler Act because someone named John Washington Butler, who is a farmer, he ran for office on this single issue of evolution or anti-evolvement. The governor, a man named Pei, I think that's how you pronounce it, signed the act, but no one really thought that it would be enforced. So then, as you see it, what was the trial really about then? Was it purely secularism versus religion? Well, yes and no, John Washington Butler didn't really understand what evolution was. And I would argue, and I think I'm right about this, that most people didn't understand what evolution was. They had some notion that it was bad for children. But in that sense, evolution becomes a proxy for other issues that we just talked about that are upsetting to people. The church itself was divided, really, about whether evolution was compatible with the Bible. Certainly, there were liberal clergy in the church, as well as fundamentalist clergy. So the issue really isn't secularism versus religion per se because nobody understood what evolution was, and religion really wasn't being attacked.

I wonder if you could expand on how evolution, a scientific theory, presumably based on evidence and facts, could become a proxy for social issues. There was so much going on in the 1920s that evolution becomes a kind of lens through which other issues are discussed and debated in a court of law. And as we mentioned, constitutional issues having to do with academic freedom. who's going to teach the children? Is it going to be experts? Is it going to be religious figures? Who decides what goes on in the classroom? Who decides what goes into textbooks?

And in that particular sense, the issue of religion or evolution becomes a wider contest about control, just as prohibition was a wider contest about control. How are you going to legislate what people think, feel, do, who they love, what they read? So you can see that the issues around freedom, censorship, school, the rights of the individual, all become wrapped up in a discussion about science and expertise. Now, the epicenter of the Scopes trial was Dayton, Tennessee, and hundreds and hundreds of people to send it on this town. The prosecution, defense teams, evangelicals and scientists, the press, merchants, even selling

Bibles and monkey-themed souvenirs. It was an absolute circus. But I wonder, is this what Dayton wanted? Well, in a way, it is what Dayton wanted. They didn't want a circus per se, but they were really glad to have so much controversy coming to their city because, in a sense, it sells. This is America, after all. And this is an opportunity for the Chamber of Commerce to bring attention to Dayton, Tennessee.

It had previously, or was the strawberry capital of the world, a very small town. And the presiding judge of the trial said that he would be happy to have the trial in a stadium. So the people of Dayton, Tennessee, were happy to have all of this commotion. It got a little excessive. And in terms of the way the press handled it, the press handled the hubbub or excitement in Tennessee as if it were a carnival and as if it were a freak show, really, in many ways. But the people themselves said that they were excited. There were two great orators coming to town, two well-known figures, superstars, and they also thought that they would get an education for nothing. Leaping ahead, I'm curious about the long-lasting effects of this trial on Dayton. Certainly, it's not a very ordinary way of promoting a small town.

No, it really isn't an ordinary way of promoting a small town. But I'm not sure that there were lasting effects. Once the trial was over, the trial barely lasted a week. Everybody left. So in some sense, Dayton comes down to us as the center of a kind of circus. I'm not sure that that did the town much good. but on the other hand, it didn't really matter because things went back to the way they had always been.

The town of Agda in France is famous for sun, sand, sea and sex. But lately, life on the coast has taken a strange turn. The town's mayor, a respected pillar of the community, has been arrested for corruption. His wife claims he's been bewitched by a beautiful clairvoyant. Then there's the mysterious phone calls that local people have been getting. I am the Archangel Michael. The whole town has been thrown into chaos.

As the mayor is unable to carry out his duties, I would like to address you all. Legal proceedings have been initiated. Join me, Anna Richardson and journalist Leo Schick for the Mystic and the Mayor, as we investigate a story of power, corruption, and magic. Binge all episodes of The Mystic and the Mayor exclusively and ad-free right now on Wondry Plus. Start your free trial in Apple Podcasts, Spotify or the Wondry app. Before the internet ruled our lives, AOL brought America online with email and instant message.

