The Scopes trial of 1925 was a pivotal case for the teaching of evolution in public schools. At that time the State of Tennessee did not permit the evolution of man from lower primates to be taught in state-funded schools according to the Butler Act. Many other states had similar laws. The ACLU sought to challenge the validity of this law by offering to defend anyone accused of violating it. John Scopes agreed to be prosecuted. From a legal perspective, the trial was about whether Scopes had violated the Butler Act. But the defense attorney Clarence Darrow wanted to use this trial to discredit Christianity in general and creation in particular. He secured the written testimony of eight experts on the science of evolution. None of these were seen by the jury because the judge ruled that they were irrelevant to the legal issue of the trial. We examined three of these expert testimonies in part 1 and found that their arguments have not aged well. We here examine the testimonies of the remaining five experts.
Wilbur Nelson
Wilbur Nelson tried to argue for evolution on the basis of different fossils being found in different geological layers – the geologic column (trial transcript p. 238-241).[1] Of course, a global flood would also produce such an effect. Nelson arbitrarily asserted that the geologic column was the result of evolution over deep time, failing to recognize a global flood model better explains the data. And so his argument is a fallacious example of the confirmation bias (using evidence to support a view when the evidence fits another view as well if not better).
He failed to mention, for example, that some creatures found in the lowest fossil-bearing layers are nearly identical to those found in modern oceans (clams, worms, and so forth). He failed to mention that all the fossils fit neatly into taxonomic categories, which is consistent with creation, not evolution. He also argued that varves prove that the rock layers are millennia in age. But we now know that varves can be produced rapidly, without taking many years.[2]
Nelson argued that the lower layers of the geologic column contain simpler organisms and that organisms become more complex as we go up the column. But this is simply false. There are highly complex creatures in the lowest layers, such as brachiopods, fish, nautiloids, trilobites, and anomalocaris, to name a few. Furthermore, none of these creatures have even the slightest hint of an evolutionary ancestor. They are all found in the Cambrian – the bottom fossil-bearing layer of the geologic column with no transitional fossils leading up to them. That is consistent with creation and a global flood – not evolution. Needless to say, Nelson’s claims have not stood the test of time.
Kirtley Mather
Kirtley Mather’s written testimony was verbose and deserves a more detailed response (trial transcript p. 241-251). He mainly discussed the geologic column – that various types of animals and plants are found in different rock layers. Of course, a global flood would do that. But Mather asserted without evidence that these layers formed over millions of years. He even stated their ages as if these had been proved. Interestingly, none of the dates he assigned to the layers would be accepted by evolutionists today. For example, Mather stated that the Paleozoic era began at least 50 million years ago. Modern evolutionists would put it at 541 million years ago – more than ten times Mather’s claim. Thus, none of Mather’s dogmatic statements about the timescale were right. (Yet, we are expected to accept the modern evolutionists’ assertions as correct.)
Mather mentioned that the lowest fossil-bearing layer of the geologic column contains many fossils of creatures which are extinct today. This is true. However, he failed to mention that many of the fossils correspond to creatures that still live today – in the ocean. Thus, a global flood would account for all the evidence Mather presented. He further asserted that in the Cambrian, “There are no fossils of animals which had a backbone of any sort in any of these rocks.” We now know that this claim is false. Fish (with backbones) have been discovered in Cambrian strata. All the creatures in Cambrian strata do have something in common: they were slower-moving marine organisms – the first that would be buried in the sediment produced by a global flood. And none of them have evidence of evolutionary ancestors – again consistent with the biblical account.
Next, Mather briefly discussed the “evolution” of the horse. But he reviewed only the fact that some varieties of horse (now extinct) had multiple toes. This shows that Mather did not understand the difference between variation within a kind (which is both biblically and scientifically sound) and the evolution of one kind to another (which has never been demonstrated).
Mather then discussed fossil evidence of ape-men. He began with the now-discredited Java man. Mather went to great lengths to explain that the skull had distinctly ape features, yet the femur indicates an upright posture. Well, yes since they are from two different creatures. The skull did indeed belong to an ape, while the femur (found some distance away) belonged to a human. Indeed, all of Mather’s examples of alleged ape-men (Java man, Heidelberg man, and Neanderthal) now stand refuted. But they may have seemed compelling at the time. Regarding Neanderthals, Mather stated, “His brain capacity was just a little less than that of the most primitive of existing savage tribes.” This is false. Neanderthal had an average cranial capacity of 1500 cubic centimeters, whereas modern humans have an average cranial capacity of around 1400 cubic centimeters. Mather also mentioned Cro-Magnons but rightly acknowledged that they were humans. Thus, they do not favor an evolutionary interpretation.
