"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"
1 Peter 3:15
Scopes Monkey Trial: Evolutionism Pleads the 5th
Christopher J. E. Johnson
Published: May, 2009
Updated: Aug 23, 2017
Tennessee Bans Evolution in Public Schools
Secrets of the ACLU and John T. Scopes
Getting to Know the Lawyers
Inherit the Propaganda
The Climactic Moment: Christian vs Atheist
Evolutionists Plead the 5th and Run
Inherit the Wind vs Reality

The Scopes Monkey Trial is a media name given to The State of Tennesee v. John Thomas Scopes, which was a famous court trial in 1926. Although the trial was over a very simple, small-town matter, it turned into a war of the Evolutionism vs the Bible.

Concerning the title of this article:
"No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"
-U.S. Constitution, Amendment V, retrieved Jan 27, 2015, [archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html]

Our U.S. Constitution grants citizens of the united States the right to remain silent in front of a Grand Jury in the fifth amendment. In many other countries, the accused were put on the stand and forced to answer manipulative questions that would help lead them into confessing crimes they didn't commit. Any U.S. Citizen has the right to "plead the 5th," when asked any question concerning the crime they're on trial for.

Although pleading the 5th is a right in the united States, when asked simple questions like, "where were you on the night of the murder," and someone answers with "I plead the 5th," it makes him/her sound extremely guilty. As we'll see later, this is almost exactly what the evolutionists did in the real Scopes Monkey Trial.

As I was doing research on what actually happened in the Scopes Monkey Trial, I discovered one of the most disgusting pieces of propaganda that Hollywood has ever produced, a movie called Inherit the Wind. First written as a play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, then made into a screen version by Stanley Kramer in 1960, Inherit the Wind is almost completely opposite to what happened in the actual trial. There is almost nothing in this movie that is real, but public schools still show it as if it is a representation of an actual historical event, labeling it as a "classic." but the truth of what happened will not be taught and unsuspecting students will think the movie reflects real history.

In this teaching, we'll learn about the Scopes Monkey Trial by comparing it with Inherit the Wind, and seeing the difference between reality, and the illusion designed specifically for evolutionist propaganda.

When watching Inherit the Wind, if you listen to every statement made, and assume the opposite is true, you will be right about 99% of the time. If your local public school is showing this film, I would suggest raising serious complaints because this movie is filled with ficticious philosophical teaching, but many students will walk away from it with the impression that they just witnessed a reenactment of the real events.

The following video is a theatrical trailer of the movie when it first came to theaters:
"Inherit the Wind makes news everywhere. In London, the glittering world premier:"
'I say it's a masterpiece!' -London Daily Sketch
'A great battle of the giants!' -London Evening News
'One of the great pictures of recent times!' -London Sunday Dispatch
"In Berlin, Inherit the Wind electrifies the Berlin Film Festival and wins two awards for it's brilliant performances, it's warmth and humor."
DIRECTOR OF INHERIT THE WIND: "Nowadays a motion picture producer engages in a great variety and types of battle... but I think that in my own career, nothing can possibly rival the excitement, and the provocation, of the battle which I have recently finished refereeing."

As you can see here, the maker of this movie believes he is the one who has determined the winner of this great (and totally ficticious) debate.

Inherit the Wind is supposed to be a reenactment of the Scopes Monkey Trial, directed and produced by Stanley Kramer, who believes he "referreed" the Evolutionism vs Bible debate in this movie, as he stated himself in the trailer above. However, calling Inherit the Wind similar to the Scopes Monkey Trial, would be like making a National Lampoons movie about Schindler's List, and calling it "based on real-life events."

The full transcript of the the Scopes Trial can be found in The World's Most Famous Court Trial (Circuit Court #5232), and it reveals a lot more about what actually took place in the court room.
(See Tennessee Rhea County Court, The World's Most Famous Court Trial, Complete Stenographic Report of the Famous Court Test of the Tennessee Anti-Evolution Act, at Dayton, July 10 to 21, 1925, Lawbook Exchange Ltd, reprint 1997, ISBN: 9781886363311)

Those who do not understand the facts of this case, nor the history of how it played out, often use it to say one cannot teach creation in public schools and/or evolution was prove in a court of law. Those kinds of statements are made in pure ignorance. In reality, it was the ACLU and other atheists who deceptively attempted to use this trial to spread the religion of Evolutionism over the air waves, and despite what many evolutionists preach, the trial had nothing to do with freedom of speech.


The first public schools in the united States were started in 1836, well before Darwinism was officially introduced (Origin of Species, 1859), and the Bible was taught as part of the ciriculum, during a time when The New England Primer was in use.

Not only were students put through a more rigorous grammar and vocabulary study than Americans could handle today, students were also required to learn the Bible stories as part of history class, and would even learn their ABC's through Bible references. I remember my brother going to my grandmother after he learned the earth was young, and he said to her, "Grandma, did you know the earth is only a few thousand years old?" and her response was, "Of course it is." It was common knowledge in education at one time that the earth was only a few thousand years old, and it's only been in the past few decades that children have been taught the lie that the earth is billions of years old.
(See John Cotton, The New England Primer, Original Print in 1690, republished J. Munsell, reprint 1885)

As time passed, and Darwinism started to get spread around by those loyal to its dogma, many states began to pass laws that banned the teaching of evolution in tax-funded schools because many people at the time knew how foolish it was to teach children they came from a monkey. Today, most people think banning teaching to be unconstitutional, when in fact, every state still has the right to pass laws banning the teaching of evolution if they choose. One of the states to do this was Tennessee, which passed the Butler Act in 1925, written by state-representative John Butler, and the Butler Act banned the teaching of any evolutionary origin of man in any Tennessee tax-funded public school.

(Click image for closer view.)
"An Act prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof."
-John Butler, Butler Act, House Bill No. 185, Tennessee, passed Mar 13, 1925, retrieved Jan 28, 2015, [tennessee.gov/tsla/exhibits/scopes/images/Butler%20Act.pdf]

While I've heard a number of evolutionists speak of this as an act of tyranny, first it should be noted that every state, even today, has the right to pass bills like this if they so choose. And secondly, most citizens of Tennessee were in favor of the Butler Act, for example, Mrs. Jesse Sparks of Pope, TN, wrote a letter conveying her support:
"At the time the bill prohibiting the teaching of evolution in our public schools was passed by our legislature, I could not see why the mothers in greater number were not coneying their appreciation to the members for this act of safeguarding their children from one of the destructive forces which combined with other evils if left unchecked will destroy our civilization. I for one felt grateful... that we have a Christian man for governor who will defend the Word of God against this so-called science."
-Mrs. Jesse Sparks, Letter to the Editor of the Nashville Tennessean, July 3, 1925; See also Jeffrey P. Moran, The Scopes Trial: A Brief History with Documents, Published Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, p. 204, ISBN: 9780312294267

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
-1 Timothy 6:20

I've also heard a read a number of evolutionists who present this bill as if it banned all theories of science, but the bill did no such thing. Let's read it carefully:
"That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the state, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." [bold added]
-John Butler, Butler Act, House Bill No. 185, Tennessee, passed Mar 13, 1925, retrieved Jan 28, 2015, [tennessee.gov/tsla/exhibits/scopes/images/Butler%20Act.pdf]
  1. This did NOT ban the teaching of evolution in Tennessee. This banned the teaching of evolution in TAX-FUNDED SCHOOLS ONLY. Any religious zealot for Evolutionism can go start a private school and teach whatever they want, but they don't want to do that -- they want the government to force everyone else to pay for it.
  2. This did not ban a theory in opposition to Biblical Creation. (i.e. "AND TO TEACH INSTEAD that man has descended from... animals.") This banned the teaching of evolution as a substitute for the Biblical model of origins.
  3. Though it was unlawful, no one went to jail over this bill. Violators would be fined a minimum of $100, but no more than $500 for each offense.
(According to dollartimes.com, $100 in 1920 would be about $1,200 in 2014; due to the inflation of the currency via the unbiblical printing of money by the Federal Reserve bankers.)


After the Butler Act was passed into law, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) went looking for someone to help them challenge the law, or in other words, they wanted someone willing to say they taught evolution so the case would go to trial. Since the new law in Tennessee was completely within state rights to pass, and was supported by an overwhelming number of people in Tennessee, this begs the question: Why would the ACLU be so interested in this, especially when they had great difficulty in finding anyone that even wanted to challenge the law?

The ACLU's website states:
"The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.
-ACLU, "About the ACLU," retrieved Jan 28, 2015, [aclu.org/about-aclu]

What about the individual rights of the tax-payers in Tennessee? Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, is also quoted on their website saying: "So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy."
-ACLU, "About the ACLU," retrieved Jan 28, 2015, [aclu.org/about-aclu]

For an organization that claims to know so much about Constitutional law, they are ignorant that this country has never been a democracy; we've always been a Constitutional Republic, with elected representatives. Alexander Hamilton said:
"We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism, nor in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments."
-Alexander Hamilton, quoted by his son John C. Hamilton, History of the Republic of the United States of America: As Traced in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton and of His Contemporaries, Vol. 3, J.B. Llppincott & Company, 1868, p. 311

Thomas Jefferson:
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoted by Anne Fitzpatrick, Democracy, The Creative Company, 2007, p. 12, ISBN: 9781583415320

Even though these men were not Christians, they understood well enough to stay away from democracies, and I could quote most of the founding fathers condemning them. But since the ACLU believes falsely that this nation is a democracy, and the mass majority of Tennessee was in favor of this law, why would this organization work so hard to have it overturned?

