velopment; is that your position?
Gen. McKenzie—From lower animals—yes, that is exactly right.
The Court—That God created Adam first as a complete man, did not create a single cell of life.
Gen. McKenzie—That is right.
The Court—The cell of life did not develop in time.
Gen. McKenzie—That is right, and man did not descend from a lower order of animals that originated in the sea and then turned from one animal to another and finally man's head shot up.
The Court—Here is what I want to get, the act says it shall be unlawful to teach any theory that denies the divine story of the creation of man; that is one issue. Or teach or instead thereof—
Mr. Malone—"And" is the word.
The Court—And teach instead thereof that man descended from a lower order of animals. Now, in order to make a case, does the state have to prove that the defendant Scopes taught a theory denying the divine creation, and then go further and prove that he taught that man descended from a lower order of animals; or do you claim that if you meet the second clause, by implication of law you have met the requirement of the first?
Gen. McKenzie—Yes, that is exactly it. I want to read this, you may look to the caption as well as the body of the act to resolve any ambiguity. Let us read the act.
It being an act of the state of Tennessee that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in the universities, normals or other public schools of the state, which are supported in whole or in part by the public funds to teach a theory that denies the story of the divine creation of man as told in the Bible—
The Court—Now, General, suppose he stopped there, and the other clause were stricken out, would this proof be competent for the purpose offered, or not?
Mr. B. G. McKenzie—I think not. No, sir, I do not.
The Court—You think the divine story is so clearly told, it is not ambiguous and should be accepted just by any one of reasonable fairness?
Mr. B. G. McKenzie—I do. But it goes further, and leaves it out of the proposition, and says, and teach instead thereof that man is descended from a lower order of animals, and, therefore, defines the other proposition. It tells exactly what it means, in both the caption and the body of the act. And our supreme court, in case after case, in Tennessee, has sustained our contention as to the interpretation of statutes. Now, if your Honor please, as said a minute ago, they don't want to destroy that account.
The Court—They want to reconcile—
Evolutionists Would Have Man Descended from Soft Dish Rag.
Mr. B. G. McKenzie—They are seeking to reconcile it, f your honor please, and come right along and prove by the mouth of their scientist that when he said God created man in His own image, in His own image created He him out of the dust of the ground and blew into him the breath of life, and he became as a living creature they want to put words into God's mouth, and have Him to say that He issued some sort of protoplasm, or soft dish rag, and put it in the ocean and said, "Old boy, if you, wait around about 6,000 years, I will make something out of you." (Laughter.) And they tell me there is no ambiguity about that.
Mr. Darrow—Let me ask a question. When it said, "in His own image," did you think that meant the physical man?
B. G. McKenzie—I am taking the Divine account—"He is like unto me."
Mr. Darrow—Do you think it is so?
B. G. McKenzie—I say that, although I know it is awfully hard on our Maker to look like a lot of fellows who are profusely ugly, to say he favored the Master.
Mr. Darrow—You think then that you do?
Mr. McKenzie—You are all right. I don't mind your favoring Him, but when one commits acts against the
