A Dramatization of Science:
The Play, Inherit
the Wind
by Loretta F. Kasper, Ph.D.
Inherit the Wind is a play based on the
Scopes Monkey Trial. The Scopes Monkey
Trial juxtaposed, or placed,
science, in the form of Darwin's theory of human evolution against religious
beliefs concerning divine creation. By
pitting a scientific principle (Darwin's theory of evolution) against a
religious principle (the belief in divine creation) in a court of law, this
trial brought science and religion into the political and legal fields.
The
Scopes Trial took place in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925. John Scopes, a science teacher, was accused and convicted of violating a Tennessee statute known as the Butler Act,
which prohibited teachers in
any state-supported schools from teaching the theory that man descended from
the apes. Through the Butler Act, the
state used the law to control the dissemination,
or circulation, of ideas which it believed to be subversive. Scopes
was found guilty and fined $100.00 for his offense. Clarence Darrow, the attorney for the defense, knew that his
client was guilty of violating the law, but he wanted to have the law reviewed
and thrown out by the Supreme Court.
Darrow maintained that
the Butler Act violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which
prohibits the mixing of church and state.
Darrow's argument appealed to scientific knowledge, logic, and
progress.
The
attorney for the prosecution was William Jennings Bryan. Bryan maintained a creationist point of
view, arguing that the Bible contained the entire history of man. The argument advanced by William Jennings
Bryan appealed to and reinforced
the dominant, traditional
fundamentalist religious views and emotions.
The
play, Inherit the Wind, represents a
fictionalized account of a historical event.
The two main characters in the film who represent the two antithetical, or opposing,
points of view are Matthew Brady and Henry Drummond. Matthew Brady argues for the Creationist viewpoint and cries out against "the gods of science." Brady's legal argument is based primarily on
the interpretation of biblical/religious dogma,
or belief. Brady argues for the
creationist position by saying that scientists cannot explain the most basic of
God's creations, e.g., the watermelon.
Brady believes that science could not be used to explain creation
(religion). He argues that since God
made everything on earth, he can change everything, even Natural Law. He says that we should only believe in the
things that are in the Bible. Brady
quotes Bishop Usher, an "authority ," as to the time of
creation. According to Bishop Usher the
earth was created in the fall of the year, 4004 B.C. at 9:00 AM. Therefore, Brady's argument is totally based on biblical precepts, or principles, and is not the kind of evidence
that is usually presented in a court of law.
Brady presents his opinion as fact, and because he is considered to be a
respected authority, the citizens of the town are persuaded by his argument.
Henry
Drummond's legal arguments are different.
Drummond represents the Evolutionist viewpoint held by Clarence
Darrow. Drummond argues that our fundamental right to think was
on trial. He states that "truth
has meaning" and that "we're here to serve truth." Drummond argues that the individual human
mind is holy and that an idea is a greater monument than a cathedral. He says that the advance of man's knowledge
is a miracle. He asks Brady if we are
to accept everything on faith, then why did God plague us with the power to think? He counters Brady's argument that we should only believe in the
things that are in the Bible by asking if a tractor or a telephone are sinful because neither is in the
Bible. He calls several scientists as
expert witnesses on Darwin's theory of evolution. When the judge disallows
each of the experts, Drummond calls Brady as an expert witness on the
Bible. The idea is to subvert, or destroy, Brady's
position and argument by revealing its inherent
fallacies, or basic
inconsistencies.
Drummond
uses Brady's own beliefs to deconstruct
Brady's legal reasoning, thereby trying to prove that the theory of evolution
can be blended with the belief in creation. Drummond asks Brady how he knows
that Darwin is irreconcilable
with the Bible. Drummond asks if
everything in the Bible should be taken literally;
for example, it says in the Bible that the Sun stood still and that the Sun
moves around the Earth. According to
Copernicus' theory of Natural Law, if the Sun stood still the Earth would be
destroyed. To this, Brady replies that
God can control even Natural Law because God created Natural Law. Drummond then shows Brady a 10 million year
old fossil remains of a prehistoric marine
creature. Drummond asks Brady if it is
possible that, at the time of creation, a day were longer than 24 hours. Eventually Brady admits that he does not
know how long a day was at the time of creation. After this admission, Brady,
and his legal argument, begin to unravel.
Inherit the Wind presents us with
several antithetical positions: custom versus progress, religion versus
science, old versus new. Legally
speaking, the defendant had broken the law; he had in fact taught Darwin's
theory in his science class. Morally
and ethically however, some questions posed in the play are: What should have a
higher position in the law, our right to think and choose our own beliefs, or
our responsibility to blindly obey a law which limits our right to think for
ourselves? Should our beliefs about
science and religion become political, legal issues, or should they remain
personal issues? Ultimately, can
scientific progress and new theories be reconciled with traditional religious
beliefs?
Drummond
and Brady, the two protagonists
in the play, each make powerful and passionate statements in support of their respective, antithetical
positions. We can analyze the method
and the effectiveness of the legal arguments presented by Brady and
Drummond. These arguments and counterarguments can provide us
with an effective model for how to persuade
and convince, both orally and
in writing.
Vocabulary
Directions:
Use the context of the reading passage to write a definition of the
following words.
1. juxtaposed
2. violating
3. statute
4. prohibited
5.
dissemination
6. subversive
7. maintained
8. reinforced
9. dominant
10. antithetical
11. viewpoint
12. dogma
13. precepts
14. fundamental
15. plague
16. tractor
17. disallows
18. subvert
19. inherent
20. fallacies
21. deconstruct
22. irreconcilable
23. literally
24. marine
25. unravel
26. protagonists
27. respective
28. counterarguments
29. persuade
30. orally
Comprehension Questions
Directions:
Using the information in the reading passage, write an answer to the
following questions.
1. What is the play, Inherit the Wind, based on?
2. What were the most critical issues in the
Scopes Trial?
3. Where was the Scopes Trial held?
4. What was the Butler Act?
5. What defense did Clarence Darrow present?
6. What is meant by the term,
"Creationist?"
7. Why did Matthew Brady believe that science
could not be reconciled with religion?
8. Who was Bishop Usher?
9. How does Henry Drummond define a miracle?
10. How did Henry Drummond counter Brady's
argument that we should only believe in things that are in the Bible?
11. Who becomes Drummond's "star"
witness?
12. How does Drummond deconstruct Brady's legal
arguments? Be specific.
13. Was Henry Drummond trying to prove that his
client was innocent?
13. What are the fundamental issues raised in
the play, Inherit the Wind?
14. Why is Inherit
the Wind a good play for students to read and discuss?
Essay Questions
Directions:
First, write a summary to answer Essay A. After we have discussed your summaries in class, you will write
Essay B for homework.
Essay
A: Both Henry Drummond and Matthew
Brady presented strong arguments to support their position on the issue of
evolution versus creation. Write a
summary of the arguments on each side of the question. Which of these arguments do you find more convincing? Explain why.
Essay
B: Choose an issue about which you have
a strong opinion. Write a persuasive
essay designed to convince the reader that he/she should agree with your views. Be sure to include the opposing viewpoint in
your essay.