Perhaps the true philosophical beliefs of the founder of the ACLU can shed some light on this subject, because Roger Baldwin's comment about his claimed belief in democracy is a lie:
"I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union.... I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal." [bold added]
-Rodger N. Baldwin, ACLU, quote from Harvard Class Book, 1935, "Thirty Years Later," spotlight class of 1905, quoted by Insight on the News article, 1997; See also ACLU, The Civil Liberties Review: Volume 2, Published J. Wiley, 1975

This is why some folks refer to the ACLU as the
"American Communist Lawyers Union."

There are many numerous connections the ACLU has to the communist party that could be mentioned, but Baldwin himself, before founding the ACLU, was supportive of the communist side of the Russian Revolution of 1917:
"Baldwin... was heading the National Civil Liberties Bureau (an early name for the ACLU) as its executive director. He was well along the path to being a committed Socialist whose political sympathies rested with the Russian Revolution, the conflict that caused Russia to withdraw from World War I."
-Jerome R. Corsi, Bad Samaritans: The ACLU's Relentless Campaign to Erase Faith from the Public Square, Thomas Nelson Inc, 2013, p. 22, ISBN: 9781595554741; Corsi is a senior staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.com.

Communism has always been at the heart of the ACLU since its inception. Evolutionism is the foundational philosophy behind communisim, and we demonstrate this fact in our article "Seeds of Evolution," following the influence from Darwin to Marx to Stalin. Thus, since communism needs Evolutionism, then the evolution religion must be protected at all costs, and the ACLU will do whatever it takes to make sure that religious propaganda is protected in public schools.
(Read "Seeds of Evolution" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The ACLU posted in ad in the local newspaper:
"We are looking for a Tennessee teacher who is willing to accept our services in testing this law in the courts. Our lawyers think a friendly test case can be arranged without costing a teacher his or her job... All we need now is a willing client."
-ACLU Newspaper Ad of May 1925, quoted by Kathiann M. Kowalski, Evolution on Trial: From the Scopes "Monkey" Case to Inherit the Wind, Enslow Publishers Inc, 2009, p. 32, ISBN: 9780766030565

So in the ACLU's search to find someone to help them challenge the law, furthering their quest to protect their communist goals, they found a man named John T. Scopes (referred to in the Inherit the Wind movie as Bertram Cates). John Scopes was a football coach for Rhea County High School's football team, and occasionally taught as a substitute teacher for the school staff. He earned his degree in law in 1924 from the University of Kentucky, and only taught as a substitute for one year.

George Rappleyea, local chemist seeking to help the ACLU find a defendant, spoke with Scopes, and then wired the ACLU:
"Professor J. T. Scopes teacher of science, Rhea Country High School, Dayton, Tennessee will be arrested charged with teaching evolution consent of Superintendent of Education and Chairman of Board of Education for test case to be defended by you, wire me collect if you wish to cooperate and arrest will follow."
(See Randy Moore, Evolution in the Courtroom, Published ABC-CLIO, 2002, p. 9-10, ISBN: 9781576074206; See also Lyon Sprague De Camp, The Great Monkey Trial, Published Doubleday, 1968)

This is INCREDIBLY deceptive. First of all, there was nothing in the law written about arrest; the arrest was being arranged by the ACLU for the newspapers, turning it into a media show; small fines are handed out all the time without arrests.

Also, consider that if Scopes was really guilty of breaking the law, why wasn't he reported first and the ACLU contacted afterwards? Notice that they would only make an arrest IF the ACLU was going to get involved. As far as I'm aware, those who are hiding a criminal are considered to be aiding and abetting, or an accessory, to a crime.

In fact, the "IF" on the question of Scopes guilt is very important because Scopes admitted to the ACLU, and eventually to the media and the court, that he had no idea if he had taught evolution or not, but told the ACLU he would be willing to testify that he taught evolution (aka commit perjury) if it would help their case.
Scopes told a newspaper reporter the following:

"There is something I must tell you. It's worried me. I didn't violate the law... I never taught that evolution lesson. I skipped it... Those kids they put on the stand couldn't remember what I taught them three months ago. They were coached by the lawyers."
-John T. Scopes, Interview with William K. Hutchinson, International News Service; See also Lyon Sprague De Camp, The Great Monkey Trial, Published Doubleday, 1968, p. 432

QUESTION: Why would someone being prosecuted for a crime be WORRIED that he did NOT break the law? All of us, at one time or another, have accidentally ran a stop sign or a red light, and afterwards, we are worried that a police officer caught us breaking the law. However, if you make a complete stop at a stop sign, and continue on, do you ever worry that you did NOT break the law? Of course not. Scopes is worried that he will get caught in this lie because he yoked up with the deceptive lies of the ACLU.

Based on what I've learned about what happened in Tennessee, one of the main reasons all this was possible is because Tennessee made the major mistake of allowing state-approved textbooks in the classroom that had a small section on Darwinian evolutionism. It is completely contradictory to make a law that says you can't teach evolution, and then turn around and have tax-funded textbooks that teach evolution. But nonetheless, the ACLU needed the "guilty" party to confess to his "crime," and Scopes was in absolute fear of the interviewer reporting this to the world:
"My god no! Not a word of it until the Supreme Court passes my appeal. My lawyers would kill me."
-John T. Scopes, Interview with William K. Hutchinson, International News Service; See also Lyon Sprague De Camp, The Great Monkey Trial, Published Doubleday, 1968, p. 432

Years later, in his biography, John Scopes admitted that he never taught evolution.
(i.e. He lied.)
(See John Thomas Scopes, Center of the Storm: Memoirs of John T. Scopes, Published Rinehart and Winston, 1967)


The ACLU brought in Clarence Darrow, an atheist/evolutionist lawyer, to defend John Scopes. Darrow was best known for his 1924 defense of teenage thrill killers, 19-year-old Nathan Leopold and 18-year-old Richard Loeb, in a trial over the murder of 14-year-old Bobby Franks. They're more commonly known as "Leopold and Loeb." Darrow's defense of the two boys was particularly hypocritical because here he is being asked to defend the teaching of evolution in Tennessee, when it was the teaching of evolutionary philosophy that Darrow blamed as the reason for the murder of Franks, attempting to get both boys out of the death penalty.

The following is Darrow's plea to the judge in defending Nathan Leopold, or "Babe" as everyone called him, and Richard Loeb, or "Dick" as everyone called him:
"Babe is somewhat older than Dick, and is a boy of remarkable mind... a boy obsessed of philosophy, a boy obsessed of learning... seeking to solve every philosophy, but using his intellect only... He grew up in this way. He became enamoured of the philosophy of Nietzsche... Nietzsche believed that some time the superman would be born, that evolution was working toward the superman... I have just made a few short extracts from Nietzsche, that show the things that Nathan read and which no doubt influenced him."
-Clarence Darrow, The Plea of Clarence Darrow: In Defense of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold Jr," Ralph Fletcher Seymour, p. 76-78, retrieved Jan 28, 2015 from archive.org, [archive.org/stream/pleaofclarenceda00darr#page/78/mode/2up]

Most people who read this will not know who Friedrich Nietzsche is, but he was a philosopher who lived from 1844-1900, and his focus was founded mainly in evolutionism. Although many researchers point out that there isn't much evidence to indicate that Adolf Hitler had read Nietzche, they're philosophies were strikingly similar, and according to the book Hitler's Table Talk, which revealed many of the secret recordings of meetings Hitler had with his staff, Hitler was quite familiar with Nietzsche, which is how the two philosophers have been popularly connected together.

Adolf Hitler said:
"In the Great Hall of the Linz Library are the busts of Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, the greatest of our thinkers, in comparison with whom the British, the French and the Americans have nothing to offer... I think, from his [Schopenhauer's] own line of philosophical thought and partyly from subjective feeling and the experiences of his own personal life, has been far surpassed by Nietzche."
-Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944: Secret Conversations, Enigma Books, 2013, p. 546-547, ISBN: 9781929631667

Although, I would have to agree that the boys were influenced by the evolutionary philosophical mindset, since after confession, Leopold told Darrow:
"The killing was an experiment. It is just as easy to justify such a death as it is to justify an entomologist killing a beetle on a pin."
-Mara Bovsun, "Thrill of the Kill: 90th Anniversary of Leopold and Loeb's Horrific Murder of Boy," Daily News, May 17, 2014, retrieved Jan 29, 2015, [nydailynews.com/news/crime/thrill-kill-article-1.1796537]

So on the one hand, Darrow used the defense of how horrible evolutionary philosophy corrupted the minds of youths to bring them to murder, and on the other hand, he used the defense of how evolutionary philosophy is wonderful and should be taught. Darrow is a liar and a hypocrite. Not only that, but he believes in the same philosophical thinking as Hitler and Nietzsche:
"[T]he law of evolution is beneficent; that the world is changing and there is something inherent in the law of evolution which takes the human race higher and higher and makes it happier."
-Clarence Darrow, The Essential Words and Writings of Clarence Darrow, Modern Library, 2007, p. 115, ISBN: 9780812966770

Even more amazing is that in the movie, the character who portrays Darrow has a student on the witness stand, and asks him questions about his state of mind after hearing The Origin of Species read to him in class (which didn't actually happen in reality):
"Did it do you any harm?... Still honor your father and mother? Haven't murdered anyone since breakfast have you?"
-Conversation between fictional characters Drummond and Cates's Student, Inherit the Wind, retrieved Jan 29, 2015, [youtu.be/iHi0JKd3b04?t=58m00s]

But in reality, that philosophical teaching of Evolutionism is what lead Leopold and Loeb to commit murder, according to Clarence Darrow. Though Darrow was just a crooked atheist lawyer, Inherit the Wind tries to make Darrow (referred to as Henry Drummond) seem like a kind, level-headed gentlemen viciously persecuted for his believes in atheism, which is far from the truth as we'll see more of later.

