"Final Discussion"
CLARENCE DARROW
WJ,this case, decided so many years ago, will remain one to always be remembered because it is the first case of this sort since we stopped trying people in this country for witchcraft. Instead, we have done our best to turn back the tide, and perhaps the hands of time, to force itself upon this modern world, a testing of each and every fact in science by using a religious test of sorts. One might call it a litmus test. Those who push for "intelligent design" in public school classrooms... and I think ...
WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN
(INTERRUPTING)
That's your problem, Clarence, you are thinking and not acting on it. Dreadfully wasteful. God and his magnificent power was never meant to be put through a sifter, like raw wheat. Those who push for intelligent design in public school classrooms possess strong belief that life's origin was not haphazard. A guiding hand shaped it. When we stand in awe of the diversity of species and look through a microscope at the magnificent complexity of our eyes, for example, many Christians deduce that a higher power, intelligence beyond random natural selection gives a design to life.
CLARENCE DARROW
You would be the one, now, who would quote the Bible. But, let me do so, instead. You hold a God-centered belief in life's origins. You believe in the handiwork of God bringing life out of chaos, order from disorder. You put stock in the bedrock affirmation that the Bible teaches, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN
Why of course I do. Genesis. That's the core of my beliefs.
CLARENCE DARROW
Yes, by all means. Chapter one. Verse one. A scientific theory, WJ, differs from religious belief. They need not be contradictory. Just different. Some Christians do not treat Darwinian evolution fairly because they simply dismiss it as a "mere theory." In our vernacular, we reject hunches and crackpot ideas as "theoretical," meaning that they lack credible evidence. Scientific theories come from facts, keen observations, laboratory experiments and cogent reasons that are scrutinized through careful study. WJ, you were wrong in equating a scientific theory with a flighty, foolish guess.
WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN
Of course, my most honorable friend, Clarence, failed to remember that my belief in divine creation is not based on scientific theory. I must ask the quintessential question, who was around at the dawn of creation? How can any of us replicate God's wonder? Belief in Divine Providence is a lively confidence I possess, not a scientific theory I can prove. And, why must it be proven? If you wake up in the morning and the ground is soaked...the streets are wet and slick, do you then ignore the reason for such an appearance of moisture? Did you, in fact, see it rain from the heavens? I dare say...no! Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc.
CLARENCE DARROW
Yes. I do remember my Latin.
(Pause)
Just because one event follows another does not mean that the second event was caused by the first. This is the fallacy that can occur when trying to deduce the cause of historical events by correlating that event with other historical events. This is not about the rain. It is about life itself, W,J.
WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN
Yes. You are correct. It was not about the rain. And, it was more than about life. It is, today, about how religion and science can and do coexist. There should be no conflict between true science and true religion, because they both describe reality. Yes. Reality, in the eyes of those who wish to believe.
