state has said in its testimony be true—and we admit it is true—that under this law the defendant Scopes has not violated that statute. Haven't we the right to prove it by our witnesses if that is our theory, if that is so. Moreover, let us take the law—Be it enacted by the state of Tennessee that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any universities, normals or any other schools in the state which are supported in whole or in part by public funds of the state, to teach any theory that denies the story of divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach him that man is descended from a lower order of animals. If that word had been "or" instead of "and," then the prosecution would only have to prove half of its case. But it must prove, according to our contention, that Scopes not only taught a theory that man had descended from a lower order of animal life, but at the same time, instead of that theory, he must teach the theory which denies the story of divine creation set forth in the Bible. And we maintain that we have a right to introduce evidence by these witnesses that the theory of the defendant is not in conflict with the theory of creation in the Bible. And, moreover, your honor, we maintain we have the right to call witnesses to show that there is more than one theory of the creation in the Bible. Mr. Bryan is not the only one who has spoken for the Bible; Judge McKenzie is not the only defender of the word of God. There are other people in this country who have given their whole lives to God. Mr. Bryan, to my knowledge, with a very passionate spirit and enthusiasm, has given most of his life to politics, We believe—(Applause.)
The Court—Mr.—
Bible Not Book of Science.
Mr. Malone—I would like to say your honor, as personal information, that probably no man in the United States has done more to establish certain standards of conduct in the mechanics and world of politic than Mr. Bryan. But is that any reason that I should fall) down when Bryan speaks of theology? Is he the last word on the subject of theology? Well do I remember in my history the story of the burning of the great library at Alexandria, and just before it was burned to the ground that the heathen, the Mohamedians and the Egyptians, went to the hostile general and said, "Your honor, do not destroy this great library, because it contains all the truth that has been gathered," and the Mohamedian general said, but the Koran contains all the truth. If the library contains the truth that the Koran contains we do not need the library and if the library does not contain the truth that the Koran contains then we must destroy the library anyway." But these gentlemen say the Bible contains the truth—if the world of science can produce any truth or facts not in the Bible as we understand it, then destroy science, but keep our Bible. And we say "keep your Bible." Keep it as your consolation, keep it as your guide, but keep it where it belongs, in the world of your own conscience, in the world of your individual judgment, in the world of the Protestant conscience that I heard so much about when I was a boy, keep your Bible in the world of theology where it belongs and do not try to tell an intelligent world and the intelligence of this country that these books written by men who knew none of the accepted fundamental facts of science can be put into a course of science, because what are they doing here? This law says what? It says that no theory of creation can be taught in a course of science, except one which conforms with the theory of divine creation as set forth in the Bible. In other words, it says that only the Bible shall be taken as an authority on the subject of evolution in a course on biology.
The Court—Let me ask you a question, colonel? It is not within the province of this court to determine which is true is it?
Mr. Malone—No, but it is within the province of the court to listen to the evidence we wish to submit