Darrow's Stated Goal in the Scopes Trial

"My object, and my only object, was to focus the attention of the country on the programme of Mr. Bryan and the other fundamentalists in America."
-Clarence Darrow, The Story of My Life, Reprint Da Capo Press, 1996, p. 246, ISBN: 9780306807381; See also Stephanie Fitzgerald, The Scopes Trial: The Battle Over Teaching Evolution, Published Compass Point Books, 2007, p. 46, ISBN: 9780756520182

Darrow's autobiography goes on to describe that his ultimate goal was to crush Christian fundamentalism. Darrow could have cared less about defending Scopes, the rights of the teachers, or the right of the people, because his religious obsession with evolutionism is really founded in his hatred of the Christian God of the Bible, and his true motivation was to do anything he could to destroy the Word of God.

The prosecution brought in William Jennings Bryan. Bryan was best known for his three campaigns for president in 1896, 1900, and 1908, his service as the 41st Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson, and his service in Congress as a Representative from Nebraska. He was also called "The Great Commoner," because of this faith as a Christian, and his fight for the rights of the common people. Bryan was a well-known speaker of the day, due to his travels and clear speaking voice.
(See Genevieve F. Herrick & John O. Herrick, The Life of William Jennings Bryan, Kessinger Publishing, 2005, ISBN: 9781419140396)

One of the main reasons Bryan was brought in was because he came through town and gave a creation vs evolution speech a few months prior. John Butler was inspired by this speech, which prompted him to write the Butler Act. Bryan had participated in a number of creation/evolution debates, and volunteered to help with the case, and although he was representing the Christian side of the trial, I am unaware of whether or not he was a Christian.

Bryan was also made famous for his "Cross of Gold" speech given at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1896, which was rebuking Congress's early attempts to inflate the currency by allowing free coinage of silver at a ratio of 16:1 (silver:gold). This was a claimed attempt to "help the farmer," temporarily allowing them to suddenly have more money through their silver, but the inflation of the currency would have brought more devestation to them in the end.

Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.
-Proverbs 20:10

Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.
-Deuteronomy 25:13-16

In response to this, Bryan said:
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it. You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country... If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
-William J. Bryan, The Parties and the Men, 1896, original publication provided by the University of California, p. 440-441

Today, there is no difference between democrat and republican; they are both one and the same evil working towards the same goal. However, there was some difference between the parties 120 years ago, so when Bryan speaks of the "Democratic idea," we have to take it in context of the time frame, and that Bryan was known for fighting against liberal legislation that would harm the common farmer.

Though William Bryan was a well-known, well-loved, statesman defending the individual rights and property of the people, Inherit the Wind tries to make Bryan (referred to as Matthew Harrison Brady) seem like a ignorant, stubborn, two-faced self-absorbed preacher on a "witchhunt" for atheists, which is far from the truth as we'll later.

Bryan's Stated Goal in the Scopes Trial
1. "[T]o establish the rights of the taxpayers to control what is taught in their schools."
2. "[T]o draw a line between teaching evolution as a fact, and teaching it as a theory."
3. "[T]o see that teachers proven guilty of this offense should be given an opportunity to resign, and not fined or jailed."

-William J. Bryan, Memoirs of William Jennings Bryan, co-authored by Mary B. Bryan, Reprint Kessinger Publishing, 2003, p. 485, ISBN: 9780766170025

Bryan's goal was to protect the rights of the people, to properly establish the difference between fact and theory (as some states have laws for this today), and to see that teachers were not unreasonably punished for breaking the laws established by the will of the people. When comparing Darrow's goal with Bryan's, we can easily see who was working honestly in favor of the people, and who was not. It appears Bryan was, in reality, the one defending civil liberty against the American "Civil Liberties" Union.


The title "Inherit the Wind" was actually taken from the book of Proverbs.

He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.
-Proverbs 11:19

Those that would cause problems in their own house; they struggle and fight with everyone, shall inherit nothing, having their house and all their possessions brought to nothing. Or in other words, if you bring hatred into your household, eventually, you'll end up with nothing but the wind to call your own.

Thus, the message the writers are trying to give their audience is that these foolish, stupid Christians are going to bring destruction onto themselves for their ignorance and hatred. The other implication they are trying to give is that the atheist/evolutionist, with their superior intellects do not bring trouble on their houses. It's a totally hypocritical and elitist title because the movie ends up portraying atheists/evolutionists as wonderful, kind, reasonable people, and all those Christians as wicked, pompous, self-righteous bigots.

Inherit the Wind opens with a woman singing a somber version of the song "Old Time Religion," which is commonly labeled a "Gospel" song, but that is ludicrious because it doesn't have anything about the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in it. In addition, there is not solid evidence of who write this song, or where it came from, but it was written down by Charles D. Tillman when he heard it being sung by a group of African-Americans in South Carolina, 1889.

Old-Time Religion
Give me that old-time religion,
Give me that old-time religion,
Give me that old-time religion,
It's good enough for me.

The impression this gives the audience is that the Bible is an "old-time" thing, and those who follow Christ put on blindfolds and choose to remain ignorant, saying "It's good enough for me, so don't try to give me the facts." This is a textbook example of carefully selected propaganda intended to imply that if you believe in the Word of God, you're a moron, and if you believe in evolution, you're enlightened, but what's humorous about it is that Evolutionism is a religion itself.
(Read "Evolutionism: A New-Age Religion" here at creationliberty.com for more deatils.)

In the movie, the sheriff and his lackies join up with some Catholic-dress priest and begin marching towards the local public school, followed by the media, to catch and arrest Bertram Cates (aka John T. Scopes) during the teaching of science class. As aforementioned, Scopes wasn't even a science teacher; he was a substitute teacher and football coah, and later confessed that he never taught evolution.

This entire scene is designed to make the audience believe that a kind, well-loved teacher on the side of academic freedom is being persecuted by these hate-filled Christians, but as we already know, John Scopes was a liar, and volunteered to lie for sake of the ACLU pushing their communist agenda.

Inherit the Wind shows Matthew Brady (aka William Bryan) arriving to a parade a town had setup for them, but in reality, there was no parade for anyone. There was some fanfare at the train station for both Bryan and Darrow separately, and after their arrivals, the town got together and prepared separate banquets for both lawyers, where townspeople and press alike could enjoy themselves while listening to speeches from both men.

Drummond (Darrow) in the movie is shown to be outcast by atheist-hating religious zealots, but even the atheist author Henry L. Mencken visited the town and had to admit the opposite. Mencken studied under the philosophy of Nietzsche (the evolutionist philosopher), and he absolutely hated the Christian God of the Bible, but he said the following:
"The town, I confess, greatly surprised me. I expected to find a squalid Southern village, with darkies snoozing on the horse-blocks, pigs rooting under the houses and the inhabitants full of hookworm and malaria. What I found was a country town full of charm and even beauty--a somewhat smallish but nevertheless very attractive Westminster or Belair...
Scopes himself would fit into any college campus in America save that of Harvard alone. Nor is there any evidence in the town of that poisonous spirit which usually shows itself when Christian men gather to defend the great doctrine of their faith... On the contrary, the Evolutionists and the Anti-Evolutionists seem to be on the best of terms, and it is hard in a group to distinguish one from another."
-Henry L. Mencken, H. L. Mencken on Religion, Prometheus Books, 2002, p. 172-173, ISBN: 9781615920693

And though the movie portrays the town represented by a heretic Catholic "reverend," Catholics were scarce in the town, as Mencken says:
"They believe in keeping the peace, and so even the stray Catholics of the town are treated politely, though everyone naturally regrets they are required to report to the Pope once a week."
-Henry L. Mencken, H. L. Mencken on Religion, Prometheus Books, 2002, p. 172-173, ISBN: 9781615920693

There are so many points of propaganda that could be addressed, while I was writing this, I was really at a loss where to begin. In the final section of this article, we'll show a lot of the general differences between the movie and the actualy trial, but in almost all instances, either what the movie portrays is distorted, or it never actually happened.

