Customer Reviews

Monkey Business: True Story of the Scopes Trial

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Many years ago as a young undergraduate in college, I read a collection of H.L. Mencken's articles. Included as a matter of course were his dispatches the 1925 Scopes trial in Tennessee. Like many readers before and since, I revelled in Mencken's portrait of the intellectual giant Clarence Darrow, and chuckled appropriately at his elitist view of Dayton residents as ignorant backcountry yokels and hicks. I also, like many readers before and since, I mistook his reporting for historical fact. It was not. Mencken, the great debunker, had his own agenda and was rather careless in his reporting of the substance of the trial. Unfortunately, his views have subsequently become the dominant interpretation among historians and journalists alike. 'Monkey Business: The True Story of the Scopes Trial' re-examines the Scopes trial and the events which led up to it. It also provides a broad discussion of the issues at stake then and now.

The bulk of the book is devoted to refuting a number of myths that continue to flourish about the trial. Scopes was not a science teacher and in all likelyhood had never taught evolution in the classroom. Indeed, the whole trial resulted from an effort on the part of some citizens in Dayton to bring national publicity to their town in the hopes of revitalizing the local economy. The ACLU, which "defended" Scopes, was in fact simply looking for a test case on the question of teaching evolution, largely because the organization had lost its main rationale for existence (defending opponents of the draft in World War I) and needed publicity to continue. The "trial" for its part, was largely conducted out of sight from the jury, and the townspeople of Dayton were quite hospitable towards both Bryan and Darrow. In the end, Scopes was found guilty, fined $100, and his case was overturned on a technicality, much to the frustration of the defense, which had hoped to have the question heard before the Supreme Court. Alternately amusing and lively, the historical recreation of the trial is the heart of this book and alone makes it worth the purchase price.

The authors, however, are no more free of bias than Mencken was. They hope their reappraisal of the trial will also rescue Christians, especially Creationists, from the charges that they were (and are) ignorant fearful haters of the truth. Toward this end, they note that the triumph of Darwinism as scientific orthodoxy following Sputnik and the release of the film "Inherit the Wind" led philosophers such as Julian Huxley and Richard Dawkins to proclaim an end to religion and the triumph of materialism. Such ideas have consequences and the authors blame the fall of moral standards and the rise of ideas like pornography as a form of free speech upon such views. They also favorably review the work of Intelligent Design theorists like William Dembski and Michael Behe. Some readers will be disappointed with this partisanship, or at least claim that it goes to far. Intelligent Design, whatever its merits, was not at issue in 1925. But other issues were, and it is here the book makes its strongest points.

Scientists often like to portray themselves as objective observers of data unlike their academic colleages in "soft" disciplines like history. Their commitment to the scientific method, they believe, somehow insulates them from the passions and biases of other areas of study, particularly fields such as philosophy and theology. And they are simply wrong. As the authors demonstrate, Darwin and his followers did not propose evolution in opposition to religion. Instead, they argued for it as a result of particular religious understanding. Christians in Victorian England believed God would not have created imperfection. Rather than simply suggest they did not fully understand God's purpose, as previous generations had, they sought to divorce creation from God. Darwinism was successful precisely because it appeared at a time when this religious view was prevalent. Indeed, Darwin's work was guided by this view of God. Even today, as the authors note, many biologists such as Stephen Gould argue that a "sensible" God would not produce or create the arrangements found among various living organisms. It's not clear what criteria Gould has for a sensible God, but whatever they are, such criteria are clearly theological and not scientific.

In the final analysis then, the real benefit to this book is to point out that science is not free from religious values and opinions. No matter how well established Darwinian Evolution may be in the scientific community, its representatives are being dishonest when they claim that it is scientific and therefore in opposition to Intelligent Design which they mistakenly (or perhaps deliberately) equate with religious fundamentalism. Both are grounded in theology and no amount of name calling or lawsuits will change that. The days when Mencken could summarily dismiss all those who disagreed with him are over.

I've read the trial transcript. This book is for people who cannot be bothered to do so. The obvious bias colors the entire book and leads the reader astray.

The first problem with this book is that it isn't quite what it seems to be.
The second problem is that the authors start out making a valid point - but end up shooting themselves in the collective foot.

The book isn't what it seems to be because it has a very strong subtext, which actually becomes the main text for more than 80 of the 326 pages (plus notes, bibliography and index).

Olasky and Perry start out with a reasonably interesting, readable but hardly inspiring account of the events surrounding the Scopes "monkey" trial of 1925. It covers the facts fairly competently, but adds very little of any consequence to the material which makes up the far more interesting and comprehensive account of the trial to be found in "Summer for the Gods" by Edward Larson.

But then, having presented this as a piece of genuine scholarship, the authors mutilate their collective foot by sliding off into the subtext: The Scopes Trial has been grieviously misrepresented in the plays and film versions of "Inherit the Wind"; and on page 181 we come to what seems to be the primary motivation for writing the book - a critique of evolutionism as a religion and the comparative value of the concept of intelligent design.

