Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/188

184 than when I see the attitude of the prosecution, who attack and refuse to accept the information and intelligence, which expert witnesses will give them. Mr. Bryan may be satisfactory to thousands of people. It is in so many ways that he is satisfactory to me; his enthusiasm, his vigor, his courage, his fighting ability these long years for the tings he thought were right. And many a time I have fought with him, and for him; and when I did not think he was right, I fought just as hard against him. This is not a conflict of personages; it is a conflict of ideas, and I think this case has been developed by men of two frames or mind. Your honor, there is a dif-

ference between theological and scientific men. Theology deals with something that is established and revealed; if seeks to gather material, which they claim should not be changed. It is the Word of God, and that cannot be changed; it is literal, it is not to be interpreted. That is the theological mind. It deals with theology. And scientific is a modern thing, your honor. I am not sure that Galileo was the one who brought relief to the scientific mind; because, theretofore, Aristotle and Plato had reached their conclusions and processes, by metaphysical reasoning, because they had no telescope and no microscope. These were things that were invented by Galileo. The difference between the theological mind and the scientific mind is that the theological mind is closed, because that is what is revealed and is settled. But the scientist says no, the Bible is the book of revealed religion, with rules of conduct, and with aspirations—that is the Bible. The scientist says, take the Bible as guide, as an inspiration, as a set of philosophies and preachments in the world of theology.

And what does this law do? We have been told here that this was not a religious question. I defy anybody, after Mr. Bryan’s speech, believe that this was not a religious question. Mr. Bryan brought all of the foreigners into this case. Mr. Bryan had offered his services from Miami, Fla.; he does not belong in Tennessee. If it be wrong for American citizens from other parts of this country to come to Tennessee to discuss issues which we believe, then Mr. Bryan has no right here, either. But it was only when Mr. Darrow and I had heard that Mr. Bryan had offered his name and his reputation to the prosecution of this young teacher, that we said, Wellwell [sic], we will offer our services to the defense. And, as I said in the beginning, we feel at home in Tennessee; we have been received with hospitality, personally. Our ideas have not taken effect yet; we have corrupted no morals so far as I know, and I would like to ask the court if there was any evidence in the witnesses produced by the prosecution, of moral deterioration due to the course of biology which Prof. Scopes taught these children—the little boy who said he had not been hurt by it, and who slipped out of the chair possibly and went to the swimming pool; and the other who said that the theory he was taught had not taken him out of the church. This theory of evolution, in one form or another, has been up in Tennessee since 1832, and I think it is incumbent on the prosecution to introduce at least one person in the state of Tennessee whose morals have been affected by the teaching of this theory.

After all, we of the defense contend, and it has been my experience, your honor, in my twenty years, as Mr. Bryan said, as a criminal lawyer, that the prosecution had to prove its case; that the defense did not have to prove it for them. We have a defendant here charged with a crime. The prosecution is trying to get your honor to take the theory of the prosecution as the theory of our defense. We maintain our right to present our own defense, and present our own theory of our defense, and to present our own theory of this law, because we maintain, your honor, that if everything that the