The movie also portrays an absolutely lie that the Christians of Dayton, TN were ever even the slightest bit rude to any atheist or evolutionist that entered their town. Even Clarence Darrow pubically told the court:
"I don't know as I was ever in a community in my life where my religious ideas differed as widely from the great mass as I have found them since I have been in Tennessee. Yet I came here a perfect stranger and I can say what I have said before that I have not found upon anybody's part--any citizen here in this town or outside, the slightest discourtesy. I have been treated better, kindlier and more hospitably than I fancied would have been the case in the north,"
-John T. Raulston, The World's Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case, The Lawbook Exchange Ltd, 1925, p. 226, ISBN: 9781886363311

But Drummond (Darrow) in the movie thought the people of Dayton, TN were careless, close-minded, and ruthless. The movie also teaches that the judge dismissed all of Darrow's witnesses out of religious spite, which is absolutely not true; Darrow had many witnesses, including the ACLU-coached students in the classroom of which Scopes was the substitute teacher, but the problem was that Darrow was reluctant to bring in his witnesses because he was worried about them being cross-examined by Bryan.

Inherit the Wind portrays Matthew Brady (Bryan) as a preacher who has never read The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, and would refuse to read it. Again, this is completely opposite to what happened in reality. The reason Darrow didn't want William Bryan cross-examining his witnesses was because Bryan was a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and so were some of Darrow's witnesses. Bryan participated in Creation/Evolution debates, and could quote portions of Darwin's Origin of Species from memory.

Drummond's (Darrow's) witnesses being thrown out was a big issue in the movie, and they never end up getting to testify. In reality, Darrow's witnesses were attempting to provide evidence for evolution with arguments that have today been proven false; for example, Grand Canyon, presented by Dr. Winterton Curtis:
"Grand Canyon is explained not as produced by miraculous creation or by sudden catastrophe, but by running water acting upon the rocks throughout innumerable centuries."
-Winterton C. Curtis, Zoologist for the University of Missouri, The World's Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case, The Lawbook Exchange Ltd, 1925, p. 201, ISBN: 9781886363311

In our Lies of Evolution series, we have an article on the Grand Canyon in which we demonstrate that in order for the Colorado river to form the Grand Canyon, rviers would have had to flow uphill for millions of years, defying basic laws of physics and geology. This idea is one of the most unscientific notions I've ever seen put on paper, but it was presented as supporting evidence for evolution in the trial.
(Read "Lies of Evolution: Grand Canyon here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Another example:
"The most ancient English human relic has been called the down man of Piltdown... The age of down man is placed at about 200,000 to 300,000 years."
-Horatio H. Newman, Professor at the University of Chicago, The World's Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case, The Lawbook Exchange Ltd, 1925, p. 201, ISBN: 9781886363311

"All was well until October of 1956 when the entire hoax was exposed. Reader's Digest came out with an article, summarized from Popular Science Monthy, titled 'The Great Piltdown Hoax.' Using a new method to date bones based on fluoride absorption, the Piltdown bones were found to be fraudulent. Further critical investigation revealed that the jawbone actually belonged to an ape that had died only fifty years previously. The teeth were filed down, and both teeth and bones were discolored with bichromate of potash [potassium dichromate - oxidizing agent] to conceal their true identity. And so, Piltdown Man was built on a deception which completely fooled all the 'experts' who promoted him with the utmost confidence."
-Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, Baker Books, 1997, ISBN: 9781585585984; Also read The Pre-Flood World here at creationliberty.com for more details about the ape/human hoaxes.

At one point, Maynard Metcalf, a zoologist at John Hopkins University, was asked for a simple, direct definition of evolution, and I should point out this is one sentence:
"Evolution, I think, means the change; in the final analysis I think it means the change of an organism from one character into a different character, and by character I mean its structure, or its behavior, or its function, or its method of development from the egg or anything else--the change of an organism from one set characteristic which characterizes it into a different condition, characterized by a different set of characteristics either structural or functional could be properly called, I think, evolution--to be the evolution of that organism; but the term in general means the whole series of such changes which have taken place during hundreds of millions of years which have produced from lowly beginnings the nature of which is not by any means fully understood to an organism of much more complex character, whose structure and functions we are still studying, because we haven't begun to learn what we need to know about them."
-Rhea County Court, Tennessee, The World's Most Famous Court Trial, Reprint Lawbook Exchange Ltd, 1997, p. 139-140, ISBN: 9781886363311

I have read this quote to numerous people, and no one has come away with a better understand of what it really means. Evolutionists/Atheists did not understand what it means back then, and they still don't know today because the definition changes depending on who you ask.
(For more specifics on definitions of evolution and how it's taught, watch our Creation/Evolution Seminar #1.)

Of course, evolutionists everywhere will object to my statements here, claiming that evolution is simply "change over time," but again, I demonstrate that is not what is taught to students. On top of that, after the Scopes Trial was over, the ACLU appealed it to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, and after quoting the Butler act, they made the argument that evolution was too vague a term:
"Evolution, like prohibition, is a broad term... It is only to the theory of the evolution of man from a lower type that the act before us was intended to apply, and much of the discussion we have heard is beside this case."
-ACLU Lawyers, quoted by C.C. Young & M.A. Largent, Evolution and Creationism: A Documentary and Reference Guide, ABC-CLIO, 2007, p. 150, ISBN: 9780313339530

Getting back to the Scopes Trial itself, despite all of these evolutionist "expert" testimonies, Judge Raulston had to throw it all out because they had absolutely nothing to do with the main issue of the court trial.
"This case is now before the court upon a motion by the attorney general to exclude from the consideration of the jury certain expert testimony offered by the defendant, the import of such testimony being an effort to explain the origin of man and life. The state insists that such evidence is wholly irrelevant, incompetent and impertinent to the issues pending, and that it should be excluded." [bold added]
-John T. Raulston, The World's Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case, The Lawbook Exchange Ltd, 1925, p. 201, ISBN: 9781886363311

Evolutionists like Stanley Cranmer (director of Inherit the Wind) and many others still today take this as a censorship of evolution dogma, which is just not true. Raulston didn't say anything about whether or not evolution was true. He never said evolution is wholly irrelevant, incompetent and impertient (although it is). Raulston simply said that any supposed evidence for evolution, or even for the Bible, had nothing to do with case at hand, and he was abolutely right because no one is asking, "Is there enough evidence for evolution to call it science?" -- the court was asking, "Did John T. Scopes teach evolution in the public school classroom or not?"

Despite what the newspapers were calling it, evolution was not on trial; only John T. Scopes was on trial, and it was only to determine if he would have to pay a minimum of $100 fine for breaking the law. Since Scopes already lied to say he broke the law, then the entire trial was a waste of Tennessee tax-payer money, courtesy of the "American Communist Lawyers Union."

Raulston continues to acknowledge Darrow's whining in response to the attorney general's objection:
"Upon the other hand, the defendant insists that this evidence is highly competent and relevant to the issues involved, and should be admitted... [Raulston then rereads the Butler law]... Now upon these issues as brought up, it becomes the duty of the court to determine the question of the admissibility of this expert testimony offered by the defendant. It 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... In the final analysis this court, after a most earnest and careful consideration, has reached the conclusions that under the provisions of the act involved in this case, it is made unlawful thereby to teach in the public schools of the state of Tennessee the theory that man descended from a lower order of animals. If the court is correct in this, then the evidence of experts would shed no light on the issues. Therefore, the court is content to sustain the motion of the attorney-general to exclude the expert testimony."
-John T. Raulston, The World's Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case, The Lawbook Exchange Ltd, 1925, p. 201, ISBN: 9781886363311

Darrow then began to insult the judge and the court out of anger, and when Raulstone questioned his statement, he further insulted Raulston personally. After this, Raulston had Darrow put in contempt of court with a bond of $5,000. The next day, after reading over his own statements, Darrow apologized to Raulston, to the court, and to the people of Tennessee.
(Picture: Rhea County Court, Tennessee, The World's Most Famous Court Trial, Reprint Lawbook Exchange Ltd, 1997, p. 227, ISBN: 9781886363311)

And Raulston said the following in response to Darrow's apology:
"My friends... the Man that died on the cross that man might be redeemed, taught that it was godly to forgive and were it not for the forgiving nature of Himself I would fear for man. The Savior died on the cross pleading with God for the men who crucified Him. I believe in that Christ. I believe in these principles... Taking that view of it, I feel that I am justified in speaking for the people of the great state that I represent when I speak as I do to say to him [Darrow] that we forgive him and we forget it..."
-Rhea County Court, Tennessee, The World's Most Famous Court Trial, Reprint Lawbook Exchange Ltd, 1997, p. 226-227, ISBN: 9781886363311

Darrow never paid a dime and was released from contempt of court on the basis of the philosophy of forgiveness of the Lord Jesus Christ, not based on the evolutionary philosophy Darrow believed. Even though in the movie, Drummond (Darrow) had to pay $4,000, in reality, it never happened.


The trial lasted for days over a law which had a small fine penalty, which was strange enough, but on the final day, one of the most unheard-of events took place.
"ACLU Arthur Hays: The defense desires to call Mr. Bryan as a witness, and, of course, the only question here is whether Mr. Scopes taught what these children said he taught, we recognize what Mr. Bryan says as a witness would not be very valuable. We think there are other questions involved, and we should want to take Mr. Bryan's testimony for the purpose of our record, even if your honor thinks it is not admissible in general, so we wish to call him now."
-Arthur G. Hays, ACLU Lawyer, The World's Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case, The Lawbook Exchange Ltd, 1925, p. 284, ISBN: 9781886363311

This once again demonstrates the true purpose the ACLU had in this case. They did not want to protect the rights of citizens, but rather they wanted to destroy Christian fundamentalism (just as Darrow stated), because they are calling a witness that has nothing to do whatsoever with the trial. On top of that, I am unaware of any other U.S. court case in history where the representing lawyers were called to the witness stand.