By 2000, AOL was so powerful. It bought Media Giant Time Warner. This was a deal that was supposed to be. bring us into the future, revolutionized media, but instead it became one of the messiest corporate disasters in history. So what went wrong? The dot-com crash, culture clashes, or something deeper? Business Wars gives you a front-row seat to the biggest moments in business and how they shape our world, because when your flight perks disappear, your favorite restaurant chain goes bankrupt or new tech threatens to reshape everything overnight, you can bet there's a deeper story behind the headlines. Make sure to follow business wars on the Wondery app or wherever you get your

podcast. And you can binge all episodes of business wars, the AOL Time Warner disaster, early and ad-free right now on Wondery Plus. Let's turn to William Jennings Bryan, lead prosecutor in the trial and a famous politician in order. He was a Democrat, a progressive, a populist, but he was a Democrat. A progressive, a populist, He was also a fundamentalist who believed in the literal word of the Bible. What else was he? William Jennings Bryan was a three-time presidential nominee on the Democratic ticket. He was part of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

He, in fact, served in Woodrow Wilson's cabinet when Wilson was president. And when Wilson was president and World War I began, Jennings Bryan resigned. from the cabinet because he felt that Wilson wasn't acting neutral enough. At the same time, he was an ardent prohibitionist. He believed that government could and should legislate morality. He felt that he knew what was right. He was a populist in the sense that we understand populism today. He was a newspaper man.

He had a newspaper called the commoner. He was called the commoner because he was called the commoner, because he seemed to speak for the people. And as you said, he was definitely a fundamentalist. And when I say fundamentalist, the simplest way of understanding that is that he understood that the Bible was the word of God, that the Bible was to be read literally. So whatever the Bible said was absolutely true.

And that's very important. How was that important for Brian and his view of Darwinism? Well, the interesting thing about Brian, with his very storied career, by 1925, he's in his 60s, he probably isn't going to run for president again, although with Brian, you could never tell. And Brian understood Darwinism as social Darwinism. And really, that was a gross misunderstanding. He really thought social Darwinism was responsible in many ways for all the ills that the country was. facing at the time. And most specifically, he held it responsible for the slaughter in World War I. He felt Darwinism, or what he understood is, social Darwinism, had allowed people, because of their views of technology, or their use of technology, had allowed them to create basically such terrible weapons as mustard gas, as aerial bombing. And he also believed that Darwinism,

which was really social Darwinism for him, was at the base of a kind of laissez-faire capitalism and therefore immorality, because to him, social Darwinism and to many people, meant only the survival of the fittest. And the survival of the fittest was a point of view that said, only the best, only the most knowledgeable, only the creme de la creme should be in power. And as the commoner, as a man of the people, Brian thought this was deeply offensive. So in that sense, that is why he went around the country and was adamant about getting Darwinism or the theory of evolution out of the schools. Now, evolution and Darwinism also was contentious within the church, of course, especially the Presbyterian Church. Tell us about the split in the Presbyterian Church, and how did Brian position himself in this fight?

To Brian, the liberal clergy, men like Henry Emerson Fosdick in New York City and many others, the liberal clergy who said there was no incompatibility, no difficulty in reconciling science and religion. To Brian, these kinds of clergy were actually heretics, and they threatened the fabric of morality and the nation even more than so-called atheist, which he didn't like either. But liberal clergy themselves felt Brian didn't understand what science was, that a theory, perhaps even the theory of gravity, is not guesswork or fiction, but it's a hypothesis that exists in science, backed up, as you mentioned before, by careful facts and experimentation, and in the case of evolution, had been around already for almost 75 years and had not been proved wrong. But Brian felt that not only was social Darwinism, i.e. Darwin, terrible, but people in the liberal clergy were also risking the church. When he went to Dayton, for example, he said that he was fighting a duel to the death on behalf of Christianity. So he really felt that he was a crusader. Do you think that Brian was ideologically pure in this, or was he also a

political opportunist. It was both. One can be both, actually, and that's what's so interesting about Brian. He was definitely a political opportunist. Preaching against evolution was definitely a way to garner votes. He had moved from the Midwest to the south. He was in Florida. He was pandering to the segregationists and white supremacists of Florida as a way to retain his significant power and perhaps get back into the Senate, he was adamant about saying the white race was more advanced than African Americans, that he was glad to be a Caucasian that was the best of all possible worlds. And in this particular sense, he was also comfortable with the Ku Klux Klan. He was never a member, which is important to point out.

But when the Klan had a kind of hold on the Democratic Party, and Southern Democrats in particular, Brian actually defended them at the Democratic National Convention in 1924. When people wanted to censure and denounce the Klan, and this became a political issue right then, he said, no, no, you don't want to give them more credibility. They're just misguided, which is kind of astonishing in 1924. It's as astonishing then as it is now. So what did he think was at stake in the Scopes trial, in summary, I guess? Well, Brian came to Dayton, Tennessee.