Hold it!
Where did that come from in an account of the events of 1925?

The front cover of the book says this is "The true story of the Scopes Trial". There's nothing about this being a defence of intelligent design except for the rather ambiguous final sentence of the back cover blurb:

"[the authors] show that advocates of creationism and intelligent design have nothing to be ashamed of."

How about the fact that this book is a real "pig in a poke"? In my personal opinion someone ought to feel some regret about that for a start.

My recommendation to anyone interested in the Scopes Trial would be to give this book a miss. There's plenty of information on the web about the myths surrounding the Scopes Trial. And as far as books are concerned, in my opinion you'd be a whole lot better off with Larson's "Summer for the Gods" where you'll get what you've paid for.

This is a story that needed to be told from a new perspective, but, unfortunately, the execution of this idea could have been far better.

The story is important for two reasons. First, William Jennings Bryan was a truly great American, yet H.L. Mencken and "Inherit the Wind" make him look like a Bible-quoting buffoon. If you are not familiar with Bryan, ten minutes of research will reveal to you a very compassionate Christian, not the distorted cartoon drawn by Mencken and accepted by our popular culture.

Second, The Theory of Evolution has many flaws, yet the attitude of many adherents to this theory reminds one of some sort of blind secular faith. They seem to have an unwillingness to debate or discuss weaknesses in the theory. For them, the verdict is in and the time for debate is over. They feel that skeptics of their orthodoxy are either stupid or blinded by their own narrow religious beliefs. This unwillingness to address critics is unhealthy for science. "Monkey Business", especially in the chapters dealing with intelligent design, provides a much-needed challenge to evolution.

Unfortunately, the execution of the book suffers in three respects. First, the chapter design gets in the way of the narrative. Here is an outline of the chapters:
1. Context
2.-7. Trial narrative, including pre-trial.
8.-9. Context on evolution.
10.-13. Trial narrative continues.
14.-15. Context on battles over evolution up to and including 1950s.
16. Context on atheism and evolution.
17. Trial narrative, cross-examination of Bryan.
18. Context on journalists backing evolution.
19. Trial narrative, the last week and Bryan's death.
20. Post-trial narrative, consequences.
21. Contemporary opposition to evoluton.
22. Intelligent design.
23. Intelligent design vs. evolution in four states (contemporary).
24. Intelligent design advantages.
25.-26. Concluding chapters with "takeaways" for readers.

The organization of chapters is really messy and makes it hard for the reader to keep the story in the forefront. In general, it is a good idea to take readers away from the story for awhile to acquire some interesting context, but I felt really "jerked" away from the story and then back to it in this book. Chapters 14 through 16 should have been moved further back in the book, as this is too long of a break from the narrative and it deals with events that occurred much after the main story. Chapter 17 and 19 and 20 are surrounded by context chapters.

Dividing this book into four parts might have helped: Part I - The Story of the Trial - every chapter through 20 with the exception of 14-16; Part II - The Early Fight Against Evolution and Atheism - Chapter 14-16; Part III - The Contemporary Fight Against Evolution (including intelligent design) - Chapter 21-24; Part IV - Lessons for Readers (Takeaways). Since this is the history of the Scopes Trial and later battles against the theory of evolution, why not use time as your organizing principal?

Second, the writing style could be more lively. I'll leave this up to others to judge, but I felt the style could have been more appealing.

Lastly, Over 80 pages of Appendices seemed to be "filler", that I did not want to pay for when I purchased the book. Appendix C and D are related to the trial, but Appendix A and B are a transcript from a radio program and reprints from "World" magazine. Their inclusion seemed excessive.

This is an important book on an important event (Scopes Trial) and a vital issue (the question of human origins). I wish the execution had been better, but anyone interested in these two topics would still make a good investment of their time by reading "Monkey Business".

Marvin Olasky has written a detailed and fascinating account of the Scopes Trial which delves into the background of the major figures involved and sheds light on their viewpoints of the Creation/Evolution Controversy. The jury ruled in favor of creationism, a quite defendable position, but popular opinion since the trial has been dominated by what secular liberals in the media reported. The problem is that their reporting was a great misrepresentation of the facts.

The 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial has come to define the evolution vs. creationism debate like no other event in American history. It was supposedly going to "settle" the question once and for all. It was also intended as an intellectual battle royal between Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, two of the greatest minds of the early 20th century. According to this book, the reality was a lot less interesting.

The American Civil Liberties Union was a new liberal organization in New York, looking for publicity. The Butler Act was a Tennessee state law which mandated the teaching of creationism alongside evolution (which had been taught in Tennessee for the previous 15 years). The ACLU put ads in local newspapers, looking for a teacher to be arrested to test the law. John Thomas Scopes, a teacher and athletic coach in Dayton, Tennessee (a former steel town that had fallen on hard times) was persuaded to be that person. The trial quickly became the talk of America.