"Raulston: If you ask him about any confidential matter, I will protect him, of course.
Darrow: On scientific matters, Col. Bryan can speak for himself.
Bryan: If your honor please, I insist that Mr. Darrow can be put on the stand, and Mr. Malone and Mr. Hays
Raulston: Call anybody you desire. Ask them any questions you wish... Mr. Bryan, you are not objecting to going on the stand?
Bryan: Then we will call all three of them...
Raulston: Mr. Bryan, you are not objecting to going on the stand?
Bryan: Not at all."

-Conversation in the courtroom, The World's Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case, The Lawbook Exchange Ltd, 1925, p. 284, ISBN: 9781886363311

So the agreement was that if Darrow and the ACLU wanted to call Bryan to the witness stand, then Darrow and the ACLU lawyers would also have to take the witness stand to be questioned. Bryan agrees to his part of the agreement and volunteers to go on first. Here is a video of the movie's version of the conversation:

Now we will take a look at what was actually said on the witness stand by Byran and Darrow. One thing I will point out ahead of time was that Bryan made some errors in answering a few of the questions that Darrow asked, and we will cover those one step at a time.

Darrow begins his examination of Bryan (I will not be referencing the following text to save time and space, but it can be found in the same source referenced above, The World's Most Famous Court Trial, starting on p. 284):
Darrow: "You have given considerable study to the Bible, haven't you, Mr. Bryan?"
Bryan: "Yes, sir, I have tried to."
Darrow: "Then you have made a general study of it?"
Bryan: "Yes, I have; I have studied the Bible for about fifty years, or sometime more than that, but, of course, I have studied it more as I have become older than when I was but a boy."
Darrow: "You claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?"
Bryan: "I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there: some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: 'Ye are the salt of the earth.' I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people."

Bryan answered this part well, as it is a common trap set up by atheists/evolutionists, to say they take the Bible as literally true concerning creation, which is not a metaphor, but then bring up metaphors used in the Bible to make the Christian look foolish. The Bible is taken literally true in the parts that are given literally, but there are metaphors given in some places in God's Word, and so we take everything its proper context, as any person should when reading any book.

Darrow: "But when you read that Jonah swallowed the whale--or that the whale swallowed Jonah-- excuse me please--how do you literally interpret that?"
Bryan: "When I read that a big fish swallowed Jonah--it does not say whale. That is my recollection of it. A big fish, and I believe it, and I believe in a God who can make a whale and can make a man and make both what He pleases."
Darrow: "Now, you say, the big fish swallowed Jonah, and he there remained how long--three days--and then he spewed him upon the land. You believe that the big fish was made to swallow Jonah?"
Bryan: "I am not prepared to say that; the Bible merely says it was done."
Darrow: "You don't know whether it was the ordinary run of fish, or made for that purpose?"
Bryan: "You may guess; you evolutionists guess--"
Darrow: "You are not prepared to say whether that fish was made especially to swallow a man or not?"
Bryan: "The Bible doesn't say, so I am not prepared to say."

Bryan did not recall at the time the specifics of Jonah 1, but the Bible does specify that God prepared that fish in particular to swallow Jonah.

Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
-Jonah 1:17

Darrow: "But do you believe He made them--that He made such a fish and that it was big enough to swallow Jonah?"
Bryan: "Yes, sir. Let me add: One miracle is just as easy to believe as another."
Darrow: "Just as hard?"
Bryan: "It is hard to believe for you, but easy for me. A miracle is a thing performed beyond what man can perform. When you get within the realm of miracles; and it is just as easy to believe the miracle of Jonah as any other miracle in the Bible."
Darrow: "Perfectly easy to believe that Jonah swallowed the whale?"
Bryan: "If the Bible said so; the Bible doesn't make as extreme statements as evolutionists do--"
Darrow: "The Bible says Joshua commanded the sun to stand still for the purpose of lengthening the day, doesn't it, and you believe it?"

Notice that Darrow will not allow the subject to turn to examination of Evolutionism. Keep that in mind for later.

Bryan: "I do."
Darrow: "Do you believe at that time the entire sun went around the earth?"
Bryan: "No, I believe that the earth goes around the sun."
Darrow: "Do you believe that the men who wrote it thought that the day could be lengthened or that the sun could be stopped?"
Bryan: "I don't know what they thought."
Darrow: "You don't know?"

This is getting so ludicrous that Darrow is requesting that Christians be able to read the minds of those who lived thousands of years ago. We have a full teaching here on the issue of the sun and earth moving, and the Bible tells us the story from the perspective of those who are earth-bound observers, and to us the sun appears to move across the sky.
(Read "Geocentric vs Helocentric: Who's Right?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Bryan: "I think they wrote the fact without expressing their own thoughts."
Darrow: "Have you an opinion as to whether or not the men who wrote that thought--"
Arthur Stewart (Chief Prosecutor): "I want to object, your honor; it has gone beyond the pale of any issue that could possibly be injected into this lawsuit, expect by imagination. I do not think the defendant has a right to conduct the examination any further and I ask your honor to exclude it."
Bryan: "It seems to me it would be too exacting to confine the defense to the facts; if they are not allowed to get away from the facts, what have they to deal with?"
Raulston: "Mr. Bryan is willing to be examined. Go ahead."
Darrow: "I read that years ago. Can you answer my question directly? If the day was lengthened by stopping either the earth or the sun, it must have been the earth?"
Bryan: "Well, I should say so."
Darrow: "Now, Mr. Bryan, have you ever pondered what would have happened to the earth if it had stood still?"
Bryan: "No."
Darrow: "You have not?"
Bryan: "No; the God I believe in could have taken care of that, Mr. Darrow."
Darrow: "I see. Have you ever pondered what would naturally happen to the earth if it stood still suddenly?"
Bryan: "No."
Darrow: "Don't you know it would have been converted into molten mass of matter?"
Bryan: "You testify to that when you get on the stand, I will give you a chance."
Darrow: "Don't you believe it?"
Bryan: "I would want to hear expert testimony on that."

This is why, typically, most websites do not cover the entirety of this examination; it can get really dry. Darrow is refusing to acknowledge some of Bryan's answers, and keeps trying to push for a conclusion that the Bible is not true, because that was Darrow's goal from the start.

Darrow: "You have never investigated that subject?"
Bryan: "I don't think I have ever had the question asked."
Darrow: "Or ever thought of it?"
Bryan: "I have been too busy on things that I thought were of more importance than that."
Darrow: "You believe the story of the flood to be a literal interpretation?"
Bryan: "Yes, sir."
Darrow: "When was that Flood?"
Bryan: "I would not attempt to fix the date. The date is fixed, as suggested this morning."
Darrow: "About 4004 B.C.?"

They are referring to James Ussher, who dedicated much of his life to discovering the chronology timeline of the age of the world in the Bible, and he put the creation of the world (according to the Julian calender we use today) at Oct 23, 4004 B.C. As far as I'm aware this has never been proven true, but it's also never been proven false. I don't know whether it is or isn't, and a specific date is irrelevant because it all comes down to endless debates of genealogy.

Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
-1 Timothy 1:4

Bryan: "That has been the estimate of a man that is accepted today. I would not say it is accurate."
Darrow: "That estimate is printed in the Bible?"
Bryan: "Everybody knows, at least, I think most of the people know, that was the estimate given."
Darrow: "But what do you think that the Bible, itself says? Don't you know how it was arrived at?"
Bryan: "I never made a calculation."
Darrow: "A calculation from what?"
Bryan: "I could not say."
Darrow: "From the generations of man?"
Bryan: "I would not want to say that."
Darrow: "What do you think?"
Bryan: "I do not think about things I don't think about."
Darrow: "Do you think about things you do think about?"
Bryan: "Well, sometimes." (Laughter in the courtyard.)
Policeman: "Let us have order."

The movie also uses this last line where Bryan said "I do not think about the things I don't think about," but the movie takes it out of it's context. The reason everyone is laughing is not because of Bryan being ignorant, they're laughing because of Darrow's ridiculous questioning.
Darrow: "You don't know [what they thought]?"
Darrow: "Or ever thought of it?"
Darrow: "But what do you think that the Bible... says?"
Darrow: "What do you think?"
Everyone in the courtroom wanted Darrow to get to his point. In was an extremely hot day out, and everyone was bored with Darrow's repetative examination, including the chief prosecutor.

Stewart: "Your honor, he is perfectly able to take care of this, but we are attaining no evidence. This is not competent evidence."
Bryan: "These gentlemen have not had much chance--they did not come here to try this case. They came here to try revealed religion. I am here to defend it and they can ask me any question they please."
Raulston: "All right. (Applause from the court yard.)"

Bryan knew exactly what we've already established in this article, that the Scopes Trial had nothing to do with John T. Scopes, but had everything to do with trying to preach Evolutionism at tax-payer expense. Even the judge did not want this farse to continue because it had nothing to do with the trial at hand, but the people wanted to see a show, so the show went on...