He had been asked to prosecute scopes by the World Christian Fundamentalist Association. For him, there was no doubt that the issues at stake were God and faith. He felt that the universities, the schools, the schools, were grooming children to become atheists. Atheism was going to destroy America, and he was there to prevent the corruption of young minds, almost in the same way he wanted to prevent the sale and distribution of alcohol. Now, in addition to William Jennings, Brian,

there were other very charismatic and influential evangelical speakers, especially on the national scene at the time. people like Amy Semple McPherson and Billy Sunday, who each reached huge numbers of people. Give us an overview of who these people were and how their views aligned with Bryans or perhaps didn't. Well, they were two very famous besides Brian fundamentalist preachers in the 1920s. Amy Semple McPherson was a very unusual woman. She had a church in Los Angeles. She was self-made evangelical healer.

She got a car that she called the gospel car, and she went coast to coast. She spoke to audiences of thousands, and she was very well suited to early radio. She actually had her own radio station. She put on remarkable shows. She would have spectacles, almost as if they were operatic. She was not a supremacist. She welcomed everyone into the church, but she was adamantly against different. She definitely backed William Jennings Bryan, and she had her entire congregation, she said,

pray for the outcome of the Scopes trial that he would be victorious, as she felt he should be. And what about Billy Sunday? Billy Sunday was very different from Amy Semple McPherson. He'd been a pro baseball player, but he became an evangelist. people flocked to hear his fire and brimstone sermons, where he would get up on stage and he would actually have a fist fight with the devil. So he was another showman. He despised evolution.

I'm not sure he understood it either, but it sold tickets. He called it a god-forsaken hell-born bastard theory. And Darwin, a rotten old infidel. He spoke in the kind of down-home slang people. absolutely loved him. So he was another very unusual person. He actually tried to run for president in 1920. There was no way that was going to happen. But you get a sort of lay of the evangelical land with Amy Semple McPherson, Billy Sunday, and then, of course, you have William Jennings Brian. So that gives us a sense of the evangelical star power aligned with William Jennings

Brian against the teaching of evolution. Now, on the defense team in the Scopes trial was another famous lawyer, but an agnostic Clarence Darrow. He agreed to defend John Scopes. Tell us more about him and what got him to Dayton. Clarence Darrow is another very unusual figure, and just the fact of Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan showing up in Dayton is part of the reason that you had almost 200 journalists and camera people and spectators come to Dayton because people just wanted to see these two men duke it out. They were both so enormously famous. And Darrow was also controversially famous. He had been a labor lawyer for many, many years. And he had defended bomb throws, actually. He defended pacifists. And most recently in 1924, he defended two young men, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, who in Chicago, just for the thrill of it, killed teenager Bobby Franks. in a trial itself that riveted the nation because they themselves, Leopold and Loeb, admitted

to what they had done and had no remorse about it. As far as Darrow was concerned, though, he knew they were guilty. He thought they were pathological specimens, but he so hated capital punishment that he took on the case not to acquit them but to make sure that they didn't get the death penalty, which they didn't, which is rather remarkable. He was often characterized as an atheist, but as you say, he was an agnostic, which meant he was happy that people believed in God. He would believe in God if he could or if evidence showed him that there was such a thing. He was called by the journalist Lincoln Steffens, an attorney for the damned, because he was always fighting for the underdog, for civil rights, for human liberty.

One of the things I'd like about Darrow is you would come to the courtroom every day. And on his lapel, he wore a very interesting pen. He said, L, L, L.L. He was asked, what does that mean? And he looked up and he said, live and let live. Well, as Clarence Darrow saw it, what was the Scopes trial about? For him, it was not about religion. It was about democracy.

It was about the Constitution. It was about freedom. It was about academic freedom. It was about the freedom to worship, the freedom not to worship. He wanted to take on this trial, which he felt was enormously important for the sake of American democracy. And because he thought Brian was a fanatic. And fanaticism in America, he thought was enormously dangerous. But Darrow was not the only defense attorney working for SCO.

he had two others. Why do you think Arthur Garfield Hayes and Dudley Field Malone are also interesting? They're both very interesting in the sense that Darrow's team is composed of himself and agnostic. Arthur Garfield Hayes, who is a secular Jew. He had been associated with the ACLU and he stayed associated with the ACLU for the rest of his life. He had assisted, as Taro had in the Sacco and been setting events, to Italian anarchist immigrants accused of robbery and murder in Massachusetts. And he was very smart, very gifted, and willing to take on these civil liberties cases. Some of them, he knew they were doomed, but as he would say, always, when we lose, we win. So what about Dudley Field Malone, the other attorney?

