Throughout the trial, both Bryan and Darrow made very good points for each of their arguments. Though Darrow sometimes asked questions that could be considered pointless and relating to nothing important, Bryan demonstrated quite clearly not only what he knew, but the level of comfort and confidence in the knowledge he had about Christianity. Seeing the tension between the two parties is not hard at all. Darrow asked some irrelevant questions as seen on the first page: “Do you think about things you do think about?” Darrow also made comments that were somewhat inappropriate such as “You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion.” Throughout the questioning, Bryan remains calm and does his best to answer every question given to him. I think that Bryan did a good job of defending himself and his religious beliefs. I also think that Darrow did a good job questioning Bryan and getting answers. Bryan sometimes would not know the answer to a question posed by Darrow but always did his best to answer. If Bryan didn’t know, he would simply say so, having then to reply again to Darrow’s further questioning and digging for an answer. With this I conclude that both parties did well to support their own position and cause.
I agree with the fact that a lot of the questions Darrow asked seems irrelevant. However, I believe that they were used to prove a point. The question that you use is a perfect example: "Do you think about the things you do think about?" This question is asked to try and throw him off and make Bryan seem like an unreliable authority, therefore making his case less convincing. It is interesting to see a somewhat moral debate turn into a debate of which belief is more accurate. The opposing parties attempt to make the other look bad by exposing contradicting evidence. The debate shows this pattern starting with Darrow's question: "You believe the story of the flood to be a literal interpretation?" I couldn't have described better how Bryan and Darrow handled themselves during trial. Darrow was asking very insightful questions to get to specifics that I assume Darrow knew that Bryan wouldn't know. However, Bryan maintains his ground in a logical, calm, and confident way. Although it was disappointing to see an ethical debate turn into a series of interpreted facts, it was inevitable considering the motives of both parties.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alex about Darrow using these illogical questions to prove a point. For example, when Darrow asked Bryan "What do you think?", he was referring to Bryan having not thought of calculating how long ago the flood occurred. He was hammering the point that Bryan was basically taking the "facts" from the Bible and taking it literally, which Bryan did admit to about the story of the flood. Darrow and Bryan made very good points on their end. Although I thought that Darrow was little bit more hot headed than the calm and collected Bryan. It seemed like at some points Darrow was getting very impatient or not satisfied with Bryan's answer that he would in some sense go into a huff about his answer. I do agree with Alex about seeing an "ethical debate turn into a series of interpreted facts".
ReplyDeleteTheron has presented a summary of the reading in a clear, concise and balanced way, giving due respect to each side of this highly controversial and contemporary debate. When discussing the reading, it is important remember that not only was the proceeding itself highly inflammatory, but the court proceedings themselves were very unorthodox. Evolution and Christianity were not on trial here. A teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, John T. Scopes, had violated the State of Tennessee’s Butler Act by teaching evolution. What is not revealed in the introduction is that the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) offered to defend anyone accused of teaching evolution in defiance of the Butler Act. A group of Dayton businessmen approached Scopes with the proposition that he “break the law” by teaching evolution to bring the notoriety of a trial to Dayton, thereby gaining national publicity. So while the issue of law was being decided, a greater drama was being played out and the court even allowed the defense attorney, Darrow, and the prosecutor, Bryan (former Secretary of State under Wilson) to cross-examine each other. The conflict between William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow was personal, and the comments that Theron highlights illustrate this point. This trial was a metaphor for two conflicting American interests: urban and rural. This sectional tension has been with America since colonial days. Northern, urban settlers with industrial development more often than not were at odds with the agrarian South regarding customs and institutions. Fundamentalist Christianity was not a new development, either, but rather a deep-rooted part of American culture. Although divergent groups swam in the same Progressive pool, a faction of progressives who believed in efficiency, scientific progress and expert management believed their view was superior to the more orthodox Christian approach to social ills. The theory of evolution wasn’t news either. Charles Darwin published On Origin of the Species, in 1859. What was new was the ability of the media in 1925 to disseminate daily accounts of the trial across the nation. The radio brought the trial into family living rooms where the discussion of creationism v. evolution in public schools would continue to this date. Darrow instigated the “cross-examination” by calling Bryan as “an expert witness.” Bryan never made any claim to be a biblical scholar. This was a courtroom trick of Darrow’s to use his cross-examination techniques to trip up a witness to refute their testimony. Bryan was thoughtful and courteous in response to questions like “do you think about the things you do think about?” Darrow and the ACLU weren’t interested in the legal issues of the trial (as noted above). They wanted to discredit Southern Fundamentalist Christianity and their literal interpretation of the Bible in favor of their belief in evolution.
ReplyDelete