Darrow: "Great applause from the bleachers."
Bryan: "From those whom you call 'Yokels.'"
Darrow: "I have never called them yokels."

yokel (n): typically a phrase used by city-living people to describe someone who lives on a farm or in a smaller town out in the country; referring specifically to one being ignorant and old-fashioned, backwards

It is true that Darrow never called them yokels. It was H.L. Mencken, atheist/evolutionist author supporting Darrow's crusade and documented his experience in Dayton during the trial, that referred to them as yokels, and did so many times in his book, for example:
"...the evangelical pastors, are propagating his gospel, and everywhere the yokels [i.e. citizens of Dayton, TN] are ready for it."
-H.L. Mencken, A Religious Orgy in Tennessee: A Reporter's Account of the Scopes Monkey Trial, Melville House, 2010 , ISBN: 9781612190310

Mencken goes on to call the people of Tennessee many other names, like "morons," and he coined the phrase "monkeytown," in reference to Dayton citizens and his take on their intellect. In fact, in during my research, I read a number of statements from Mencken's writings, and I believe that most of Inherit the Wind likely came from his hateful, war-mongering words. Lawrence and Lee (authors of Inherit the Wind) likely read and studied the writing of atheist H.L. Mencken, and decided to create a fictional depiction of the Scopes Monkey Trial through his God-hating eyes, instead of documenting the truth.

Bryan: "That is the ignorance of Tennessee, the bigotry." [in reference to the attitude of Darrow towards the citizens of Dayton]
Darrow: "You mean who are applauding you? (Applause.)"
Bryan: "Those are the people whom you insult."
Darrow: "You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does believe in your fool religion."

And that's what I was referring to earlier when I quoted Darrow's goal of this trial; to destroy Christianiaty, because he hates the Christian God of the Bible, and in his heart also hates all those who would believe on Him.

Raulston: "I will not stand for that."
Darrow: "For what he is doing?"
Raulston: "I am talking to both of you--"
Darrow: "Wait until you get to me. Do you know anything about how many people there were in Egypt 3,500 years ago, or how many people there were in China 5,000 years ago?"
Bryan: "No."
Darrow: "Have you ever tried to find out?"
Bryan: "No, sir. You are the first man I ever heard of who has been in interested in it. (Laughter.)"
Darrow: "Mr. Bryan, am I the first man you ever heard of who has been interested in the age of human societies and primitive man?"
Bryan: "You are the first man I ever heard speak of the number of people at those different periods."
Darrow: "Where have you lived all your life?"
Bryan: "Not near you. (Laughter and applause.)"
Darrow: "Nor near anybody of learning?"

It's plainly obvious what's happening: Darrow is trying to make himself seem like a brilliant learned man, and Bryan is just some stupid pig farmer. It's ludicrous, but this is what happened during the trial.

Bryan: "Oh, don't assume you know it all."
Darrow: "Do you know there are thousands of books in our libraries on all those subjects I have been asking you about?"
Bryan: "I couldn't say, but I will take your word for it--"
Darrow: "Have you any idea how old the earth is?"
Bryan: "No."
Darrow: "The Book you have introduced in evidence tells you, doesn't it?"
Bryan: "I don't think it does, Mr. Darrow."
Darrow: "Let's see whether it does; is this the one?"
Bryan: "That is the one, I think."
Darrow: "It says B.C. 4004?"
Bryan: "That is Bishop Usher's calculation."
Darrow: "That is printed in the Bible you introduced?"
Bryan: "Yes, sir."
Darrow: "Would you say that the earth was only 4,000 years old?"
Bryan: "Oh, no; I think it is much older than that."
Darrow: "How much?"
Bryan: "I couldn't say."
Darrow: "Do you say whether the Bible itself says it is older than that?"
Bryan: "I don't think the Bible says itself whether it is older or not. "
Darrow: "Do you think the earth was made in six days?"
Bryan: "Not six days of twenty-four hours."
Darrow: "Doesn't it say so?"
Bryan: "No, sir."

Now here is where one of the major problems arose from this trial: Bryan allowed himself to be questioned, but he was actually an old-earth day-age creationist, meaning he doesn't believe what Moses wrote in Exodus 20.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God... For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:
-Exodus 20:8-11

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
-John 5:46-47
(Read "The Earth's Age Effects Salvation Doctrine" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

So now we have Bryan acting as a hypocrite claiming to believe in the Word of God, but when it comes to certain matters, he no longer believes what the Bible says. (Either that or he didn't study it.) Any hypocrite would have a difficult time defending the Word of God when he doesn't believe in it, and most especially when he believes in the opposition's view he is trying to debate against.

Meanwhile, behind the prosecution's desk, Stewart is still trying to get back to the point of the trial.

Stewart: "I want to interpose another objection. What is the purpose of this examination?"
Bryan: "The purpose is to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible, and I am perfectly willing that the world shall know that these gentlemen have no other purpose than ridiculing every Christian who believes in the Bible."
Darrow: "We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States and you know it, and that is all--"
Bryan: "I am not trying to get anything into the record. I am simply trying to protect the word of God against the greatest atheist or agnostic in the United States. (Prolonged applause)"
Raulston: "Are you about through, Mr. Darrow?"
Darrow: "I want to ask a few more questions about the creation."
Raulston: "I know. We are going to adjourn when Mr. Bryan comes off the stand for the day. Be very brief, Mr. Darrow…. The only reason I am allowing this to go in at all is that they may have it in the appellate courts, as showing what the affidavit would be."

The Judge also knew this was just a show so they could appeal the case; possibly taking it up to the Supreme Court, but Bryan wants to state clearly that his answers are not for that purpose.

Bryan: "The reason I am answering is not for the benefit of the superior court. It is to keep these gentlemen from saying I was afraid to meet them and let them question me, and I want the Christian world to know that any atheist, agnostic, unbeliever, can question me anytime as to my belief in God, and I will answer him. …Your honor, they have not asked a question legally, and the only reason they have asked any question is for the purpose, as the question about Jonah was asked, for a chance to give this agnostic an opportunity to criticize a believer in the word of God; and I answered the question in order to shut his mouth so that he cannot go out and tell his atheistic friends that I would not answer his questions. That is the only reason, no more reason in the world."

And that's true, that's exactly what the atheists, and the media, would have done. However, the hypocrisy and cowardice of the evolutionists will soon show itself on that point; let's keep reading...

Dudley Malone (Divorce Lawyer helpling Defense): "Your honor on this very subject, I would like to say that I would have asked Mr. Bryan--and I consider myself as good a Christian as he is--every question that Mr. Darrow has asked him for the purpose of bringing out whether or not there is to be taken in this court a literal interpretation of the Bible, or whether, obviously, as these questions indicate, if a general and literal construction cannot be put upon the parts of the Bible which have been covered by Mr. Darrow's questions. I hope for the last time no further attempt will be made by counsel on the other side of the case, or Mr. Bryan, to say the defense is concerned at all with Mr. Darrow's particular religious views or lack of religious views. We are here as lawyers with the same right to our views. I have the same right to mine as a Christian as Mr. Bryan has to his, and we do not intend to have this case charged by Mr. Darrow's agnosticism or Mr. Bryan's brand of Christianity. (A great applause.)"

Malone was not an ACLU lawyer, so he may not have fully understood the agenda of Darrow and the ACLU, because some of the stuff he said was not true about the goals of the defense, as we have already established.

(Click image for larger view.)

(Photo by Watson Davis; Bryan seated on the left; Darrow standing for interrogation)

Darrow: "Mr. Bryan, do you believe that the first woman was Eve?"
Bryan: "Yes."
Darrow: "Do you believe she was literally made out of Adams's rib?"
Bryan: "I do."
Darrow: "Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife?"
Bryan: "No, sir; I leave the agnostics to hunt for her."
Darrow: "You have never found out?"
Bryan: "I have never tried to find."
Darrow: "You have never tried to find?"
Bryan: "No."
Darrow: "The Bible says he got one, doesn't it? Were there other people on the earth at that time?"
Bryan: "I cannot say."
Darrow: "You cannot say. Did that ever enter your consideration?"
Bryan: "Never bothered me."

This point never bothered me either; it was only through the whining and complaints of atheists/evolutionist scoffers to which I sought out to answer it in the first place. They claim that Cain went off to a distant land and found a wife there, but the Bible never says that.

And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
-Genesis 4:16-17

The phrase "knew his wife" means he went into her so she would get pregnant. It does NOT say he went to Nod and FOUND a wife; he already had a wife and brought her with him.

It wasn't until the Levitical law was given, a couple thousand years later, that God said it was wrong for brother and sister of blood relation to marry. Before that time, brother and sister could marry without any medical problems in their offspring, and thus Cain married one of his sisters.

Darrow: "There were no others recorded, but Cain got a wife."
Bryan: "That is what the Bible says."
Darrow: "Where she came from you do not know. All right. Does the statement, 'The morning and the evening were the first day,' and 'The morning and the evening were the second day,' mean anything to you?"
Bryan: "I do not think it necessarily means a twenty-four-hour day."
Darrow: "You do not?"
Bryan: "No."
Darrow: "What do you consider it to be?"
Bryan: "I have not attempted to explain it. If you will take the second chapter--let me have the book. (Examining Bible.) The fourth verse of the second chapter says: 'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,' the word 'day' there in the very next chapter is used to describe a period. I do not see that there is any necessity for construing the words, 'the evening and the morning,' as meaning necessarily a twenty-four-hour day, 'in the day when the Lord made the heaven and the earth.'"