At the close of his testimony, Mather went to great lengths to persuade the reader that his beliefs about evolution are perfectly compatible with Christianity. He wrote, “But none of these facts is really in any way disturbing to the adherent to Christianity. Not one contradicts any teaching of Jesus Christ known to me.” Really? What about Christ’s teaching about the creation of Adam and Eve: “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6)? Mather had previously stated, “For science there is no beginning and no ending;”
Furthermore, evolution contradicts the details of Genesis. Mather’s explanation for this is fascinating. He wrote, “I have no doubt that the man who made that chapter of Genesis had in his mind days of twenty-four hours each, but I reserve for myself the right to make my own interpretation of the meaning of words, as does every Christion, be he literalist, trivialist or modernist.” In other words, he acknowledged that Moses did mean 24-hour days of creation, but Mather believed he had the right to interpret the text differently from the author’s intention! This is self-refuting. I could equally well interpret Mather’s claims contrary to his own intention and say, “I interpret Mather’s testimony to mean that he actually rejected evolution and believed in biblical creation!” But of course, that would be absurd. If you are not going to interpret a book according to the author’s intention, then there is no point in bothering to read it. And so we see elements of absurd deconstructionist thinking in Mather’s testimony.
Maynard Metcalf
Maynard Metcalf’s testimony consisted mainly of two fallacies: the question-begging epithet and equivocation (trial transcript p. 251-254). The question-begging epithet is the use of biased language to persuade in place of a rational argument. Indeed, Metcalf’s entire opening is saturated with emotional rhetoric completely devoid of rational argumentation. For example, he writes, “Intelligent teaching of biology or intelligent approach to any biological science is impossible if the established fact of evolution is omitted . . . Teaching in any field that deals with living things is disgracefully, yes, criminally, inadequate if it omits emphasis upon evolution.” But such rhetoric has no logical value because no evidence was presented.
Furthermore, Metcalf repeatedly equivocated on the term “evolution” as if showing any type of change somehow supports the specific changes Darwin claimed. And so he used variations within kinds (as any creationist would accept) as a “proof” of evolution – perhaps unaware that these are completely different issues. Metcalf was the only defense expert who briefly took the witness stand (the jury was not present) to present his view. There he said, “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” (trial transcript p. 139-140). Notice that he equivocated between embryology and the supposed Darwinian evolution of organisms. He seems to have believed in the now-discredited idea of embryonic recapitulation.
Like Mather, Metcalf tried to persuade his readers that Darwinian evolution is compatible with Scripture. He conflated the opinions of scientists with natural revelation and thereby committed the two-book fallacy. Note that Darrow (like Darwin) rejected the biblical God. Darrow’s goal was to discredit Christianity. To Darrow, Metcalf was simply a “useful idiot” who believed in evolution while “foolishly” embracing the very religion evolution was meant to replace.
Metcalf then provided four lines of evidence that he thought demonstrated Darwinian evolution. These were (1) comparative anatomy, (2) embryology, (3) paleontology, and (4) geographic distribution. Let’s briefly review each of these.
Like Hudd’s argument for comparative anatomy, Metcalf’s argument fails because biblical creation also accounts for similarities and differences in organisms. In fact, biblical creation alone explains why many other things can be classified in a nested hierarchy (like subatomic particles) when everyone agrees that such things did not gradually evolve from a common ancestor. Thus, Metcalf committed the error of confirmation bias – using evidence in favor of his position when the evidence equally well fits the opposite position.
Metcalf’s argument from embryology is now considered discredited even by knowledgeable evolutionists. The concept was based on fraudulent sketches by Ernst Haeckel who claimed that as organisms develop from a zygote, they all look similar and go through stages of Darwinian evolution – fish to amphibian, and so on. The development of organisms from an embryo does not recapitulate their supposed evolutionary descent.
As discussed above, paleontology certainly does not support an evolutionary scenario, but is consistent with creation and a global flood. To assume evolution as the only explanation for the geologic column is to exclude a priori a global flood and to ignore the fact that all fossils are readily classified into discrete taxa – not evolutionary transitional forms. Thus, Metcalf had begged the question.
As to geographic distribution, Metcalf again begged the question by assuming that only evolution could account for the geographic distribution of living and extinct organisms. However, creationists have shown that biblical creation, along with an ice age caused by a global flood, explain such a distribution far better than any evolutionary scenario.
