“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, John Scopes' defense attorney during the ape trial that put Dayton, Tennessee, on the world map in a somewhat questionable way in 1925. Similar words could have been uttered to on numerous other occasions throughout human history, including in 1996, when the Tennessee Legislature attempted once again to muzzle educators and evolutionary biologists throughout 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 present controversies as it would have been in the 1920s. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The problem with the Scopes trial is that everyone thinks they know what happened, but that's usually not the case. 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 the summer of the gods (p 177). . And perhaps that’s understandable. The portrayals of key characters by Spencer Tracy, Gene Kelly, Frederich March and Tony Randall are captivating and unforgettable. However, by dramatizing such epic events, not only does the story become more inaccurate, but it acquires all the flavor of a myth. And mythology is only the shadow of the truth. In some sense, the modern perception of the Scopes trial is akin to our understanding of the other famous debate over evolution, the meeting between Thomas Huxley and Bishop Wilbeforce in 1860 - immediately after the publication of The Origin of Darwin. Evolutionists cling to the myth that Huxley crushed Wilbeforce at Oxford and that truth prevailed over bigotry (Caudill, 1997), just as Darrow humiliated Bryan, thus giving evolution a lasting victory that went beyond beyond the simple fact that Scopes was actually convicted. In a certain sense, 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 everywhere by the drama of the Oxford and Dayton debates. Technically, however, neither side won either debate. And this because debates cannot be won: the supporters of each school of thought come out of the debate with the feeling that their hero has won. But the debates play another role. Rather than uncovering the truth, they provide a unique opportunity to educate the usually silent majority of people who are not previously committed to a single point of view. In fact, anti-evolutionist crusader Frank Norris wrote to Bryan before the trial: "This is the greatest opportunity to educate the public, and will carry more than a decade of campaigning" (p. 123). This is the nature of public debates, driven more by campaigning techniques and speeches than by logic and factual evidence. Nevertheless, it is a lesson that creationists have learned and exploited very well (Futuyma, 1995) and which has unfortunately not been integrated into the minds of evolutionary scientists. Indeed, scientists who engage in debates about creationists or organize campus events to raise awareness of the status. 68).