1. What is the author arguing?
William Jennings Bryan, being a three time Democratic nominee for president and symbol of rural America, agreed to testify at John T. Scope`s trial under examination by the counsel for the defense, Clarence Darrow. Darrow calls Bryan to the stand as an authority of the bible and puts him under relentless questioning without jury involved. Rather than focusing on the validity of the law under which Scopes was being charged, Darrow made it seem that Bryan, Fundamentalism, and the Bible were on trial. Darrow, being an agnostic and supporter of the theory of evolution, and Bryan, having studied the Bible for more than fifty years, engaged in an argument in court regarding the validity of the Bible. Bryan argues that everything in the bible should be accepted as it is written, and that some of the Bible is written illustratively. Darrow then questions Bryan`s beliefs upon the estimated date of the Great Flood in the time of Noah, being around 4000 years ago, or 2348 BC, but Bryan argues that he has not calculated it, and states that “I do not think about things I don’t think about”. Yet still, Darrow continues to cross examine Bryan, and starts to argue that Bryan is insulting every man of science and learning in the world since “he does not believe in your fool religion”. Darrow continues to use the flood as a foundation to dispute the bible and the origination of man and all living things. Darrow keeps questioning Bryan`s knowledge upon any definite fixed date of the Great Flood, or if Bryan had any knowledge of other religions records referring to the Flood. Bryan then states “I am not an authority on the subject”. Bryan than proceeds to defend the bibles stories as being the truth, and continues to inform Darrow that Christian religion has satisfied him and he has never felt it necessary to look up or learn about competing religions. The argument ends with Darrow questioning Bryan upon his views of other religions being competitive with Christianity, and whether he has investigated them or not. As a result, the judge expunged all of Bryan`s testimony, and found Scope`s guilty in the end.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?
The author appeals to logic (logos) by emphasizing the logical facts stated in court between William Bryan and Clarence Darrow. Bryan states that he accepts the bibles information as it gives it, and has never found any reason to deny, dispute, or reject it. Darrow attempts to establish the fixed date of 2348 BC, but Bryan states “That is the time given there [indicating to the bible] but I don’t pretend to say that is exact”. Darrow then states the Bible offered as evidence says 2340 for the Great flood, and asks Bryan if he then believes that 4200 years ago there was no living things on earth except the people and animals on the ark and the fish. Darrow then asks Bryan if he believes there were any civilizations on earth beyond 5000 years. Darrow refers to ancient civilizations of China being 6000 to 7000 years old, and asks Bryan if he knows how old they are. Bryan responds that he does not know and that he thinks Darrow would give preference to anybody who opposed the Bible, but he personally gives preference to the Bible. As Darrow continues to use the Great Flood as a reference for dispute in the Bible, Bryan continues to respond that “I am not an authority on the subject”. The author appeals to emotional quality (pathos) by the way Bryan responds that he is not satisfied with evidence or opinions of “these men” against what he believes to be the inspired word of God. Darrow shows emotional quality by the context of his questions towards Bryan. Darrow states “You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion”. This shows that both men believed in what they were arguing and Darrow was emotionally distraught by how Bryan did not care to understand or learn about other religions or the science behind the origination of man and all living things. Throughout the argument, Bryan continually defends the Bible throughout the examination showing emotional passion towards what he believes in. The author appeals to ethos by the way Bryan and Darrow reacts to each other`s statements. When Darrow refers to Christians as ignorant “Yokels”, and Bryan states “I don’t know how old they are, but probably you do” after responding to a question, he receives laughter from the audience. This shows that they were both trying to insult each other, while at the same time Darrow was challenging Bryan`s knowledge while trying to embarrass him with how little of knowledge he actually knows. The author displayed great emotional quality in how both men debated over what they have passion for.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
The historical significance/relevance in this document is the way it highlighted the extent to which Darwinian evolution had impregnated the culture and provided an undeserved dividing line between science and religion that still exists today. This was also the first trial in American history to be broadcast nationally on the radio, which put the spotlight on fundamentalists, holding them up to public ridicule. However, this may have opened the door to ideas behind evolution leading people to give it serious consideration. Thus, being the first highly publicized trial concerning the teaching of evolution, the Scopes trial represents a dramatic clash between traditional and modern values in America in the 1920s, and may have become the reason this historical issue continues to resonate in contemporary American society today.
4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
I did not find Bryan or Darrow convincing in this argument. Mainly because while Bryan was under relentless attack by Darrow`s aggressive questions, he was not able to effectively answer the questions since he was not well educated upon other religions. However, I think that Darrow`s questions were just an attack on Bryan since he had opposite beliefs, making this more of a pointless argument to have in court since it had nothing to do with the case of Scopes teaching evolution and did not lead to anything being solved. Similarly, I think this argument was more of a debate over who knows more about religion, and who doesn’t. Bryan was defending the bible and the word of God in which he believed in, and Darrow was trying to poke holes in the biblical stories of the Great Flood while attempting to establish the origination of man and all living things. At the same time, he continuously focused on stating dates and information regarding the Bible and asking whether Bryan believed them or not. This argument just seemed to go back and forth about the same things which made this kind of an unconvincing argument from both perspectives. It seems to me that Darrow was putting Bryan and the Bible on trial for his own personal ego boost since he was a devout agnostic and in favor of evolutionary theory. Thus, this argument had nothing to do with the Scopes trial, and all of Bryan`s testimony was expunged by the judge the next day and Scopes was found guilty.
