Context
At the time of the book’s publishing, there were already various theories proposed in the space of evolution, but these ideas were controversial because they conflicted with popular belief of the time. Notably, transmutatution of species was rejected due to the contradictions made to the biblical creation-by-design story, which states that all species were designed by god, humans were unique and also unrelated to animals. Somewhat representative of the concerns of the skeptics, a letter from Adam Sedgwick, a respected British geologist and priest, was sent to Charles Darwin on the 24th of November 1859, expressing his grievances with the book. He states “I have read your book with more pain than pleasure.” (“Letter no.2548”). Sedgwick accuses Darwin of deserting "the true method of induction" (“Letter no.2548”) and claims many of Darwin’s conclusions are "based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved"(“Letter no.2548”). Sedgwick goes on to state that the "grand principle – natural selection"(“Letter no.2548”) is "but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts"(“Letter no.2548”). Sedgwick criticizes the theory of natural selection from the perspective religion, stating that “development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact. For you do not deny causation. I call (in the abstract) causation the will of God: & I can prove that He acts for the good of His creatures.” (“Letter no.2548”) Sedgwick essentially asserting that God is the one who created humans and that it would be wrong to deny as such. While this dialogue happened within Darwin’s local community of England’s scientific community, it also caused controversy in America.
In a much more firmly Christian and religious America, Tennessee House of Representatives member John Washington Butler introduced the Butler Law prohibiting public school teachers from denying the Biblical account of mankind's origin. Although introduced in 1925, 66 years after the initial publishing of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, the law was designed specifically to stop schools from teaching the theory of evolution, that On the Origin of Species helped to pioneer and push to the forefront, as it was perceived that the theory of evolution was directly turning people away from the bible and challenging the bible’s teachings.
In response to this, the American Civil Liberties Union (Cameron) financed a case to challenge this law, and football coach and substitute teacher John Thomas Scopes volunteered to admit teaching the theory of evolution in school and stand trial. (Grossman) Scopes is pictured on the left. The purpose of the trial quickly grew beyond teacher’s rights into a symbolic struggle between the fundamentalists and modernists, as well as whether or not America believed in modern science and if they were ready to teach it. Fundamentalists were of the position that the word of God as expressed in the bible took precedent over all human knowledge, while the modernists believed that evolution did not contradict the bible. The trial turned "into a face-off between two Americas: an older, rural one where traditional values and biblical literalism held sway; and the big cities, where Progress with a capital P in science and social welfare reigned supreme and social mores were in flux." (Grossman)
The defense aimed to argue that there was no conflict between the teachings of the bible and evolution, sidestepping the decree of the Butler Law to outlaw teachings that goes against the bible’s creation account within schools. Eight experts on evolution were brought to attend the court proceedings to support their position. These experts are pictured on the left.
Darrow challenged many aspects of the bible and its stories, but with the debates continuing on for too long, "on July 21, the Scopes trial came to an abrupt halt. Bryan wanted to cross-examine Darrow, but the state's attorney general objected. "He had enough of a Tennessee law court being turned into a religious camp meeting." In fact, for strategic reasons, Darrow asked the jury members to convict his client, and they obliged him." (Grossman)