they are doing wrong to prohibit the teaching of this theory in the public schools? From whence does this opposition originate? Who conceived the idea that Tennessee did not know what she was doing? They say it is sponsored by a lot of religious bigots, Mr. Darrow said that, substantially that.
Ignorant—Who said so? A little handful of folks—a mere handful, who bring to you a theory which they, themselves, can never say is anything but a theory. How far back can science go? How can science go? How can science know that man began as a little germ in the bottom of the sea? Science should continue to progress and it should be unhampered in the bounds of reason, and I am proud of the progress that it has made, and I should say, your honor, that when science treads upon holy ground, when science should invade no further, Almighty God, in His conception of things here, did not intend that there should be a clash upon this earth between any of the forces here, except—save and except the forces of good and evil, and I am sorry that there has come a clash between scientific investigation and God's word.
Stewart on the Side of Religion.
If we, if the court please, who live in this sovereign jurisdiction prefer to worship God according to the dictates of our own consciences, and we give everyone that right to do so, and your honor, I would criticize no man for his individual view of things, but, why, if the court please, is this invasion here? Why, if the court please, have we not the right to interpret our Bible as we see fit? Why, have we not the right to bar the door to science when it comes within the four walls of God's church upon this earth? Have we not the right? Who says that we have not? Show me the man who will challenge it. We have the right to pursue knowledge—we have the right to participate in scientific investigation, but, if the court please, when science strikes at that upon which man's eternal hope is founded, then I say the foundation of man's civilization is about to crumble. They say this is a battle between religion and science. If it is, I want to serve notice now, in the name of the great God, that I am on the side of religion. They say it is a battle between religion and science, and in the name of God, I stand with religion because I want to know beyond this world that there may be an eternal happiness for me and for all. Tell me that T would not stand with it. Tell me that I would believe I was a common worm and would writhe in the dust and go no further when my breath had left my body? There should not be any clash between science and religion. I am sorry that there is, but who brought it on? How did it occur? It occured from teaching that infidelity, that agnosticism, that which breeds in the soul of the child, infidelity, atheism, and drives him from the Bible that his father and mother raised him by, which, as Mr. Bryan has so eloquently said, and drives man's sole hope of happiness and of religion and of freedom of thought, and worship, and Almighty God, from him.
"Bar the Door."
I say, bar the door, and not allow science to enter. That would deprive us of all the hope we have in the future to come. And I say it without any bitterness. I am not trying to say it in the spirit of bitterness to a man over there, it is my view, I am sincere about it. Mr. Darow says he is an agnostic. He is the greatest criminal lawyer in America today. His courtesy is noticeable—his ability is known—and it is a shame, in my mind, in the sight of a great God, that a mentality like his has strayed so far from the natural goal that it should follow—great God, the good that a man of his ability could have done if he had aligned himself with the forces of right instead of aligning himself with that which strikes its fangs at the very bosom of Christianity.
Yes, discard that theory of the Bible—throw it away, and let scien-
