William Jennings Bryan was portrayed as a villain in the place where I grew up, a reactionary who took the “wrong” side in the Scopes trial of 1925.
Bryan, of course, was part of the prosecution team that brought a case against John Scopes for teaching the Theory of Evolution in defiance of Tennessee law.
Bryan was also instrumental in introducing legislation in 15 states which would have banned the teaching of Evolution Theory.
In the Scopes trial, Bryan was consistently outwitted by the famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow.
The case was eventually dismissed by the Tennessee Supreme Court, and six days after the trial, Bryan died in his sleep. Of the 15 states that were considering legislation introduced by Bryan and his sympathizers, only two – Arkansas and Mississippi – actually enacted anti-Evolution laws.
What the adults around me failed to include in their dismissal of William Jennings Bryan is that he was a genuine humanist who fought for some of the most progressive legislation in our country’s history, including women’s suffrage, the graduated income tax, and a number of labor laws, including minimum wage, eight-hour work days, workplace safety and worker’s compensation.
He also argued against imperialism and militarism, and for greater regulation of corporations. As Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson, he negotiated peace tries with thirty nations.
Bryan argued against the teaching of Evolution Theory because of his fear that it justified Social Darwinism and Eugenics, thus threatening the poor and the disabled, weakening “the cause of democracy” and strenghtening “class pride and power of wealth”.
I daresay that Bryan would have been horrified by the Bush Administration, which cloaks its attack on the poor and its worship of the wealthy in a pseudo-Christian facade.
One would be naive to presume that all of the current supporters of the teaching of Intelligent Design are as enlightened and progressive as William Jennings Bryan was, at his best.
Still, there’s a lesson here about listening with an open mind to supporters of Intelligent Design, in order to offer a “constructive” rather than a “derisory” response.
This suggestion was made in a seminar I attended yesterday. Because it was in a private home, I don’t want to provide an attribution. If you email me, though, I’ll be glad to identify the speaker.