the Great Commoner. The trials arguments between the progressives for the defense, and the fundamentalists for the prosecution, were broadcast nationwide by radio and printed by the nations newspapers. One journalist in particular, H. L. Mencken, took great amusement in the case, calling Tennessee part of the Sahara of the Bozart and a hopeless wasteland.Although thought to be backward in thought and in practice, the religious fundamentalists were actually supporters of science, especially when it came to religious history. They avidly supported archaeological and geographical exploration and incorporated scientific knowledge into their faith. Religious fundamentalists did not whole-heartedly reject science; they were only skeptical of the claims that Darwins theory represented more than just a theory.As one of the most important and closely monitored court cases of the century, the Scopes Trial combined the attraction of controversy and the trappings of celebrity. It pitted religion against science. Characterizing the Scopes Trial as a trial of reason versus ignorance, science and superstition, many have allowed a superficial assessment to obscure the importance of the trial at hand.The two lawyers differed as greatly as the two sides themselves. Darrow, the attorney paid by the ACLU to defend John Scopes, was younger, witty, and well educated. Bryan, the prosecuting attorney, was quite old, and simple. But with these drastic differences, both lawyers commanded the trial at one point or another. In displays by both, Darrow and Bryan showed sides of themselves that were thought to be non-existent. At one point, a fossil tooth said to have come from an ancestor of man, Nebraska Man, later turned out to have come from nothing more than a pig. On the other hand, Bryan, thought to be simple and unknowledgeable, was able to have lengthy intelligent conversations on the topic of evolution with Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn, one of t...