Spectators descended on Dayton by the hundreds (the city fathers hoped for thousands). The trial was marked by a lot of procedural wrangling by both sides, with the jury absent, on such questions as whether or not each day's session should open with a prayer. The jury only heard about 3 hours of actual testimony. There were moments of great eloquence during the trial, but there was little of the hoped-for Bryan vs. Darrow.

The authors don't end with Scopes being found guilty of teaching evolution, which both sides had planned on, but looks at more recent things like intelligent design. Those who believe in ID are portrayed as flexible and willing to listen to skeptics, while those who believe in evolution are shown as dogmatic and totally unwilling to listen to anyone who doesn't believe as they do.

If the authors had ended this book at the end of the trial, I would give it two thumbs up; I can understand showing the current state of the evolution debate. Whatever your feelings on the matter, this is still recommended.

The author essentially used the Scopes trial as a cover, because standing by itself nobody would buy or show interest in this poorly written, poorly thought out piece.

The only thing this book is REALLY about is selling "intelligent design" theory, which is as much a "scientific theory" as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.

Can science be value-laden? Sure. (The quest for discovery of antibiotics is value laden, the value being that humans are more valuable than bacteria. Does that invalidate antibiotics?) Does science provide mechanisms to test and re-assess those values? Sure.

Does intelligent creation provide such tests? No. Hence, it is not a science.

End of story. And see? It was so much less painful than reading the circular reasoning of this dishonestly packaged work.

A false dichotomy has been built in the non-scientific Creationist camp, and with it is implicit the assumption that if Evolution - though a Fact of Science - could, nonetheless, be disproved, then (by default) this proves the existence of an almighty, omniscient, benevolent Creator.
"But wait...!!" They shout, "Who are you to say that the THEORY of Evolution is a fact of science?" This question stems from an unfortunate, common misunderstanding of the word "theory". "Theory" merely refers to a framework by which processes can be explained. Thus, we have the uncontested Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Plate Tectonics. Now - we all know gravity exists, and we should all be aware, at this stage, that Evolution does too. Creationists (now re-marketing themselves as the more scientific Intelligent Design advocates) are growing exasperated by the Scientific Community's growing refusal to let their misinformation stand unchallenged. Creationist pseudo-science has been soundly beaten and the answers to all supposed "Questions Darwinist's Would Rather Avoid" are available to anybody honestly seeking the truth rather than a convenient belief that will compliment their religious convictions.

Perhaps it is for this reason that Marvin Olasky reaches into the past and attempts to breath honour and nobility into the ignorance that brought us the Scope's Trial. Here he presents the Prosecution as both the majority view and the underdog, victimized by a Liberal Media. No amount of spin though, can put a positive light on the absurdly simple William Jennings Bryan ("associated prosecuting council") who, under cross-examination from Clarence Darrow, made the mystifying claim that "If God had wanted a sponge to think, a sponge could think." He also asserted that humans are not mammals. Bryan further displayed his utter stupidity by expressing his belief that the world couldn't possibly be older than five thousand years. This Literalist Biblical interpretation puts Scope's Trial creationists not only at odds with Biology, but with History, Geology, Common Sense and Decency as well. How could the media, liberal or otherwise, do anything other than laugh at this flagrant buffoonery?

The title of the book, Monkey Business is, itself, a rather annoying reminder of red-faced rants I've heard in which an indignant Creationist will express his disgust in the idea that Man was born of Monkey. It's worth mentioning that this isn't, nor has it ever been, the claim of Darwinism. Darwin never asserted that Man was spawned from Monkey, but rather that both species evolved from a common ancestry. The fossil record now clearly indicates that this is correct. Creationists like to claim that there are inexplicable breaks in the fossil record. They are behind the times. The gaps have since been filled, proving Evolution (again).

What makes Evolution worth fighting for? Simply: Our understanding of Evolution determines our future progress. Viruses grown immune to antibiotic treatment can not be understood outside of an evolutionary context. Genetic diseases must be understood in an evolutionary context. As acclaimed geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in the light of Evolution." We all stand to lose if Evolution is marginalized in American schools.
There are those who like to try and turn the tables with the claim that Science itself is the dogmatic religion and that the Intelligent Design advocates are merely trying to promote "open-mindedness". This implies a mis-understanding of what Science actually is. Science isn't an arbitrarily chosen belief system, like a religion, based on bias, superstition, fear and ignorance. Science is a system by which we test, observe and conclude based only on reproducible experiments that are then subject to rigorous peer-review and validation. If a piece of the puzzle doesn't fit, Science will not distort it to make it fit or omit its presence to pretend it doesn't exist. Individuals who do this will be found out - by Science.

The Blurb for this book makes the astonishing assertion that modern creationists have nothing to be ashamed of.
Let us think on this. If it is not the believers of creationism that should bear their shame who, then, should? Perhaps it is the propagators of pseudo-science - who have led people to believe that there is some type of debate in the Scientific Community when there is not - that should be ashamed. And as for this book, Olasky should be ashamed. Ashamed of his poor hack-work, ashamed of his plain ignorance, and ashamed of his own un-evolved mind that has left him far behind; somewhere in the Dark Ages.