CHURCHMEN WATCH SCOPES CASE,
CONFIDENT DOES NOT IMPERIL BIBLE
By REV. JOHN A. RYAN, D.D.
On March 21 the Governor of Ten
nessee affixed his signature to “An
act prohibiting the teaching of the evo
lution theory in all the high schools,
normals, and other public schools of
Tennessee, which are supported in
whole or in part by the public school
funds of the state, and to provide pen
alties for the violation thereof.”
This is the now famous, or noto
rious Anti-Evolution Law', for the vio
lation of which a few w'eeks later,
John Thomas Scopes was indicted by
a grand jury in Dayton, Tennessee.
Mr. Scopes is now being tried on this
indictment. His trial is attracting
more public attention of a national
character than any other court pro
ceeding since the Leopold-Loeb case i
in Chicago. The interest which has
been aroused, and which will proba
bly increase until the end of the trial
is due more to certain personalities
in the case than to public concern
about the theory of evolution. Wil
liam Jennings Bryan will be associ
ated with the prosecution, while Clar
ence Darrow, the celebrated criminal
lawyer of Chicago will be in charge of
the defense.
*“ Main Legal Issue.
The legal issue involved is that
of the constitutionality of the law
which young Mr. Scopes has appar
ently transgressed. The constitution
al question arises out of the “due pro
cess” clause of the Fourteenth Con
stitutional Amendment. Therefore,
the main issue is extremely technical
and, one would suppose, extremely
•dry. It would naturally be assumed
that neither of the tw'o leaders in the
case is particularly qualified to dis
cuss this dry constitutional question.
The one is a politico-religious evan
gelist; the other is a successful crim
inal lawyer and a philosophical pessi
mist. The explanation of the curious
turn w'hich preparations for the trial
have taken is that both the propo
nents and opponents of the law' real
ize that the constitutional question
itself is largely bound up with other
issues Whether the Anti-Evolution
Law violates that liberty of the citi
zen which is guaranteed by the “due
process” clause of the Constitution
is a question which the courts w ill
answer in the light of their views
about science, religion, the Bible, edu
cation, public schools, and other mat
ters, which lie outside the field of
Technical constitutional theory.
The statute forbids any instructor
in a public institution “to teach any
theory that denies the story of the Di
vine Creation of Man as taught in
the Bible, and to teach instead that
Man has descended from a lower or
der of animal.” In a sense the law is
a reasonable one. That is to say, the
teaching which it forbids ought not
to be permitted in public schools, for
these schools should be, and in theory
are, neutral on the subject of reli
gion. If it is improper for any pub
lic school instructor to teach any par
ticular form of religious belief, it is
also improper for him to teach any
religious belief. To tell his pupils
that the “story of the Divine Creation
of man as taught in the Bible” is not
true, is surely a violation of the neu
trality of public schools. To put be
fore the pupils such teachings under
the claim of academic freedom is to
exceed the bounds of reasonable lib
erty of instruction. Such abuses of
academic freedom constitute one of
the principal reasons why many de
nominations desire their young peo
ple to avoid the secular high schools
and colleges. We are only too well
aware that in the classes of history,
biology, physics, sociology, and phy
losophy, doctrines are taught which
are at variance with many religious
principles. Therefore many churches
maintain their own schools and col
leges.
Reasons for Condemnation.
Nevertheless, the Tennessee Anti
Evolution Statute is deserving of con
demnation. While the anti-religious
teaching at which it was aimed ought
to be kept out of the public schools
the method of preventing it by a state
law is a bad method. Specific legis
lative regulation of the doctrines to
be taught in the schools is easily lia
ble to abuse. The teacher who is ac
cused of violating the Anti-Evolution
I Law may have to face a jury that is
incompetent to determine whether the
theory of evolution has been taught
in such as way as really to contradict
j “the story of the Divine Creation of
Man as taught in the Bible.” There
is involved here a question of Bibri
cal exegesis to which even the ablest
scholars do not return a unanimous
answer. Moreover, legislative inter
ference with the school curriculum
may easily extend into other fields
than those of science and religion.
