Scan barcode
alisobrig's review against another edition
informative
reflective
tense
slow-paced
4.0
I read this book for a graduate level course on the history of Darwin. I thought it was a very engaging explanation of the cultural, social, legal time of the 1920s and presents a very accurate account of an often misremembered legend. The Scopes Trial has been a popular historical moment I've been interested in since middle school so it was fun to revisit it with more biology, history, and rhetorical knowledge.
drusillamilford's review against another edition
2.0
Historical account of the Scopes trial. Rather dry reading. Perhaps I should have chosen another book on the same subject which was not quite so detailed and a bit more interesting.
gulshanbatra's review
5.0
A fantastic read!
This is a reissue of a past Pulitzer Winner for Non-Fiction, but reads like a page turner. Written with rich details and lustrous backstories of the origins of the argument, sometimes going back decades and even to a century (or millenia, as the subject often demands!), the book is a real treat for anyone even remotely interested in the subject.
The subject matter is laid out in coherent and distinct chapters, building towards the eventual culmination that is now considered old history, but was news of the land in its time.
A must-read.
This is a reissue of a past Pulitzer Winner for Non-Fiction, but reads like a page turner. Written with rich details and lustrous backstories of the origins of the argument, sometimes going back decades and even to a century (or millenia, as the subject often demands!), the book is a real treat for anyone even remotely interested in the subject.
The subject matter is laid out in coherent and distinct chapters, building towards the eventual culmination that is now considered old history, but was news of the land in its time.
A must-read.
christhedoll's review against another edition
5.0
So I learned a number of things about the Scope's Trial... Scopes and Dayton city leaders planned it for publicity. The ACLU and WCFA took it over. Scope's lost. The law was never enforced (but textbook makers removed human evolution). Both sides claimed victory.... I like this comment the best ' Who does have "the right" to decide what gets taught as science in the public schools? Creationist parents and teachers, based on their relatively subjective religious beliefs, or professional scientists and educators, based on their relatively objective scientific theories?
ericwelch's review against another edition
5.0
By the late nineteenth century, Darwin's evolutionary theories had been widely accepted by Christian fundamentalists.. The had adopted a form of Lamarckian explanation for changes in form. In fact, James Orr, well-known theologian, wrote in The Fundamentals, " Assume God – as many devout evolutionists do– to be immanent in the evolutionary process, and His intelligence and purpose to be expressed in it; then evolution, so far from conflicting with theism, may become a new and heightened form of theistic argument. What raised their ire was his theory of natural selection with its implicit unguided randomness. Edward J. Larson is the author of an excellent history of the Scopes trial. He reports the history of the debate that led to events in Tennessee. Natural selection had been pretty much ignored until genetics began to supply some evidence for it in the early twentieth century. Genetics provided further evidence that change was due to random variation. This the fundamentalists could not abide. Soon evolution came under attack, natural selection becoming fully identified with all of Darwin. The very nature of science– that is, continual debate– provided ammunition to the forces of darkness although debate and difference of opinion on this subject were not limited to science. Surely religion has been subject to more difference of opinion than perhaps and other theoretical field being as speculative as it is. William Jennings Bryan, the more vocal of opponents to evolution, had his fear fueled by the development of eugenics, a natural outgrowth of the popularization of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Some thirty-five states eventually passed legislation compelling the sexual segregation and sterilization of unfortunates that society chose to label as misfits. Soon eugenics became identified with evolutionary theory and more fat was added to the fire. Bryan was an interesting mix of contradictions. A pacifist and anti-Republican he had resigned from Wilson's Cabinet was war fever erupted. He was a fervent admirer of hard currency yet made millions from land speculation in Florida. Bryan's anti-evolutionist views originated from his view that "the Darwinian theory represents man as reaching his present perfection [!] by the operation of the law of hate– the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak." He blamed belief in evolution for WW I and the apparent decline in religious faith. He was not – contrary to the Inherit the Wind version – opposed to an extended geologic time frame, but he resisted vehemently the notion that humans were not created supernaturally. Bryan's majoritarian stance – the majority rules and schools should teach what the majority believes – was a major reason for the entry of the ACLU into the