THE speech prepared by Mr William Jennings Bryan as opposing counsel in the Scopes trial was not delivered owing to the early termination of the case, but it has now been issued to the public, and we quote the following passage from it:—”Prof. J. Arthur Thomson says ‘the idea of evolution is the most potent thought-economising formula the world has yet known.’ It is more than that; it dispenses with thinking entirely and relies on the imagination. On page 141 of his ‘Descent of Man,’ Darwin attempts to trace the mind of man back to the mind of the lower animals. On pages 113 and 114 he endeavours to trace man’s moral nature back to the animals. It is all animal, animal, animal, with never a thought of God or religion. Our first indictment against evolution is that it disputes the truth of the Bible account of man’s creation, and shakes faith in the Bible as the Word of God. This indictment we prove by comparing the processes described as evolutionary with the text of Genesis. It not only contradicts the Mosaic record as to the beginning of human life, but it disputes the Bible doctrine of reproduction according to kind—the greatest scientific principle known.
“Our second indictment is that the evolutionary hypothesis, carried to its logical conclusion, disputes every vital truth of the Bible. Its tendency, natural, if not inevitable, is to lead those Evolutionists who really accept it, first to agnosticism and then to atheism. Evolutionists attack the truth of the Bible, not openly at first, but by using weasel words like ‘poetical,’ ‘symbolical,’ and ‘allegorical,’ to suck the meaning out of the inspired record of man’s creation. We call as our first witness Charles Darwin. He began life as a Christian. On page 39, vol. I., of the ‘Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,’ by his son, Francis Darwin, he says, speaking of the period from 1828 to 1831, ‘I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible.’ On page 412 of Vol. II. of the same publication, he says, ‘When I was collecting facts for “the origin” my beliefs in what is called a personal God was as firm as that of Dr Pusey himself.’ It may be a surprise to your honour and to you, gentlemen of the jury, as it was to me, to learn that Darwin passed three years at Cambridge studying for the ministry.
“This was Darwin as a young man, before he came under the influence of the doctrine that man came from a lower order of animals. The change wrought in his religious views will be found in a letter written to a German youth in 1879, and printed on page 277 of Vol. I. of the life and letters above referred to. The letter begins:—”I am much engaged, an old man, and out of health, and I cannot spare time to answer your questions fully—nor indeed can they be answered. Science has nothing to do with Christ, except in so far as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.”
“Note that science has nothing to do with Christ, except in so far as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. Stated plainly, that simply means that ‘the habit of scientific research’ makes one cautious in accepting the only evidence that we have of Christ’s existence, mission, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection, namely, the evidence found in the Bible. To make this interpretation of his words the only possible one, he adds, ‘For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation.’ In rejecting the Bible as a revelation from God, he rejects the Bible’s conception of God, and he rejects also the supernatural Christ of whom the Bible, and the Bible alone, tells. And, it will be observed, he refuses to express any opinion as to a future life.
“Now let us follow with his son’s exposition of his father’s views as they are given in extracts from a biography written in 1876. Here is Darwin’s language as quoted by his son:—”During these two years (Oct. 1838 to Jan. 1839), I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. When thus reflecting, I felt compelled to look for a first cause, having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to man; and I deserved to be called an atheist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the “Origin of Species”; it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I, for one, must be content to remain an agnostic.’
“When Darwin entered upon his scientific career he was ‘quite orthodox and quoted the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality.’ Even when he wrote ‘The Origin of Species’ the thought of ‘a first cause, having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to man’ was strong in his mind. It was after that time that ‘very gradually, with many fluctuations,’ his belief in God became weaker. He traces this decline for us and concludes by telling us that he cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems—the religious problems above referred to. Then comes the flat statement that he ‘must be content to remain an agnostic,’ and to make clear what he means by the word agnostic, he says that ‘the mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us’—not by him alone, but by everybody. Here we have the effect of evolution upon its most distinguished exponent; it led him from an orthodox Christian, believing every word of the Bible and in a personal God, down and down and down to helpless and hopeless agnosticism.
“But there is one sentence upon which I reserved comment—it throws light upon his downward pathway. ‘Then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?’ Here is the explanation: He drags man down to the brute level and then, judging man by brute standards, he questions whether man’s mind can be trusted to deal with God and immortality!
“How can any teacher tell his students that evolution does not tend to destroy his religious faith? How can an honest teacher conceal from his students the effect of evolution upon Darwin himself? And is it not stranger still that preachers who advocate evolution never speak of Darwin’s loss of faith, due to his belief in evolution? The parents of Tennessee have reason enough to fear the effect of evolution upon the minds of their children. Belief in evolution cannot bring to those who hold such a belief any compensation for the loss of faith in God, trust in the Bible and belief in the supernatural character of Christ. It is belief in evolution that has caused so many scientists and so many Christians to reject the miracles of the Bible and then give up, one after another, every vital truth of Christianity.. . . .
