"The modern world is the child of doubt and inquiry, as the ancient world was the child of fear and faith" (p. 72). This statement was uttered by Clarence Darrow, the defense attorney for John Scopes during the monkey trial which, rather questionably, put Dayton, Tennessee on the world map in 1925. Similar words could have been uttered on many other occasions in throughout human history, including in 1996, when the Tennessee Legislature once again attempted to muzzle educators and evolutionary biologists across the state. Historian and law professor Edward Larson's book on one of the century's many trials is therefore much more than a very lively and informative piece of historical reconstruction and criticism. It is as relevant to current controversies as it would have been in the 1920s. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The problem with the Scopes process is that everyone thinks they know what happened, but they usually don't. Our image of the epic battle between Darrow and William Jennings Bryan has been shaped far more by its dramatization in Inherit the Wind than by what actually happened in Dayton during the period that Darrow called a summer for the gods (p. 177 ). . And perhaps understandably so. The key character portrayals of Spencer Tracy, Gene Kelly, Frederich March and Tony Randall are captivating and unforgettable. In dramatizing such epic events, however, not only does the story become more imprecise, but it acquires all the flavor of a myth. And mythology is only the shadow of the truth. In some ways, the modern perception of the Scopes trial is similar to our understanding of the other famous evolution debate, the meeting between Thomas Huxley and Bishop Wilbeforce in 1860, immediately after the publication of Darwin's Origin. Evolutionists cling to the myth that Huxley defeated Wilbeforce at Oxford and that truth prevailed over bigotry (Caudill, 1997), just as Darrow humiliated Bryan, thus giving evolution an enduring victory that went beyond the simple fact that Scopes actually was convicted. In a way, this is true. Evolution won because it is now the accepted worldview among professional biologists. The victory was due not only to the intrinsic scientific merits of evolution, but also to the enthusiasm catalyzed in young biologists of each country by the drama of the Oxford and Dayton debates. Technically, however, neither side actually won either debate. And that's because there's no winning in debates: supporters of each school of thought leave the debate with the feeling that their hero won. But debates play another role. Instead of uncovering the truth, they present a unique opportunity to educate the usually silent majority of people who are not previously committed to a point of view. Indeed, anti-evolution crusader Frank Norris wrote to Bryan before the trial: "It is the greatest opportunity to educate the public, and will accomplish more than ten years of campaigning" (p. 123). This is the nature of public debates, conducted more through campaigns and discursive techniques than through logic and factual evidence. However, this is a lesson that creationists have learned and exploited very well (Futuyma, 1995) and which unfortunately has not remained imprinted in the minds of evolutionary scientists. Indeed, scientists who engage in creationist debates or organize campus events to raise scholarly creationist awareness of the scientific status of evolution (http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin) are generally rebuked by. 68).