case. The NCLU– forerunner to the ACLU– had been founded by the Quakers to help provide support and defense for their anti-war activities and pacifist members who refused to serve in Wilson's war. The president's statements against disloyalty and his support for legislation against any kind of opposition to the war created a climate that fueled majoritarian thinking. The government had already used the postal service to help suppress any kind of minority point-of-view and the ACLU – originally quite cooperative with the Wilson government – soon became disillusioned. Samuel Walker, ACLU historian, wrote "largely oblivious to civil liberties considerations before the war, the wartime crisis forced them [the ACLU] to abandon their faith in the inevitability of social progress and their majoritarian view of democracy. They now began to see that majority rule and liberty were not necessarily synonymous and thus discovered the First Amendment as a new principle for advancing human freedom." Clarence Darrow's "appropriation" of the defense was not appreciated by the ACLU which wanted to concentrate on the issue of free speech. Darrow just wanted to lampoon the Christian Fundamentalists, a pathetically easy task – it was the only time he volunteered his services. Darrow delighted in challenging the traditional concepts of religion and morality. He hated "do-gooders" and regarded Christianity as a "slave religion that encouraged acquiescence in injustice, a willingness to make do with the mediocre, and complacency in the face of the intolerable." The biblical concept of original sin was to Darrow, "a very dangerous doctrine – silly, impossible and wicked." Yet he had voted for William Jennings Bryan in 1896 As the Democratic candidate for Congress. Many traditional institutions were undergoing radical change at the turn of the century. The university, heretofore, an arm of a church sect, offered little chance for teachers to stray from the party line. The rise of pragmatism led by the French philosopher Auguste Comte, offered a path away from a paradigm of obedience to a central authority and toward "a positive stage ion which empirical investigation would be accepted as the only reliable road to truth." Empiricism soon dominated both sciences and humanities in academic research. The newly formed American Association of University Professors wanted to join in Scopes's defense. They wanted to emphasize the deleterious effects of a popularly orchestrated curriculum. "It is, we believe, a principle to be rigidly adhered to that the decision as to what is taught would be determined not by a popular vote. . . but by teachers and investigators in their respective fields." The lawyer who represented them, John Neal, had been fired by the University of Tennessee in violation of newly created AAUP procedures. (Neal was perhaps not the best choice. A brilliant lawyer and teacher, he was usually late for class, often never appearing, rarely lecturing on the topic at hand, preferring political discourses and giving his students grades of 95 without reading their exams.) Following passage of the law forbidding the teaching of evolution that contradicted the biblical teaching (this odd phraseology was to provide the opening that Darrow needed) the ACLU began looking for a test case site. Most school superintendents wanted nothing to do with the case simply declaring they did not teach Darwinism. The Knoxville superintendent even declared that, "Our teachers have a hard enough time teaching the children how to distinguish between plant and animal life." One suspects he was part vegetable himself. The civic boosters in Dayton lusted at the idea of all the publicity. They were perhaps atypical. A relatively new little town, it was a Republican enclave in a predominantly Democratic south. Even H. L. Mencken was pleasantly surprised. "I expected to find a squalid Southern village, with darkies snoozing on the houseblocks, pigs rooting under the houses, and the inhabitants full of hookworm and malaria. What I found was a country town full of charm and even beauty . . . . Nor is there any evidence in the town of that poisonous spirit which usually shows itself where Christian men gather to defend the great doctrines of their faith." It was not really a fight against evolution for the Daytonites, but rather an attempt to overcome obscurity. It eventually blew up in their faces, as Dayton became the laughingstock of the country. "Powerful social forces converged on Dayton that summer: populist majoritarianism and traditional evangelical faith versus scientific secularianism and modern concepts of individual liberty." "If the anti-evolutionists in Tennessee were aware of the existence of any other religions than their own, they might realize that it is the very genius of religion itself to evolve from primary forms to higher forms. The author of the anti-evolution bill is obviously nearer in mental development to the nomads of early biblical times than he is to the intelligence of the young man [Scopes] who is under trial." Charles Francis Potter
londonmabel's review against another edition
3.0
Extremely detailed, and kind of dry. More for people interested in the history of evangelism and evolution in the US, rather than someone interested in the excitement of the Scopes trial.