“The miracle should not be a stumbling block to any one. It raises but three questions: First, could God perform a miracle? Yes, the God who created the universe can do anything He wants to with it. He can temporarily suspend any law that He has made, or He may employ higher laws that we do not understand. Second: Would God perform a miracle? To answer that question in the negative one would have to know more about God’s plans and purposes than a finite mind can know, and yet some are so wedded to evolution that they deny that God would perform a miracle merely because a miracle is inconsistent with evolution. If we believe that God can perform a miracle and might desire to do so we are prepared to consider with open mind the third question, namely, Did God perform the miracles recorded in the Bible? The same evidence that establishes the authority of the Bible establishes the truth of the record of miracles performed.
“Now let me read to the honourable court and to you, gentlemen of the jury, one of the most pathetic confessions that has come to my notice. George John Romanes, a distinguished biologist, sometimes called the successor of Darwin, was prominent enough to be given extended space in both the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Encyclopedia Americana. Like Darwin, he was reared in the orthodox faith, and like Darwin, was led away from it by evolution (see ‘Thoughts on Religion,’ page 180). For twenty-five years he could not pray. Soon after he became an agnostic, he wrote a book entitled ‘A Candid Examination of Theism,’ published it under the assumed name, ‘Physicus.’ In this book (see page 29, ‘Thoughts on Religion’), he says:—’And forasmuch as I am far from being able to agree with those who affirm that the twilight doctrine of the “new faith” is a desirable substitute for the waning splendour of “the old.” I am not ashamed to confess that with this virtual negation of God the universe to me has lost its soul of loveliness; and although from hence the precept “work while it is day” will doubtless but gain in intensified force from the terribly intensified meaning of the words that “the night cometh when no man can work,” yet when at times I think, as think at times I must, of the appalling contrast between the hallowed glory of that creed which once was mine, and the lonely mystery of existence as now I find it—at such times I shall ever feel it impossible to void the sharpest pang of which my nature is susceptible.’
‘Do these evolutionists stop to think of the crime they commit when they take faith out of the hearts of men and women and lead them out into a starless night? What pleasure can they find in robbing a human being of ‘the hallowed glory of that creed’ that Romanes once cherished, and in substituting ‘the lonely mystery of existence’ as he found it? Can the fathers and mothers of Tennessee be blamed for trying to protect their children from such a tragedy? If any one has been led to complain of the severity of the punishment that hangs over the defendant, let him compare this crime and its mild punishment with the crimes for which greater punishment is prescribed. What is the taking of a few dollars from one in day or night in comparison with the crime of leading one away from God and away from Christ? Shakespeare regards the robbing one of his good name as much more grave than the stealing of his purse. But we have a higher authority than Shakespeare to invoke in this connection. He who spake as never man spake thus describes the crimes that are committed against the young: ‘It is impossible but that offences will come. But woe unto him through whom they come. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and be cast into the sea, than he should offend one of these little ones.’
‘Christ did not overdraw the picture. Who is able to set a price upon the life of a child—a child into whom a mother has poured her life and for whom a father has laboured? What may a noble life mean to the child itself, to the parents and to the world? And, it must be remembered, that we can measure the effect on only that part of life which is spent on earth; we have no way of calculating the effect on that infinite circle of life of which existence here is but a small arc. The soul is immortal and religion deals with the soul; the logical effect of the evolutionary hypothesis is to undermine religion and thus affect the soul. I recently received a list of questions that were to be discussed in a prominent Eastern school for women. The second question in the list read, ‘Is religion an obsolescent function that should be allowed to atrophy quietly, without aroused the passionate prejudices of outworn superstition?’ The real attack of evolution, it will be seen, is not upon orthodox Christianity or even upon Christianity, but upon religion—the most basic fact in man’s existence and the most practical thing in life.
“The people of Tennessee have been patient enough; they acted none too soon. How can they expect to protect society and even the Church from the deadening influence of agnosticism and atheism if they permit the teachers employed by taxation to poison the minds of the youth with this destructive doctrine. And remember that the law has not heretofore required the writing of the word ‘poison’ on poisonous doctrines. The bodies of our people are so valuable that druggists and physicians must be careful to properly label all poisons; why not be as careful to protect the spiritual life of our people from the poisons that kill the soul?
“There is a test that is sometimes used to ascertain whether one suspected of mental infirmity is really insane. He is put into a tank of water and told to dip the tank dry while a stream of water flows into the tank. If he has not sense enough to turn off the stream he is adjudged insane. Can parents justify themselves if, knowing the effect of belief in evolution, they permit irreligious teachers to inject scepticism and infidelity in the minds of their children?”