Dudley Field Malone from New York also worked in the Wilson administration, and he quit when he realized Wilson, who had promised to help pass legislation and the amendment giving women the vote hadn't done it. He married a suffragette, Dor Stevens, who was arrested in front of the White House for picketing, and he was Catholic. In 1992, federal agents surrounded a remote cabin in the mountains of Idaho. It belonged to Randy Weaver, a Christian survivalist with links to the far right. Weaver was wanted on a minor weapons charge, but a series of blunders and misunderstandings turned the situation into an armed and deadly standoff. Hi, I'm Lindsay Graham, the host of Wondry Show American Scandal. We bring to lie some of the biggest controversies in U.S. history, presidential lies, environmental disasters, and corporate fraud. In our latest series, a family of religious fanatics moves to Ruby Ridge in northern Idaho to wait out the apocalypse.

But their paranoia and suspicion of authority lead to a confrontation with federal law enforcement and their own personal Armageddon. Follow American Scandal on the Wondery app or wherever you get your podcasts. Experience all episodes, add-free, and be the first to binge newest seasons only on Wondery Plus. You can join Wondry Plus in the Wondry app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Start your free trial today. bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. We ain't trying to hurt nobody. For decades, he was untouchable. I'm gone from Harlem to Hollywood. But now, it's all coming undone. Sean Combs, the mogul, as we know it, is over. He will never be that person again, even if he's found not guilty of these charges. I'm Jesse Weber, host of Law and Crimes,

the Rise and Fall of Diddy, the Federal Trial, a front row seat to the biggest trial in entertainment history. Sex trafficking, racketeering, prostitution, allegations by federal prosecutors that span decades and witnesses who are finally speaking out. The spotlight is harsher. The stakes are higher. And for Diddy, there may be no second chances. You can listen to the rise and fall of Diddy the federal trial exclusively with Wondry Plus. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondry app, Spotify, or Apple podcast right now. So we have some amazing characters and an atmosphere that is designed to be circus-like in service of Dayton's economy.

What was your favorite part of the trial? I think everyone's favorite part of the trial is the spectacular last day when Darrow, as a lawyer, does something lawyers do not do. and he puts the lead prosecuting attorney, William Jennings, Brian, on the stand. Not only that, they were outside by this time because there had been so many people in the courtroom that the floor was giving way and the judge was afraid that the whole floor would crash. So they all marched outside. They sat outside in the July heat, you know, in a makeshift witness box.

Brian was there and Darrow turned to him and said, said, do you really believe that God created the universe in six days? And Brian, he had been hedging. And then he said, well, by a day, it's not necessarily a day like we know it could be an era. And everybody hearing this was shocked, it was stunned. Because what he did when he said it could be an era, he undermined his own position of reading the Bible literally. So he'd been caught in a trap. It was really a trap of his own making. So at the conclusion of the trial, how did people talk about who won and who lost? Technically speaking, Brian and the defense won, as everybody would have anticipated because

John Scopes, who taught evolution in his biology class, he had broken the law. The defense wanted to get the issue before the Supreme Court, and they tried definitely to do this. They were not able to ultimately. But even though the defense lost the case, Malone called it a victorious defeat, because in many ways, Darrow, who had tried the case in the court of public opinion, he really won public opinion. And Brian had been, for better or worse, humiliated on the stand and his position made to seem absurd. Now, this humiliation might seem tragic because the trial ended on July 21st and Brian died on July 26, only five days later. What impacted his death have so soon after the trial?

It's interesting. And certainly it had a short-term impact because burlesques and the satirists and newspapers who were ready to lampoon and mock Brian suddenly held the presses. They weren't going to do that. Brian, dying so close to the end of the trial, his death was seen by many people, especially the fundamentalists, as a martyrdom, that he was felled in the defense just like the son of God. So he at that point was written about, in very glum, as heroic and sacrificial, the clan, the Ku Klux Klan of Ohio, actually sent a large

cross of red roses to the funeral. But in that particular sense, too, although Malone and Hayes and even Darrow said that they were very sorry, there was a black columnist for a well-known newspaper who said Negroes have nothing to treasure out of the life of William Jennings, Brian, and people like Eugene Debs, who had spent many years in jail, jailed for being a pacifist, found the whole idea of Brian now being glorified as hypocritical and offensive. So it's interesting, and in a way, there's a kind of pathos to the demise, the death of Brian. But I don't think it changed people's opinions except in a small community all that much.

