Clarence Darrrow Legal Argumentative Analysis

As a result, on July 1st 1925, one of the best lawyers in the country sat down in Criminal Court of Tennessee. On one hand, William Jennings Bryan, three-time presidential candidate, argued for the prosecution. The narrow legal argument offered by the prosecution was that Scopes’ guilt was a matter of incontestable fact and logic: The state had outlawed the teaching of evolution, Scopes admitted publicly that he had taught evolution, therefore Scopes was guilty. Also, after the World War I., Bryan proposed that the Darwinism (he, actually, meant Social Darwinism) was behind excessive militarism and imperialism, which were one of the sins of Bryan’s political theology. Lastly, Bryan did not possess any sympathy for the evolution as he stated:
Darrow and his associates had to come up with a crook, that would allow them to put them in a better situation in this case, since they could not deny that Scopes never taught evolution. Hence, Darrow suggested that Scopes had taught evolution, however, he had not taught it in the contradiction with a Bible. This argument let them pursue that “the introduction of both scientific and biblical testimony about the relationship between evolution and creation was necessary for determining the guilt or innocence of Scopes.” (67) As a result, the trial gained much larger sociopolitical importance. After that, Darrow was given the opportunity to cross examine Bryan, which he used precisely by employing the discourse of science. Darrow asked questions and demanded consistency, especially about the laws of nature, which gave him the opportunity to reveal the insufficiency of the discourse of faith to answer some kinds of questions. Darrow proved that the Bible does not grant answer to every question, therefore the law consisted of a legislature that is invalid and lie. This resulted in psychological breakdown of William Jennings Bryan and eventually, he died 5 days after the
Eventhough, science provided to our society enormous knowledge about the universe and the possibilities how to use matter and energy, which lead to the mass production of superhuman technology, science has not been always appreciated by the humans. Religious communities abused the scientific individuals and theories throughout the European modern history. Ideas, that are known to be fact nowadays, like heliocentrism, dissemination of the diseases by germs, or the shape of the Earth were rejected by the society, because of the massive power of the Church. Hence, the religious impact on the educational system in the 20th century, after the breakthroughs of Newton or Einstein, portrays the humanity as a stubborn, ignorant, and intolerant civilization. The fact, that there is a countless number of churches in the United States, but the budget for NASA decreases almost every year, proves that our society is not ready to get on a higher and more intelligent level. Therefore, I suggest that our society finally acknowledges the most famous quote from Nietzsche: “God is