Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/190

186 to make up its own mind, because here is the issue—

The Court—I was going to follow that with another question. Is it your theory—is it your opinion that the theory of evolution is reconcilable with the story of the divine creation as taught in the Bible?

Mr. Malone—Yes.

The Court—In other words, you believe—when it says—when the Bible says that God created man, you believe that God created the life cells and that then out of that one single life cell the God created man by a process of growth or development—is that your theory?

Mr. Malone—Yes.

The Court—And in that you think that it doesn't mean that he just completed him, complete all at once?

Mr. Malone—Yes, I might think that and I might think he created him serially—I might think he created him anyway. Our opinion is this—we have the right, it seems to us, to submit evidence to the court of men without question who are God-fearing and believe in the Bible and who are students of the Bible and authorities on the Bible and authorities on the scientific world—- they have a right to be allowed to testify in support of our view that the Bible is not to be taken literally as an authority in a court of science.

The Court—That is what I was trying to get, your position on. Ilere was my idea. I wanted to get your theory as to whether you thought it was in the province of the court to determine which was true, or whether it was your theory that there was no conflict and that you had a right to introduce proof to show what the Bible—what the true construction or interpretation of the Bible story was.

Mr. Malone—Yes.

The Court—That is your opinion.

Mr. Malone—Yes. And also from scientists who believe in the Bible and belong to churches and who are God-fearing men—what they think about this subject, of the reconcilement of science and religion—of all science and the Bible—your honor, because yesterday I made a remark, your honor, which might have been interpreted as personal to Mr. Bryan. I said that the defense believed we must keep a clear distinction between the Bible, the church, religion and Mr. Bryan. Mr. Bryan, like all of us, is just an individual, but like himself he is a great leader. The danger from the viewpoint of the defense is this, that when any great leader goes out of his field and speaks as an authority on other subjects his doctrines are quite likely to be far more dangerous than the doctrines of experts in their field who are ready and willing to follow, but what I don't understand is this, your honor, the prosecution inside and outside of the court has been ready to try the case and this is the case. What is the issue that has gained the attention not only of the American people, but people everywhere? Is it a mere technical question as to whether the defendant Scopes taught the paragraph in the book of science? You think, your honor, that the News Association in London, which sent you that very complimentary telegram you were good enough to show me in this case, because the issue is whether John Scopes taught a couple of paragraphs out of this book? Oh, no, the issue is as broad as Mr. Bryan himself has made it. The issue is as broad as Mr. Bryan has published it and why the fear. If the issue is as broad as they make it why the fear of meeting the issue? Why, where issues are drawn by evidence, where the truth and nothing but the truth are scrutinized and where statements can be answered by expert witnesses on the other side—what is this psychology of fear? I don't understand it. My old chief—I never saw him back away from a great issue before. I feel that the prosecution here is filled with a needless fear. I believe that if they withdraw their objection and hear the evidence of our experts their minds would not only be improved