mine what the intention of the legislature might be.
I think, if your honor please, that this act—that a correct construction of this act, as a matter of law, prohibits the introduction of this scientific testimony. If you place scientists on the witness stand, men who claim to know and who say they are versed and who no doubt are, no doubt you have many splendid and eminent gentlemen here, who say they are versed in matters of science and particularly in that branch of science which devoted itself to this theory of evolution.
If you place them upon the witness stand, they must confine themselves to that branch or theory of evolution which teaches that man descended from a lower order of animals. That is because the act says so; that is because the act states in so many words, that they shall not teach that man descended from a lower order of animals, I think under the construction, what I concede to be a proper construction of the act that any other theory of evolution might be lawfully taught. Perhaps, but the theory of evolution that we deal with is, whether or not man descended from a lower order of animals, and none other. And we have no right to discuss any other, and the scientists, according to my opinion, would have no right, if the court please, to undertake to talk about any other theory, if they were allowed to talk about any, they would have to qualify as to their familiarity with this particular evolution, the particular kind of evolution that teaches that man descended from a lower order of animals. That is true, I think, your honor, on that question.
That being true, then, if the court please, I think we have proved it sufficiently. Our proof shows it beyond any question. I think the book read shows it, and I think the words from the mouths of witnesses shows it beyond a question that the defendant here did teach to the children in Rhea county High school, that man descended from a lower order of animals. And that they taught that theory.
What Could Scientists Testify To?
Now what could these scientists testify to? They could only say as an expert, qualified as an expert upon this subject, I have made a study of these things and from my standpoint as such an expert, I say that this does not deny the story of divine creation. That is what they would testify to, isn't it? That is all they could testify about.
Now, then, I say under the correct construction of the act, that they cannot testify as to that. Why? Because in the wording of this act the legislature itself construed this instrument according to their intention. Now, says, that any theory that teaches that man descended from a lower order of animals, necessarily—necessarily, denies the story of divine creation. They say it denies it, and, therefore, who can come here to say what is the law is not the law? Who can come here to testify from the witness stand that it does not deny the story of divine creation, when the act says it does?
Your honor, I feel as confident that that is the correct construction as I live by faith, I mean emphasis when I make such an expression, I mean—I do not mean, if the court please, to show any disrespect when I say that. But I mean, if the court please, that as much as I can believe anything under the sun, that that is the correct construction of that act.
Mr. Hays—May I ask you a question, general.
Gen. Stewart—I don't want to be disrespectful; but I cannot keep my line of thought.
Mr. Hays—When you get through?
Gen. Stewart—When I have completed this, all right.
It would be unlawful to teach any theory that denies the story of the divine creation of man, as taught by the Bible, in the Bible, and to teach instead thereof, that man descended from a lower order of animals, instead—instead of what? Instead of the story of divine creation. It shall be unlawful to teach instead of