Now, as you mentioned, the defense lost this case, and Scopes was found guilty, and the case never made it to the Supreme Court as the defense and the ACLU had hoped. So why was this case a big deal? It was a watershed moment. For one thing, even though the Butler Act stayed on the books, it was not enforced. That's the first thing. It wasn't actually repealed into the 1960s, which is a really long time. But legislation that had been pending that was very similar to the Butler Act really went nowhere.

So that was really important. The second thing is that, as I said, the fundamentalist lost in the Court of Public Opinion to think that they were going to then disappear is erroneous because from one point of view, you could argue that they went underground and organized politically. And then, after all, was said and done,

what happened to John Scopes? John Scopes. John Scopes never gets talked about. And in fact, that was his own desire. In the 1920s, he would have been a movie star. Someone came to Scopes and said they'd like to make a film about him or that he should write his life story. Scopes did not want the limelight. He wanted to pursue his career and so that the seven scientists and others who'd come to Dayton to testify and were not allowed to testify, they pulled. together funds that enabled scopes to attend the University of Chicago Graduate School. And when he got his degree, he went to work as a geologist in Venezuela for Gulf Oil. He didn't write his memoirs until sometime in the 60s. And he said something in those memoirs.

I think that's really important. And it gives you, I think, an insight into his positional during the trial, quiet though he was. He said liberty is always under threat, and it takes eternal vigilance to maintain it. So this year, 2025, is the 100th anniversary of the Scoped Trial. What is the legacy of this event, and why should people consider it important today? The legacy of this trial is complicated in a way. It was always dismissed or often dismissed as a kind of freak show carnival where the Chamber of Commerce in Dayton wanted to sell tickets.

but there was much more at stake at the trial. And what's at stake is the nature and the meaning of America and what it means to be in America. And specifically to live in a democracy which enshrines in its constitution freedom to worship or not worship, that enshrines in its constitution the freedom to think, the freedom to write, the freedom to explore, the freedom to know, the freedom to read and to learn, because these freedoms are always

something that must be protected. And I think in conclusion, Clarence Darrow, who was extremely eloquent, certainly as eloquent as Brian, said, you can only be free if I am free. Brenda Wineapple, thank you so much for talking with me today on American History Tellers. Thank you. A pleasure. That was my conversation with Brenda Wynap, author of the bestselling book Keeping the Faith, God, Democracy, and the Trial that riveted a nation, available wherever you get your books. From Wondery, this is the fourth and final episode of our series of Evolution on Trial for American History Tellers. In our next season, we're bringing back a fan favorite, our series on the insurrection of Aaron Burr.

In the wake of his infamous duel with Alexander Hamilton in 1804, Aaron Burr was a wanted man, With his political career in shambles, this disgraced vice president began hatching a plot that would return him to power by any means necessary. He would eventually become the highest-ranking American official ever to be charged with treason, leading to a sensational trial that would reshape the political landscape of the young American republic. If you like American history tellers, you can binge all episodes early and ad-free right now by joining Wondry Plus in the Wondry app or on Apple Podcasts. Prime members can listen ad-free on Amazon Music.

And before you go, tell us about yourself by filling out a short survey at Wondry.com slash survey. American History Tellers is hosted, edited and executive produced by me, Lindsay Graham for Airship. Sound design by Molly Baugh. Supervising sound designer Matthew Filler. Music by Thrum. Additional writing by Ellie Stanton. This episode was produced by Polly Strikes.

and Alita Ruzanski. Our senior interview producer is Peter Arconi. Managing producer, Desi Blaylock. Senior managing producer is Callum Ploos. Senior producer Andy Herman. Executive producers are Jenny Lauer Beckman, Marsha Louis, and Aaron O Flaherty for Wondering. It's your man, Nick Cannon,

and I'm here to bring you my new podcast, Nick Cannon at night. I've heard y'all been needing some advice in the love department. So who better to help than yours truly? Now, I'm serious. Every week, I'm bringing out some of my celebrity friends and the best experts in the business to answer your most intimate relationship questions. Having problems with your man? We got you.

Catching feelings for your sneaky link? Let's make sure it's the real deal first. Ready to bring toys into the bedroom? Let's talk about it. Consider this a non-judgment zone to ask your questions when it comes to sex and modern dating in relationships, friendships, friendships, situationships, and everything in between. It's going to be sexy, freaky, messy, and you know what? You'll just have to watch this show.

So don't be shy. Join the conversation and head over to YouTube to watch Nick Cannon at night or subscribe on the Wondery app or wherever you get your podcast. Want to watch episodes early and ad-free? Join Wondery Plus right now.