2. Basic theoretical basis
Brian pointed out that the textbook that scopes claimed to use, namely Hunter's Popular Biology (which Malone regarded as the embodiment of truth, wisdom, science, freedom and progress) had its own problems, that is, it was longer than vague generalizations and shorter than empirical materials. Indeed, the vague generalization of popular biology is based on superficial evidence, especially explicit racist views-it lists black people, brown people, American Indians, yellow people and white people in turn when discussing five races, and finally draws the conclusion that "the highest race is Caucasian, that is, white people and white people living in Europe and America are listed in turn". This dangerous tendency of Darwinism is easy to be generalized and socialized-especially represented by social Darwinism and vulgar evolution advocated by Spencer, Nietzsche and haeckel, which is what Brian is deeply worried about and is also one of his main motives for trying his best to oppose evolution. Brian believes that World War I was the direct result of German evolution education, and the general decline of American morality and Christian ethics was fundamentally attributed to the evolution teaching in public schools and universities. In the court debate, Brian once dealt with a man as he deals with you. In defending his famous cases-the murders of Leopold and Leopold, the hero of the legal circle said: "It is almost unfair that a child of 19 years old was hanged because of the philosophical mistakes he was instilled in college." The "philosophy" here, that is, Nietzsche's philosophy, is a "superman" philosophy deeply influenced by Darwin. Therefore, the defense of the legal hero confirmed Brian's concern. (page 147- 182)
Brian also questioned evolution itself. He prepared a long speech, questioning the truth and sufficiency of the theory of evolution in detail, but it was deliberately and skillfully suppressed by the heroes of the legal profession and Judge Lauston. According to the essay [10] written by Brian shortly after the trial, we can get a general idea of his main argument: (1) According to Darwin's theory of slow gradual change, there should be countless "connections" or "intermediate types" between any two species. If the theory of evolution is true, then the earth's surface should not be full of evidence of definite changes. However, the existing species are so separated and determined that there is almost no connection and transition between them. "The complete absence of evidence (connection and transition) may be the strongest evidence that evolution is a myth." Even Darwin and Huxley had to admit this. To this end, Huxley privately warned Darwin that if the theory of evolution is to conform to the evidence, it must allow long-span and leap-forward evolution. The fossil problem is the fatal wound of Darwin's theory of evolution, and it is the internal result of his following Newton, Linnaeus and Ryle's concept of "nature has no leap". The punctuated equilibrium theory put forward in recent years unifies the gradual change and mutation process of evolution-biological evolution is a process in which long-term static stability (gradual change) and sudden evolutionary leap (qualitative change) appear alternately. The CAMBRIAN "Animal Big Bang" in Chengjiang, Yunnan Province, discovered by Hou Xianguang of China and confirmed by Chen, seems to have preliminarily proved the punctuated balanced biological evolution theory and challenged the traditional evolution theory. [12] (2) The reliability of fossil evidence, especially the famous so-called "Nebraska man" and "tooth" fossils praised by Henry F.Osborn, director of the American Museum of Natural History, was satirized and questioned. As if it were a joke in history, just after Brian's death-that is, shortly after the trial, a more complete skeleton of a so-called "Nebraska man" was found, which confirmed that it was not an ape at all-neither an ape nor a man, but an extinct wild boar! In addition, Brian also questioned the motivation of evolution, Darwin's "female selection principle" and Darwin's theory about the origin of animal eyes and legs. Brian's questions are very meaningful, and most of them must be solved by the Institute of Evolution today.
In addition, an important fact ignored or deliberately avoided by heroes in the legal field and the media is that Brian and Butler, supporters of anti-evolution legislation, are not opposed to teaching evolution-as long as it is regarded as a theory rather than a certain fact and other main available options such as creationism can give the same amount of time; Secondly, Brian didn't ask to teach religion in public schools. What he opposes is attacking religion in public schools.
Testify in court
The most striking event in the trial case is Brian's testimony in court on July 20, which is also the source of undisguised prejudice by the media and later historians. Calling Brian to testify in court-it was a clever trick, and the defendant spent several days and even rehearsed the simulation. Stuart objected to the serious request of calling the opposing lawyer to testify from beginning to end, but he got the permission of Judge Lauston and Brian himself agreed. Brian thinks he will also be allowed to put legal heroes, Malone and Hayes on the witness stand for his cross-examination. However, it turns out that Brian is a gentleman's belly, so he was improperly fooled and even humiliated-legal heroes and others cleverly avoided testifying in court and cross-examining. The legal hero's trick is to play with the court conspiracy, with the aim of fooling or even humiliating Brian, rather than defending scopes or seeking the truth. In the nearly two hours of questioning, Brian won the hero of the legal profession by overwhelming advantage, and won the sympathy and praise of individual media for his wisdom, intelligence, courage and openness. [1] 1. Basic legal basis
Hayes emphasized that experts are necessary, and only they can judge what kind of evolution is taught by scopes and its relationship with the description of creation in the Bible. (page 1 13)
2. Basic theoretical basis
Malone put forward the defendant's opinions on law, evolution, science, the Bible and religion: "To convict scopes, the plaintiff must prove that scopes not only teaches evolution, but also denies biblical creationism." "The defendant believes that evolution conflicts with the Old Testament, but that evolution does not conflict with Christianity." On June 6th, a legal hero gave a speech on freedom of speech. Ironically, the basic views of legal heroes are consistent with the theory and practice of Brian and Butler. Three scientists regard "Javanese" and "piltdown man" as "evidence" of evolution. However, they inadvertently confirmed Brian's doubts about the sufficiency of the evidence of evolution-the former is now questionable, and the latter is the "Nebraska" mentioned before, which is purely a prank!
3. The defendant's performance
(1) obvious utilitarian purpose. The fundamental purpose of the defendant, especially the legal hero, is to fool and even humiliate Brian and sacrifice the chance of Kapsz's acquittal, so as to appeal to a higher court or even the Federal Supreme Court, hoping to find that this evolutionary law is unconstitutional. Therefore, on May 25th, Scopes and the legal hero specially explained the details of evolution to some prospective student witnesses during the trial, so that when they testified, they seemed to have really learned evolution from Kapsz-the legal hero actually lived in the home of a student witness, Howard Morgan. [1] The legal hero even explained to Judge Lawson: "Your Excellency, everything the defendant said is aimed at him, and everything is true." (,p.133)-In fact, scopes has a chance to avoid conviction and criminal trial. On July 2 1, the legal hero said, "In order to save time, please ask the court to let the jury convict scopes." (Page 306) The motion of the legal hero opened the door for the case to appeal to a higher court, cleverly avoided the embarrassment that he had to be questioned by Brian (although Brian demanded this right), and bypassed Brian's concluding argument and the threat of a long-prepared concluding speech. (page 186)
(2) The legal hero who can't afford to lose becomes angry from embarrassment, slanders the judge and despises the court. On July 17, although Judge Lauston made a huge concession, the heroes in the legal field were disappointed to see that the defendant lost every topic in the debate. In a rage, he vilified Judge Lawston and accused him of favoring the plaintiff and suppressing the defendant. (,pp. 204-207) scopes later wrote (1967) that the words and deeds of the legal hero were so radical that "everyone hoped that Ralston would convict him of contempt of court". But in the end, Lauston generously forgave the heroes in the legal field.
But the teaching level of evolution has actually declined. It was not until 1967- 1970 that Tennessee, Arkansas and Mississippi abolished anti-evolutionary laws.