megankass's review against another edition
3.0
An excellent historical account of the first modern media spectacle, when rapid far-reaching communication was young and conservative intolerance was at its most unknown peak, the 1920s (unless today counts). Told in a dry, academic tone, this book isn't for the casually interested looking for entertainment - that would have been the event itself. Yet Larson does a fantastic job researching the event, its causes and effects of its times, and how 80 years later this trial is still being fought in various iterations.
3.5 stars (5 stars for research, 3 for tone, 3 for the narrator was soooo boring). Probably would have been better as a book, rather than audiobook, but then I would have **squirrel!!!** gotten distracted and never finished.
3.5 stars (5 stars for research, 3 for tone, 3 for the narrator was soooo boring). Probably would have been better as a book, rather than audiobook, but then I would have **squirrel!!!** gotten distracted and never finished.
jjosh_h's review against another edition
4.0
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for providing me with an e-ARC in exchange for a fair and honest review
4.5/5 stars
Summer for the Gods by Edward J Larson is a nonfiction book exploring everything leading up to, during and after the Scopes trial of the 1920s. This is often referred to as the “monkey trial” where a creationist was battled an evolutionist about the validity of the two world views. It was essentially a battle between whether or not evolution should be taught in schools, but the trail itself had a very different argument than the modern separation of church and state precedent that we are familiar with today.
The book I'm reviewing is the most recent edition of the original 1997 release. That is the 2020 edition which is the same exact book with a slightly modified afterward. While I received an e-ARC, I chose to listen to the edition on audible. I believe that is an adaptation of the 2006 edition which features its own afterword. After I listened to the book, I read the modified afterword in my 2020 e-ARC which I will discuss at the end.
I was surprised to learn that Scopes trial was not about separation of church and state as is the modern reasoning for keeping Christianity out and evolution in. I am loosely familiar with the Scopes trial period because I had a phase of extreme atheism (i.e. really into the social network), and the scopes trial was a major part of the atheist rhetoric and arguments discussed. However, most of my knowledge, while slightly vague, never really clearly defined the Scopes trial as it really was. A big part of this book is about debunking a lot of the misconceptions or the mindset the public has created around the Scopes trial.
The Scopes trial gave the “official” win to the state (supporting the law banning the teaching of evolution, but after the trial, there of re-branding where many saw it as a blow to creationists. This book discusses this thoroughly in the final part of the book. The book is split into three parts.
First is the period leading up to this trial which is an excellent review of what the societal mindset is around religion creationism in evolution. Second, the actual Scopes trial is discussed, and we learn that the trial was orchestrated by the ACLU to challenge that the law violated teachers individual liberties. The ACLU put out a request for a teacher to be used for this trial. What precedes is the trial as we know it. It comes down to trying to argue whether evolution breaks the law as defined by Tennessee.
Tennessee's law stated that evolution couldn’t be taught because it contradicts the views of the Bible. Scopes (lawyer’s) defense tries to focus on the fact that evolution is consistent with an interpretation of Genesis depending on how you look at it. In the end Scopes loses because it's clearly plain that he taught evolution and wasn't supposed to. It wasn't about whether or not evolution is in line with Christianity because the law wasn't about teaching things that go against Christianity; it was about teaching evolution.