If the State may prohibit the teach
ing of evolution, why may it not pro
hibit instruction which favors the co
operative principle in industry, or the
ownership of the tools by the work
ers, or certain other industrial theo
ries that seem to many legislators to
be radical and, therefore, dangerous
to the State. Furthermore, if the
State may forbid certain doctrines to
be taught in the public schools, why
may it not presribe the teaching of
certain other doctrines? Laws requir
ing the Bible to be read in the schools
could easily be expanded so as to pro
vide that certain doctrines should be
proposed to the pupils at the true
meaning of certain Biblical passages.
A recent editorial in the New York
World, which is strongly opposing the
Tennessee law, admitted that “some
body must have the final say about
what shall be taught in the public
schools,” but asserted that final au
thority must not be lodged in the leg
islature. “We are convinced,” con
tinued the editorial, “that no self-re
specting educational system is possi
ble in which the standards of truth
are determined by electoral campaigns
and the votes of a majority of legis
lators. Clearly there is something
deeply wrong in a theory of democ
racy which claims that the majority
shall determine not only gross ques
tions of public policy, but the results
of scientific inquiry and the access
of pupils to an understanding of what
| scholars the world over are thinking.”
Some Limits of Independence
Nevertheless, the World confesses
| itself unable to formulate in precise
i terms its own “doctrine of educational
independence.” The writer of the edi
torial has in mind educational inde
i
pendence for the teacher. W ithout
attempting to set forth a complete
theory on the subject, we can draw
certain lines, across which the public
school teacher should not carry his
“educational independence.” He must
not teach as a fact that which is
more or less probable theory. This
rule will prevent him from inculcating
evolution as an established certainty
and therefore from positively denying
the Biblical account of creation. He
should not represent a theory, or opin
ion, or conclusion or doctrine as cer
tainly true when it is merely one of
several which have the support of re
sponsible authority. This rule applies
to history, philosophy, sociology and
all the physical sciences. Even when
he sets forth scientific doctrines which
are held to be true by substantially
all educated persons, but which seem
to conflict with certain instructions
of the Bible or certain other religious
beliefs, he should refrain from calling
attention to the apparent disagree
ment. It is no part of the teacher’s
function to reconcile any of the disci
plines in the public school curricu
lum with the Bible, or with religion.
If a pupil calls attention to the ap
parent conflict and asks an explana
tion, the teacher should refuse to sat
isfy this legitimate curiosity unless he
explains that the question in but a
theory and not a fact. The pupil
should be referred to his own par
ent or minister or priest.
Obviously this theory is difficult to
reduce to practice. As a matter of
fact, it is frequently and flagrantly
disregarded. Nevertheless, the viola
tions of religious neutrality by public
school instructors could be greatly
lessened. This result should be achiev
ed, not by an enactment of the state
legislature, but through the school
administration. The responsible au
thorities and officials of the school
system, or of the particular school,
can lay down and enforce regulations
which will attain the desired end, in
sofar as it is morally capable of at
tainment. Within certain wide lim
its, the problem is one for adminis
trative, instead of the legislative
branch of the government.
Will Deny Crime in Teaching
A word as regards the judicial pro
cesses, impending and remote, which
are to determine the legal guilt or in
nocence of young Mr. Scopes, and
- - - - - __
the validity or invalidity of the law.
The defendant will admit that he
taught the doctrine of evolution in
the Dayton High School, but he will
deny that this action constitutes a
legal crime. His denial will be based
on the ground that the Anti-Evolution
Law is unconstitutional. His attor
neys will show that the law violates
the “due process” clause of the Four
teenth Amendment; that it is the in
junction that no State “shall deprive
any person of life, liberty or property
without due process of law.” They
will contend that the individual lib
erty thus protected includes liberty
of teaching. Since the Anti-Evolution
law destroys this liberty, it violates
the Constitution.
It was this Constitutional guarantee
which, in the unanimous opinion of
the Supreme Court, rendered null and
void the Oregon Anti-Parochial school
law. The Court held that “liberty” in
the “due process” clause of the Four
teenth Amendment included the lib
erty to maintain, to teach in, and to
send children to a private school. If
the Scopes case presented this issue
it would be ended before it could be t
begun. But it involves a material
different question; namely, whether
the Constitutional liberty of teaching
implies the freedom to teach particu
lar doctrines iu the public schools.
Take
THE FUR FARMER
MAGAZINE
and know the fur business. It
deals with every phase of fur
farming. Learn how others made
a success of farming fur bearing
animals.
Address
21 COLMAN DOCK
Seattle, Wash.
