This was recently reprinted in The Chicago Sun Times’ Blast to the Past” section, which noted: “The words of a celebrated Chicago lawyer, though written 78 years ago, resound with meaning today.”
Darrow faces Bryan during Scopes trial
|
By Clarence Darrow
In the face of the onslaught of the Fundamentalists, some scientists are content to repeat over and over that they believe in evolution, but that there is no conflict between science and religion. They only obscure the real issue. The statement may be true but it depends entirely upon the definition of “religion.”
If “religion” means the emotions of sympathy, charity and humanity, which to some extent are a part of every human structure, then this statement is no doubt true. If it means that great seers and prophets of the world, from the earliest times, have almost without exception emphasized these emotions, then the statement is true. The scientists who repeat that there is no conflict evidently define “religion” in some such way.
If “religion” means that the earth and man were created in six days measured by the morning and evening; that the sun was made on the fourth day; that the first woman was made from Adam’s rib; that the sun stood still for Joshua; that the earth was completely drowned out by a flood; that the ark saved two of every kind of organic life, gathered from all over the globe to start a new world; that all present life comes from the animals that were saved in the ark; that each species is the result of a separate creation; that the human race was doomed to eternal torture because Eve was tempted by the serpent and man was tempted by Eve; that two or three thousand years later man was offered a chance for redemption by believing in an immaculate conception and a physical resurrection; if all this is part of “religion”–and it must be believed if one is religious–then the chances are that there are no scientists who will say that religion and science are in harmony.
Why should not these scientists, who say that science and religion do not conflict, define in plain terms what they mean by “religion”?
The time is past due for the scientist to speak in no uncertain terms. The Fundamentalist does not quibble or dodge. He is honest if not intelligent. He is using every means in his power to place the bible and his interpretation of religion in the field of learning. The battle has been fought many times in the history of the world. Once more the combat is upon us. It cannot be won by quibbling and dodging. Science must openly and fairly meet the issue. The question to be determined is whether learning should be hampered and measured by dogma and creeds.
Excerpted from a 1927 essay by Clarence Darrow reprinted in Closing Arguments: Clarence Darrow on Politics, Religion, and Society, edited by S.T. Joshi and published in 2005 by University Press. Suggested by John Scripps.