However, the framing of the argument set up the infamous questioning of one of the states lead experts William Jennings Bryan. He was incapable of explaining away the many inconsistencies of the Bible with science (outside of just evolution). Many saw it as demeaning, and it resulted in Bryan being painted as uneducated and dumb by many in society. Granted, that view was among those who supported evolution. The opposing side saw Bryan as a martyr who stood for faith. Both of these views would fuel the more extreme actions of both the religious and the secular sides after the trial. It didn’t change the law, but it worked as a way of reshaping the battleground in a way that eventually lead to more action.
It was a long time before we started to recognize that the problem here isn't that someone's liberties were being infringed. Eventually, the emoluments clauses would be used to garner court decisions that set a precedent of a clear separation of church and state. You can’t block evolution because it is inconsistent with your religion (that is the state sanctioning or endorsing that religion over others). Nor can you teach creationism as if it is science. It's a recognition that creationism is entirely outside of the purview of the secular state.
I went into this book expecting much more of a discussion about religion versus secularism (i.e. separation of church and state). That was only a small fraction of the book. That is probably my biggest disappointment with the book. I wanted more on freedom of religion and the ability of the state to teach one religion over the other (i.e. Christianity). In the context of the trial, this book a does a great job taking a broad look overtime. Necessarily, it limits how deep we can explore each part.
We get such a clear picture of what led to the Scopes trial and then everything that came after and how it re-framed the way society looked at Christianity and evolution. There was no change in the law, but it triggered a polarization on both sides, and it set the groundwork for this conversation of freedom of religion. So overall, this was a fantastic book. It is dense with information just the way I like it. As with any great book, it paints a clear picture while leaving the reader inspired to search out more to learn.
As for the changes in the book (i.e. the afterward), it was largely unchanged. The most significant change was a discussion of statistics on the relationship between education, geography, and the belief in creationism. We see a lot of things happening in modern day that ties back to the cases of the past and the argument of the Scopes as Christians continue to push the boundary of church/state separation. We see attempts to try and hinder the ability to teach evolution without alluding to Christianity, but the subtle approaches are still very clear in their intent. However, it doesn't change that in the modern day we have conservative presidents like Donald Trump that contribute to the slow erosion of these previous presidents similar to the fears around the erosion of abortion rights as courts allow one new law after another that slowly restricts and decays the existing rights.
He makes a very persuasive and succinct argument as to why this information is still relevant to today. Speaking as someone from the South who grew up a young earth creationist, I think the mindset around evolution has changed, but religious extremism continues. If anything, the mainstream nature of evolution puts society at risk of complacency. It just highlights the need to understand and the importance of separation of church and state.
If you haven’t read this, 100% recommend (especially if you’re a history buff), but if you have a previous edition, I don’t think there is anything new here worth investing in.
4.5/5 stars
Summer for the Gods by Edward J Larson is a nonfiction book exploring everything leading up to, during and after the Scopes trial of the 1920s. This is often referred to as the “monkey trial” where a creationist was battled an evolutionist about the validity of the two world views. It was essentially a battle between whether or not evolution should be taught in schools, but the trail itself had a very different argument than the modern separation of church and state precedent that we are familiar with today.
The book I'm reviewing is the most recent edition of the original 1997 release. That is the 2020 edition which is the same exact book with a slightly modified afterward. While I received an e-ARC, I chose to listen to the edition on audible. I believe that is an adaptation of the 2006 edition which features its own afterword. After I listened to the book, I read the modified afterword in my 2020 e-ARC which I will discuss at the end.
I was surprised to learn that Scopes trial was not about separation of church and state as is the modern reasoning for keeping Christianity out and evolution in. I am loosely familiar with the Scopes trial period because I had a phase of extreme atheism (i.e. really into the social network), and the scopes trial was a major part of the atheist rhetoric and arguments discussed. However, most of my knowledge, while slightly vague, never really clearly defined the Scopes trial as it really was. A big part of this book is about debunking a lot of the misconceptions or the mindset the public has created around the Scopes trial.