Huge mistake--the word "day" doesn't always refer to a 24-hour period, just as we will say phrases like "back in the day," however, when put with a numerical modifier, such as "the first day" or "three days," it always means a 24-hour period. This has been personally confirmed for me by Jewish teachers who read, write, and speak Hebrew who have explained to me this is how it is in the Hebrew language in the Scripture.

Darrow: "Then, when the Bible said, for instance, 'and God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day,' that does not necessarily mean twenty-four hours?"
Bryan: "I do not think it necessarily does."
Darrow: "Do you think it does or does not?"
Bryan: "I know a great many think so."
Darrow: "What do you think?"
Bryan: "I do not think it does."
Darrow: "You think those were not literal days?"
Bryan: "I do not think they were twenty-four-hour days."
Darrow: "What do you think about it?"
Bryan: "That is my opinion--I do not know that my opinion is better on that subject than those who think it does."
Darrow: "You do not think that?"
Bryan: "No. But I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in 6,000,000 years or in 600,000,000 years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other."
Darrow: "Do you think those were literal days?"
Bryan: "My impression is they were periods, but I would not attempt to argue as against anybody who wanted to believe in literal days."
Darrow: "I will read it to you from the Bible: 'And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.' Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly?"
Bryan: "I believe that."
Darrow: "Have you any idea how the snake went before that time?"
Bryan: "No, sir."
Darrow: "Do you know whether he walked on his tail or not?"
Bryan: "No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience)"
Darrow: "Now, you refer to the cloud that was put in heaven after the flood, the rainbow. Do you believe in that?"
Bryan: "Read it."
Darrow: "All right, Mr. Bryan, I will read it for you."
Bryan: "Your Honor, I think I can shorten this testimony. The only purpose Mr. Darrow has is to slur at the Bible, but I will answer his question. I will answer it all at once, and I have no objection in the world, I want the world to know that this man, who does not believe in a God, is trying to use a court in Tennesseee--"
Darrow: "I object to that."
Bryan: "(Continuing) to slur at it, and while it will require time, I am willing to take it."
Darrow: "I object to your statement. I am exempting you on your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes."
Raulston: "Court is adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning."

The last statement from Darrow was very efficient in wrapping up the purpose he had in this trial. In his heart, Darrow wanted to tell the world: "If you believe the Word of God, you're a moron." And that is exactly the same attitude I have seen from almost every single atheist and evolutionist I run into, and sadly, most people, even Christians today, don't pay much attention to what Romans 1 says about Darrow and the other atheists in the crowd:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves... And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
-Romans 1:20-32

It doesn't matter what we want to believe about the heart of the atheist/evolutionist; the Bible makes it very clear that in their hearts they are full of maliciouness and deceit, having no understanding, but claiming themselves to be wise. This will be more apparent in what happens next...


The next day, everyone expected that Darrow and the other defense lawyers would go on the stand because that was the agreement. However, they lied; they had no intention of ever taking the witness stand, and they simply wanted to make a mockery of Bryan.

Darrow: We have all been here quite a while... [we have] no proof to offer on the issues that the court has laid down here, that Mr. Scopes did teach what the children said he taught, that man descended from a lower order of animals... I think to save time we will ask the court to bring in the jury and instruct the jury to find the defendant guilty.
-Rhea County Court, Tennessee, The World's Most Famous Court Trial, Reprint Lawbook Exchange Ltd, 1997, p. 306, ISBN: 9781886363311

As we can see, Darrow is still lying to the court that Scopes taught evolution, even though Scopes said he never taught it. Nevertheless, the jury did find Scopes guilty, they left the amount of the fine up to the court, and the court gave Scopes the minimum of $100. Darrow planned all along to tuck tail and run when it actually came to his position on the witness stand to be publically examined by Bryan.

(Image originally from Columbus Enquirer-Sun, July 1925, republished by Greg C. Lisby and Linda L. Harris, "Georgia Reporters at the Scopes Trial: A Comparison of Newpaper Coverage," retrieved Feb 5, 2015, [academia.edu]

Darrow also declined his final summation, which, under Tennessee law, means that Bryan would also not be allowed to give a final summation, because Darrow knew the entire time, if Bryan went on the stand first, he could finish the case without any word from the opposing side. The evolutionists did not want to be a witness against themselves (pleading the 5th), to have their religious beliefs examined on the witness stand, and then in grade school playground fashion, used a slap-and-run technique so they won't have any intellectual opposition to their religious dogma of Evolutionism. The evolutionists involved in this court case simply wanted free media coverage, without any opposition, and then slither back into their holes again.

Even the media was a bit perplexed at how they should go about reporting on this trial:
"[The Scopes Trial was] the queerest story of the generation, weird as a nightmare, side-splittingly funny, darkly tragic, a huge joke, a sinister threat, running the whole gamut of politics, religion, science, and sociology, all about everything and all about nothing, and by all odds the most difficult newspaper assignment of many years."
-F. Hudson & A.M. Lee, American Journalism 1690-1940, Psychology Press, Vol. 4, p. 551, ISBN: 9780415228886

Yet, atheist/evolutionist H.L. Mencken was at least straightforward with his hateful heart:
"But the morons in the audience, when it was over, simply hissed it... With Bryan alive and on the warpath, inflaming the morons and speading his eloquent nonsense... They are the products of ignorance and stupidity, either or both."
-H.L. Mencken, A Religious Orgy in Tennessee: A Reporter's Account of the Scopes Monkey Trial, Melvilile House, 2010, ISBN: 9781612190310

Despite the nasty things said about the people of Dayton, TN by the athiests and evolutionists, Gordon McKenzie (attorney in Dayton) for the prosecution drew a large applause after making his final remarks in the courtroom:
"On behalf of Rhea county and [Attorney Arthur] Stewart, and on behalf of the prosecution, I desire to say to the gentlemen who have just made their statements, [i.e. the evolutionists] that we are delighted to have had you with us. We have learned to take a broader view of life since you came. You have brought to us your ideas--your views--and we have communicated to you as best we could, some of our views. As to whether or not we like those views, that is a matter that should not address itself to us at this time, but we do appreciate your views, and while much has been said and much has been written about the narrow-minded people of Tennessee we do not feel hard toward you for having said that, because that is your idea. We people here want to be more broad-minded than some have given us credit for, and we appreciate your coming and we have been greatly elevated, edified and educated by your presence. And should the time ever come when you are back near the garden spot of the world, we hope that you will stop and stay awhile with us here in order that we may chat about the days of the past, when the Scopes trail was tried in Dayton."
-Gordon McKenzie, "Final Remakes of Attorneys and Judge Raulston," Transcript of the Scopes Monkey Trial, University of Missouri-Kansas City, retrieved Feb 5, 2015, [law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day8.htm]

After the trial was over, as aforementioned, the ACLU lawyers took the Scopes case to the Supreme Court of Tennessee in 1927, where they argued that since the term "evolution" is too vague to be understood with just use of the word, the Butler Law was also too vague to be understood. Keep in mind, they could not contest the Butler Law on grounds of freedom of speech violation, and the Supreme Court explain why:
"The plantiff in error was a teacher in the public schools of Rhea County. He was an employee of the State of Tennessee or of a municipal agency of the State. He was under contract with the State to work in an institution of the State. He had no right or privilege to serve the State except up on such terms as the State prescribed. His liberty, his privilege, his immunity to teach and proclaim the theory of evolution, elsewhere than in the service of the State, was in no wise touched by this law... If the Legislature thinks that, by reason of popular prejudice, the cause of education and the study of Science generally will be promoted by forbidding the teaching of evolution in the schools of the Sate, we can conceive of no ground to justify the court's interference."
-Tennessee Supreme Court Ruling over John T. Scopes Case, quoted by Randy Moore, Evolution in the Courtroom: A Reference Guide, ABC-CLIO, 2002, p. 292, ISBN: 9781576074206

To explain this in simple terms, many people reading this have signed a contract with an employer to work for a company. In that contract is an agreement that you will speak according to the guidelines of their company rules for conduct while being paid on company time. There is no banning of speech outside of the workplace, but you sign over your right to be limited in your speech for a time while you are paid by someone else to speak on their behalf, and that is exactly what happens when a teacher is employed by the State.

They further tried to say that it was an establishment of religion that went against the Tennessee Religious Preference clause, that stated clearly they wouldn't establish state religion. This was also struck down:
"We are not able to see how the prohibition of teaching the theory that man has descended from a lower order of animals gives preference to any religious establishment or mode of worship."
-R.J. Krotoszynski, The First Amendment: Cases and Theory, Aspen Publishers, 2008, p. 753, ISBN: 9780735565494

If evolution is truly part of science, then the facts will speak for themselves, but as Bryan stated earlier, they don't operate in the realm of facts, and as I've stated before, Evolutionism is a religion, so it's one religion fighting for preferential treatment over another.
(Read "Evolutionism: A New-Age Religion" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Even deist Thomas Jefferson (not a Christian) said that the truth doesn't need any government backing:
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."
-Thomas Jefferson, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, #2751, quoted from Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782, Funk & Wagnalls Co, 1900, p. 310

Atheist/evolutionists very commonly overlook the fact that today, we are all paying out of pocket with our taxes for Evolutionism to be taught in the public school system. They need that government backing to keep their religion alive, but the doctrines of Jesus Christ will never pass away, with or without government backing.