I must also point out that Metcalf briefly mentioned vestigial organs as evidence of evolution. He specifically referred to the appendix and the coccyx (the human tailbone) as “structures of no conceivable present use, but showing resemblance to organs in other animals which are useful.” We now know that this is false; the appendix is part of the immune system, and the coccyx is a very important point of muscle attachment. People who have broken their tailbone know first hand how important it is! Clearly, none of Metcalf’s claims have stood the test of time.
Winterton Curtis
Winterton Curtis began his testimony with an equivocation fallacy (trial transcript p. 254-263). He defined “evolution” as “the doctrine of how things have changed in the past and how they are changing in the present.” However, the topic of discussion is not “change” in such a generic sense but whether the particular “kinds of changes” suggested by Darwin have, in fact, occurred. Such a definition of evolution muddies the waters, as perhaps it was intended to do.
Winterton then began regurgitating the secular stories of cosmic evolution and committed the question-begging epithet by merely insulting those who disagree. He wrote, “There is no longer talk among intelligent or educated men-or there should not be–of ‘heaven, earth, center and circumference, created all together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water, on October 23, in the year 4004 B. C., at 9 o’clock in the morning,’ as was determined by the chronology of Dr. John Llghtfoot in the seventeenth century.” While none of us would dogmatically hold to Lightfoot’s best estimate of the exact date, there are many intelligent scientists today who do believe that God created heaven and earth roughly 6000 years ago – as the Bible teaches. Winterton’s insult may have emotional, rhetorical force, but it has no logical value.
Next, Winterton began pontificating on the topic of geological evolution, espousing that “it has been the cardinal principle of geological science that past changes of the earth’s surface are explicable in terms of changes now in operation.” That is the secular philosophy known as uniformitarianism. It is the principle that we must interpret past geological events under the assumption that they were produced by the same slow-and-gradual operations present today. It therefore excludes a priori any kind of catastrophe like the global flood. And it is exactly the philosophy that the Bible warms would come about from the scoffers (2 Peter 3:3-6). Note that Winterton made no rational argument for why we ought to accept such an anti-biblical philosophy; he merely asserted it. He asserted that the Grand Canyon formed in such a way. However, that explanation is not consistent with geological features, such as incised meanders which imply that the rate of water flow was far greater in the past.
It is very interesting that Winterton began his argumentation with the opinions of secular scientists outside his field of expertise (zoology). Could it be that he was pressured to interpret data in his own field through the lens of secular evolutionism because he had the impression that other branches of science require an evolutionary worldview?
In defense of biological, Darwinian evolution, Winterton cited comparative anatomy (which is consistent with creation and hence begs the question), comparative embryology (now thoroughly discredited), and classification. But the classification of organisms requires discrete taxa, which would not be possible if organisms were constantly evolving between kinds. Thus, why he felt that classification requires an evolutionary view is unclear.
Winterton’s argument from embryology is particularly laughable in light of modern knowledge; he cited the evidence of so-called “gill slits” in the human embryo as evidence of our supposed fish ancestry. We now know that such a resemblance is purely superficial; they are neither gills nor slits, but rather folds in the tissue known as pharyngeal arches. They have nothing to do with gills or breathing but rather develop into the outer and middle ear, along with the bones, muscles, nerves, and glands of the neck. Clearly Winterton’s evidence has not stood the test of time.
Horatio Newman
Like so many others, Horatio Newman began his testimony by equivocating on the term “evolution” (trial transcript p. 263-280). He wrote, “Evolution is merely the philosophy of change as opposed to the philosophy of fixity and unchangeability.” Who could disagree with that type of “evolution?” Yes, things change, but one type of change does not prove another. Evolutionists sometimes use this same dishonest tactic today, but it apparently was in use a century ago.
Newman offered seven lines of evidence he believed supported evolution: comparative anatomy, taxonomy, serology (blood tests), embryology (now discredited), paleontology, geographic distribution, and genetics. All but two of these we have covered before and have shown that they do not support evolution in the least.
Of the remaining two categories, Newman only spent one paragraph on genetics and made no argument as to how it allegedly supports evolution. Today we know that evolution would require brand new genetic information to be added to the genome, a process that has never been observed. Modern genetics is certainly no friend to the evolutionist.