The Scopes trial gave the “official” win to the state (supporting the law banning the teaching of evolution, but after the trial, there of re-branding where many saw it as a blow to creationists. This book discusses this thoroughly in the final part of the book. The book is split into three parts.
First is the period leading up to this trial which is an excellent review of what the societal mindset is around religion creationism in evolution. Second, the actual Scopes trial is discussed, and we learn that the trial was orchestrated by the ACLU to challenge that the law violated teachers individual liberties. The ACLU put out a request for a teacher to be used for this trial. What precedes is the trial as we know it. It comes down to trying to argue whether evolution breaks the law as defined by Tennessee.
Tennessee's law stated that evolution couldn’t be taught because it contradicts the views of the Bible. Scopes (lawyer’s) defense tries to focus on the fact that evolution is consistent with an interpretation of Genesis depending on how you look at it. In the end Scopes loses because it's clearly plain that he taught evolution and wasn't supposed to. It wasn't about whether or not evolution is in line with Christianity because the law wasn't about teaching things that go against Christianity; it was about teaching evolution.
However, the framing of the argument set up the infamous questioning of one of the states lead experts William Jennings Bryan. He was incapable of explaining away the many inconsistencies of the Bible with science (outside of just evolution). Many saw it as demeaning, and it resulted in Bryan being painted as uneducated and dumb by many in society. Granted, that view was among those who supported evolution. The opposing side saw Bryan as a martyr who stood for faith. Both of these views would fuel the more extreme actions of both the religious and the secular sides after the trial. It didn’t change the law, but it worked as a way of reshaping the battleground in a way that eventually lead to more action.
It was a long time before we started to recognize that the problem here isn't that someone's liberties were being infringed. Eventually, the emoluments clauses would be used to garner court decisions that set a precedent of a clear separation of church and state. You can’t block evolution because it is inconsistent with your religion (that is the state sanctioning or endorsing that religion over others). Nor can you teach creationism as if it is science. It's a recognition that creationism is entirely outside of the purview of the secular state.
I went into this book expecting much more of a discussion about religion versus secularism (i.e. separation of church and state). That was only a small fraction of the book. That is probably my biggest disappointment with the book. I wanted more on freedom of religion and the ability of the state to teach one religion over the other (i.e. Christianity). In the context of the trial, this book a does a great job taking a broad look overtime. Necessarily, it limits how deep we can explore each part.
We get such a clear picture of what led to the Scopes trial and then everything that came after and how it re-framed the way society looked at Christianity and evolution. There was no change in the law, but it triggered a polarization on both sides, and it set the groundwork for this conversation of freedom of religion. So overall, this was a fantastic book. It is dense with information just the way I like it. As with any great book, it paints a clear picture while leaving the reader inspired to search out more to learn.
As for the changes in the book (i.e. the afterward), it was largely unchanged. The most significant change was a discussion of statistics on the relationship between education, geography, and the belief in creationism. We see a lot of things happening in modern day that ties back to the cases of the past and the argument of the Scopes as Christians continue to push the boundary of church/state separation. We see attempts to try and hinder the ability to teach evolution without alluding to Christianity, but the subtle approaches are still very clear in their intent. However, it doesn't change that in the modern day we have conservative presidents like Donald Trump that contribute to the slow erosion of these previous presidents similar to the fears around the erosion of abortion rights as courts allow one new law after another that slowly restricts and decays the existing rights.
He makes a very persuasive and succinct argument as to why this information is still relevant to today. Speaking as someone from the South who grew up a young earth creationist, I think the mindset around evolution has changed, but religious extremism continues. If anything, the mainstream nature of evolution puts society at risk of complacency. It just highlights the need to understand and the importance of separation of church and state.
If you haven’t read this, 100% recommend (especially if you’re a history buff), but if you have a previous edition, I don’t think there is anything new here worth investing in.
olive2read's review against another edition
4.0
I enjoyed this overall but especially the later discussion of the Scopes legacy - both in legend and in subsequent statutes/legal cases.
More...