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
-Matthew 24:35

In the end, Darrow was a liar and a hypocrite. He lied and cheated his way out of having to be a witness against his own dogmatic beliefs in Evolutionism, and is a hypocrite for fighting against the very morals he claimed to believe in:
"[I]t is bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins."
-Clarence S. Darrow, The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, American Scientific Affiliation, Vol. 40, 1988, p. 114
Yet, Darrow stated his goal was to destroy Christian fundamentalism so only one theory of origins would be taught. Even today, in our public school systems in America, for the majority of schools, only one theory of origins is taught, and that is the religious dogma of Evolutionism. According to Mr. Darrow's own definition, it sounds like he's a bigot as well as a liar and hypocrite.

Eventually, after trying and failing repeatedly in the Supreme court, Scopes's fine was overturned, but not by the atheists and evolutionists. The Supreme Court held that the law was constitutional. The fine was actually overturned on the technicality that the jury was supposed to set the fine, and not the judge, so Scopes, in the end, never paid a dime for his lies in court.
(See Supreme Court of Tennessee - John Thomas Scopes v. The State, University of Missouri-Kansas City, retrieved Feb 5, 2015, [law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/statcase.htm


This following data is a general overview of the differences between the movie Inherit the Wind and the actual court trial.

Inherit the Wind
Scopes (Bertram Cates) is being watched in his class by men in black suits, silenced when he mentions evolution, and handcuffed by police officers in the classroom. Only after the ACLU agreed to cover the trial in secret, was Scopes charged with breaking the law. He was not arrested in a classroom.

And they have to make sure the "hero" to the story is strong and handsome, right?

Inherit the Wind
Cates (Scopes) spends the next few days of the trial in a jail cell. Scopes was never detained (i.e. held in jail).

Inherit the Wind
Drummond (Darrow) was heroically protecting the rights of teachers and students to "think for themselves," in the face of "ignorant and unreasonable" Christians citizens who were silencing academic freedom. Darrow has no interest in protecting the rights of the people to education their children, but rather was seeking to humiliate Christian fundamentalism because of his hatred for the Word of God in the Bible.

Inherit the Wind
Brady (Bryan) was made an "honorary" colonel in the town militia. To be fair, Drummond (Darrow) demanded to have an honory title to mock Brady (Bryan). Bryan was a colonel in the U.S. Army and served in the Spanish-American war. Darrow was never in the military.

Inherit the Wind
Brady (Bryan) had never read Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. Bryan was well-versed in Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, and could cite from it.

Inherit the Wind
Students on the witness stand state that Darwin's Origin of Species was read in the classroom. Darwin's Origin of Species was never read from or used in the classroom.

Inherit the Wind
Brady's (Bryan's) words in the court were insulting towards Drummond (Darrow), and he always sought to belittle him. Bryan was always courteous towards everyone in the court, including Darrow.

Inherit the Wind
Brady (Bryan) was a pompous bigot that only ignorant small-town "Christians" liked, and most of the world thought he was a joke. Bryan, 41st U.S. Secretary of State, was a three-time Democratic presidential nominee, and was well-known and well-liked for fighting liberal legislation and standing up for the common man.

The movie makes a strong attempt to push a "yokel" image on Christianity:

In fact, the entire movie portrays Bryan as a boastful bigot, which provides more evidence that the two original authors to the Inherit the Wind play were students of atheist/evolutionist H.L. Mencken:
"Bryan was a vulgar and common man, a cad undiluted. He was ignorant, bigoted, self-seeking, blatant and dishonest. His career brought him into contact with the first men of his time; he preferred the company of rustic ignoramuses. It was hard to believe, watching him at Dayton, that he had traveled, that he had been received in civilized societies, that he had been a high officer of state. He seemed only a poor clod like those around him, deluded by a childish theology, full of an almost pathological hatred of all learning, all human dignity, all beauty, all fine and noble things. He was a peasant come home to the dung-pile. Imagine a gentleman, and you have imagined everything that he was not."
-Henry L. Mencken, H.L. Mencken on Religion, published Prometheus Books, 2002, p. 211, ISBN: 9781573929820

But the facts are showing the exact opposite, and Mencken's God-hating, scoffing, pompous words seem to be the foundation for the creation of the characters in Inherit the Wind.

Inherit the Wind
The high school students got together to help support Drummond (Darrow) in his mission to defend Cates (Scopes) from the prosecution of his unjust crimes. The students didn't remember much of anything, and Scopes later confesses that the answers they gave were only what the ACLU lawyers coached them to say.

Inherit the Wind
Brady (Bryan) interrogated Cates's (Scopes's) fiance on the witness stand, berating her and causing her to cry. There were no female witnesses put on the witness stand. Scopes had no fiance at the time of the trial.

Inherit the Wind
Drummond (Darrow) objects to the announcement of a prayer meeting at the end of the court session. There was no announcements of prayer meetings. Darrow objected to the court opening with prayer, which was normal procedure in Tennessee, and is still practiced in the U.S. Supremem Court today.

I highly doubt it will always be the case, but as of now, the U.S. Supreme Court still opens with a word of Christian-based prayer.
"The Supreme Court on Monday narrowly upheld the centuries-old tradition of offering prayers to open government meetings, even if the prayers are overwhelmingly Christian and citizens are encouraged to participate. The 5-4 ruling, supported by the court's conservative justices and opposed by its liberals, was based in large part on the history of legislative prayer dating back to the Framers of the Constitution."
-Richard Wolf, "Supreme Court Upholds Prayer at Government Meetings," USA Today, May 5, 2014, retrieved Feb 6, 2015, [usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/05/supreme-court-government-prayer-new-york/4481969]

The majority of the Supreme Court justices argued that there will never be a prayer that will please everyone, nor will everyone be pleased with no prayer at all, and that opening prayers have never fallen under the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Atheists are the ones typically running around complaining about this, but they foolish forget to consider that PROHIBITING prayer in courts, schools, and other public areas would be a violation of the First Amendment freedom of speech clause which protects the atheist's religious beliefs as well as everyone else.

Inherit the Wind
The townsfolk marched in parades at night, burning effiges of Cates (Scopes) and Drummond (Darrow), singing songs threatening to kill them. Every atheist and evolutionist who came to Dayton was treated like royalty by the Christians there, with the upmost courtesy, kindness, and hospitality.

Inherit the Wind
Drummond (Darrow) receives contempt of court for defending freedom, and takes a court fine which was paid for by a farmer in charity. Darrow receives contempt of court for insulting the court and the people of Tennessee, and then was forgiven of the fines after he apologized the next day. He wasn't put in jail, nor did he pay a fine.

Darrow, at the end of the trial, stated in the courtroom:
"I want to say a word. I want to say in thorough sincerity that I appreciate the courtesy of the counsel on the other side from the beginning of this case, at least the Tennessee counsel, that I appreciated the hospitality of the citizens here. I shall go away with a feeling of respect and gratitude toward them for their courtesy and their liberality toward us persons; and that I appreciate the kind, and I think I may say, general treatment of this court, who might have sent me to jail, but did not."
-Clarence Darrow, "Final Remakes of Attorneys and Judge Raulston," Transcript of the Scopes Monkey Trial, University of Missouri-Kansas City, retrieved Feb 5, 2015, [law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day8.htm]

Inherit the Wind
Brady (Bryan) goes into a fit of religious desperation and dies of a heart attack on the courtroom floor as soon as the trial ends. The trial ends calmly between poth parties and they depart. Bryan passed away in his sleep five days after the trial.
(See American Bar Association Journal, Oct, 1982, Vol. 68, p. 1258, ISSN 0747-0088)

Inherit the Wind
Brady (Bryan) tries to get the judge to impose a greater penalty on Cates (Scopes). Bryan offered to pay the $100 fine on Scope's behalf if he could not afford to do so.
(See Stephanie Fitzgerald, The Scopes Trial: The Battle Over Teaching Evolution, Capstone, 2006, p. 75, ISBN: 9780756520182)

Inherit the Wind
Brady's (Bryan's) wife coddles him; like a baby. Bryan's wife had a minor mental illness, and Bryan was very protective and caring of her.

Inherit the Wind
Violation of the law was punishable by imprisonment. Violation of the law was punishible by minimum $100 but no more than $500.

In reality, the true reason this movie has been shown in thousands of public schools to use lies and deception to turn students away from the truth of the Word of God, and turn them towards any other new-age philosophy they want to choose, so long as it correlates with the church of Evolutionism.

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
-Matthew 18:6

The world will always hate Christians, and those who actually live and teach the truth of the doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ. The war against Christian doctrine will never end, but at least we still have enough liberty in this country to openly tell the truth.

If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
-John 15:19

If you claim to be a born-again Christians, and the world doesn't seem to hate you, then you need to take a step back and figure out what you're doing wrong. They will lie, saying anything they can to silence the truth of the Word of God.

A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin.
-Proverbs 26:28

Parents and teaches, please feel free to use this material to education students, and I pray the Lord Jesus Christ bless your efforts in teaching the truth.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
-2 Timothy 2:15

CLE Only

Google+ Facebook Tumblr
Twitter Youtube Youtube

Android via Amazon
Google Play