Serology is likely comparative anatomy, except it compares antigens in the blood. It therefore suffers the same problem as comparative anatomy: it is only useful in corroborating a lineage if we already know that the organisms being compared are related – part of the same created kind. It fails for the same reason as comparative anatomy – namely, it begs the question to assume evolution as the cause of similarity in order to prove evolution. The creation paradigm explains the evidence equally well, if not better.
Curiously, Newman did seem to understand that special creation can account for comparative anatomy, but he then argued against this saying, “No other attempt to explain homologies such as those briefly outlined above has been made except that of special creation, and this implies a slavish adherence to a preconceived ideal plan together with capricious departures from the plan in various instances.” In other words, Newman cannot understand why God would create with systematic similarities and differences; therefore, God didn’t do that. But that is an argument based on ignorance, not knowledge. Furthermore, God has constructed many other patterns in nature with similarities and differences for which no one applies an evolutionary explanation. For example, elementary particles have similarities and differences and can be organized into a taxonomic tree, yet no one argues that such patterns are because these particles gradually evolved from a common ancestor.
Embarrassing in hindsight, Newman listed a number of alleged vestigial organs in man, asserting that they are “practically functionless” today but are supposedly leftover from our evolutionary past. He included the appendix (now known to be part of the immune system), the tailbone and its muscles (now known to be necessary for sitting comfortably or climbing stairs), erector muscles in hair (now known to heat the body when cold), and “gill slits” in embryos (now known to be neither gills nor slits but folds that develop into portions of the ear and muscles and nerves of the neck), to name a few. He further cited Wiedersheim’s list of 180 alleged vestigial organs, nearly all of which are now known to have important (and sometimes vital) functions. Newman’s claims here have been thoroughly refuted by modern science. Just because an evolutionist doesn’t know the function of a structure does not make it useless. Furthermore, a genuine vestigial organ would imply degradation – devolution not evolution. So this has never been a good argument.
Sometimes evolutionists will make grand claims that are simply demonstrably false. For example, Newman wrote, “Without evolution as a guiding principle, comparative anatomy would be a hopeless mass of meaningless and disconnected facts.” And yet the inventor of our modern taxonomy system was the creationist Carl Linnaeus. Linnaeus understood comparative anatomy as the basis for grouping organisms. In fact, it is because evolution is false that taxonomy is possible. If all organisms were constantly in a state of evolution – transitions between categories – then it would be impossible to categorize them. Taxonomy requires the concept of discrete kinds. And this is what we find today and is also indicated in the fossil record. Newman also claimed that ape-men fossils were evidence of evolution, including the now-discredited Java man.
Newman also discussed at length the so-called “biogenetic law; that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” He spent considerable space on this topic, including a discussion of the supposed human embryonic “gill slits.” Of course, we know now that this is completely false. It was based on the fraudulent sketches and claims of Ernst Haeckel, and no modern, knowledgeable evolutionist would use it. Still, Newman’s erudite argument may have seemed compelling to those who saw it – at that time.
Conclusions
There are certain common themes we find among most or all of the expert testimonies that were written for the Scopes trial. First, there was a tendency to equivocate on the meaning of the word “evolution.” Many advocates thought that by showing any type of change (e.g., adaptation within the horse kind or development of human technology), this somehow proved Darwinian evolution. But one type of change does not prove another. This fallacious reasoning persists even today.
Second, many of the advocates of evolution touted embryonic recapitulation as a powerful proof of evolution. But that has now been thoroughly discredited, and no honest evolutionist would use it. It simply isn’t true. It never was.
Third, many of the advocates of evolution thought that ape-man fossils were powerful evidence of evolution. These alleged ape-men included Java man, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon, Homo heidelbergensis, and Piltdown man. All of these are now universally rejected as ape-men. But they might have seemed compelling at the time. Yet on the basis of such false claims, in concert with the compromised concessions made by William Jennings Bryan, many consider the Scopes trial to be a victory for evolution. Today, evolution is the only perspective allowed to be taught in nearly all government schools despite the fact that most of the major evidence used in the Scopes trial is now discredited.
It might have been difficult for a creationist at the time to stand strong on God’s Word in light of all the evidence presented for evolution – evidence that now stands refuted. The arguments for evolution used at the Scopes trial have not aged well. What modern arguments for evolution will likewise be refuted in the next 100 years?
[1] The complete transcript of the Scopes Trial is available here:
https://profjoecain.net/scopes-monkey-trial-1925-complete-trial-transcripts/
[2] https://answersresearchjournal.org/varves-trees-radiocarbon-old-earth/