Gas Launch
KENA1
FISHING AND HUNTING
PARTIES CARRIED DOWN
LAKE KENAI FOR THE
DAY OR TRIP. TELE
PHONE ARRANGEMENTS
TO MILE TWENTY
Louis Bell, owner
OLD CLOTHES MADE
NEW
By Dry Cleaning: Them,
and for quick service
, this machine
Presses your Clothes in
from 15 to 20 minutes
Sanitary Hoffman Presser Does It
Jordan’s Valet Sendee
PHONE MADISON 103
SEWARD, ALASKA
LOOK UP
Cameron’s Cafe
WHEN YOU ARE IN
ANCHORAGE
Good Coffee, Good Food
Good Service
CHAS. CAMERON
PROPRIETOR
PIONEER CLUB
John Nash, propr.
SOFT DRINKS, CANDY
CIGARS AND FRUITS
Marathon
CAFE
JOSIE EMSWILER, Prop.
THE HOME OF WELL
COOKED FOOD
SEWARD, ALASKA
Ice Cream
MADE DAILY
HIGH GRADE
Candies
FRAMED PICTURES, CURIOS
AND PHOTOGRAPHS
SYLVIA’S
Phone Adams 128
STEAMSHIP STARR
SAILS WEST FROM SEWARD JULY SIXTH
San Juan Fishing and Packing Co.
G. C. HENDERSON. Agent
PHONE MADISON 135. SEWARD, ALA8KA
I
S. S. ADMIRAL EVANS
Sails from Arrives South from
Seattle Seward Seward
June 30 July 7 July 14,9 p.m.
S. S. ADMIRAL WATSON
July 15 July 21 July 28, 9 p. m.
Calling at all regular Southeastern and South
western Alaska ports including Seldovia and
Kodiak.
WAYNE BLUE, Agent
Telephone Main 81 Res.. Madison 40
Pacific Coastwise «Jemoe
% ADMIRAL LINE
IH.F.ALEXANDER. PRESIDENTBEBMBBW
*
>
rum......
111 m 111111111111111 m 1111111111111111111! 11111111111111111 i 11111111111! i, 11 j i,, i, 1111, (n i, 11 11,
ALASKA STEAMSHIP I
COMPANY
Southwestern Alaska Route Schedule
Vessel—
Yukon
Northwestern
Alaska
Yukon
Northwestern
Alacka
Schedule'!
Lv. Seattle
July 11.
July 18.
July 25.
Aug. 1.
Aug. 8
August 15
Scheduled
Ar. Seward.
July 18.
July 25.
Aug. 1.
Aug. 8.
Aug. 15
August 22
Scheduled Sail 5
from Seward
July 19.
July 26.
Aug. 2.
Aug. 9. =
Aug. 16. E
August 23 E
Steamers in the above schedule will make all regular ports of call j=j
in Southeastern and Southwestern Alaska. E
Steamers in above schedule will not leave Seward earlier than FOUR E
O’CLOCK Sunday afternoon, sailing date.
Steamer Redondo, carrying freight and passengers, connects with E
above steamers at Seward, weekly, for Cook Inlet and Kodiak Is- E
land points, subject to change without notice.
J. H. FLICKINGER, Agent I '
PHONE MAIN 125 SEWARD, ALASKA E
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniuiiiinniniinjuiiiiininiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin
See the Interior I
“The Golden Belt” |
To the end that the countless places of scenic and other inter- E
ests in the Territory may be thoroughly enjoyed and understand, and E
to enable them to acquire first hand and accurate information con- —
cerning all Alaskan activities and development; travelers to the 55
Northland are urged to visit
ALASKA’S “GOLDEN HEART"
Interior Alaska and places en route—including Kenai Lake, the E
“Loop District," Spencer and Bartlett Glaciers, Turnagain Arm, An- 2
chorage, the Matanuska Valley, Curry, Nenana River Canyon, Mt. Me- E
Kinley National Park, Nenana, the Tanana Valley ad Fairbanks, hold E
j much of interest to everyone, whether on business or pleasure bent; E
I and a tour through these regions creates a true conception of the E
! good things that Alaska has to offer.
For train and automobile schedules, passenger rates and other in- E
: formation, confer with any steamship agent, or
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
The Alaska Railroad I
Seward
(McKinley Park Route)
Anchorage Curry Nenana Fairbanks S