下载文档原格式
审判案：与宗教的争论高举科学大旗的进化论支持者与高举宗教大旗的反对者激烈对峙的结果，就是双方走向法院，让法律作出最终裁决。
一场“自导自演”的法庭诉讼13助，通过诉讼的方式，撬动法律的变革。
美国公民自由联盟盯上《巴特勒法》后，就希望寻找一个测试案件，通过诉讼方式推翻这一保守立法。
但由于《巴特勒法》并未被严格执行，没有人因讲授进化论被起诉，也就无法对该法发起挑战。
于是美国公民自由联盟就在报纸上刊登“寻人启事”，征募一名教师“以身试法”成为被告，联盟会支付一切诉讼费用。
很快，田纳西州有个名为戴顿的小镇回应了这则消息，并由此从美国一个默默无闻的小镇迅速成为全国知名的“是非场”。
戴顿位于阿巴拉契山区，以采矿业为主，此时正因矿业萧条、前景不明而处于困境。
镇上刚好从纽约来了个处理矿业破产事务的商人拉派尔，他曾公开表示反对《巴特勒法》，在看到美国公民自由联盟刊登的消息后，敏锐地嗅到了巨大的“商机” ——何不借此机会卷入诉讼？这样就可以吸引全国关注，拯救这个衰颓的 小镇。
拉派尔就与镇上罗宾逊药店的老板兼当地中学的校董会主席罗宾逊商议，两人一拍即合，决定“寻衅滋事”，找一位教师故意违反《巴特勒法》。
他们找到了生物教师约翰·斯科普斯（John Scopes），斯科普斯毫不犹豫就答应了。
于是他们叫来警察，坚称他违反了《巴特勒法》，要求将其逮捕，警方只好逮捕了斯科普斯。
罗宾逊接着联系了美国公民自由联盟，斯科普斯案在有意导演之下终于要启动了。
双方律师激烈交锋1925年7月10日，斯科普斯案在戴顿镇法院正式开庭审理，这一案件被认为既是科学与宗教、现代与传统、进步与保守、文明与愚昧之间的较量，又是基要主义者与现代主义者、精英与平民之间的交锋。
果然不出所料，此案吸引了全美的目光，记者、科学家、普通民众（包括有神论者和无神论者）纷至沓来，为己方阵营摇旗呐喊，使得戴顿镇一时成为了美国最热闹的场所。
为斯科普斯案推波助澜的，是案件双方的首席律师——威廉·布莱恩和克拉伦斯·丹诺。
猴子管理理论案例分析学习第一篇：猴子管理理论案例分析学习猴子管理理论案例分析学习猴子管理案例（一）假设有一天，你的一位下属在公司办公室的走廊与你不期而遇，下属忙停下脚步：“哎呀，老板，好不容易终于碰上你了。
有一个问题，我一直想向你请示一下该怎么办。
”此时，下属的身上有一只需要照顾的“猴子”。
接下来，他如此这般将问题汇报一番。
尽管你有事在身，但还是不太好意思让这急切想把事情办好的下属失望。
你非常认真地听着……慢慢地，“猴子”的一只脚已悄悄搭在你的肩膀上。
几分钟后，你看了看手表：“噢，不好意思，我现在正有急事处理。
这个问题，看来我一时半会儿答复不了你。
这样吧！让我考虑一下，过两天再给你回复好不好？”你赶忙离开，不知不觉中也背走了你下属的那只“猴子”。
两天后，下属如约打来电话：“老板，前两天向你请示的问题，你看我该怎么办？” 忙乱中，你想了一下，才记起他讲的哪一件事。
“哦，实在不好意思。
这两天我特别忙，还没有顾得上考虑这个问题，你再过几天来看看，好吗？”“没有问题，没有问题。
”下属非常能体谅你。
一周之后，你又接到他的电话。
不等他开口，你已经感到十分歉意，并再一次请求下属“宽限”几日……此刻，你似乎有些焦头烂额，因为在你的周围已满是你自己的，以及别人放在你这里寄养的“猴子”——你已成为问题的真正中心。
猴子管理案例（二）有一天，你的下一位下属在公司办公室的走廊里与你不期而遇，下属忙停下脚步：“哎呀，老板，好不容易终于碰上你了。
有一个问题，我一直想向你请示该怎么办。
”此时，下属的身上有一只需要照顾的“猴子”，接下来，他如此这般将将问题汇报一番。
尽管你有要事在身，但还是不太好意思让这急切想把事情办好的下属失望。
你非常认真地听着……慢慢地，“猴子”的一只脚已悄悄搭在你的肩膀上。
你一直在认真倾听，并不时点头，几分钟后，你对他说这是一个非常不错的问题，很想先听听他的意见，并问：“你觉得该怎么办？”“老板，我就是因为想不出办法，才不得不向你求援的呀。
“猴子审判”●●●上世纪二十年代是美国思潮最为激荡的时期，无数思想在这里迸发，无数豪杰在这里际会。
就在这大背景下，美国发生了二十世纪影响最为深远的司法事件——“猴子审判”。
虽然那时《物种起源》已经面世大半个世纪，演化论已是美国教科书上的重点。
不过大家知道美国人普遍信教，什么“人是猴子变的”之类的说法，那都是毒害青少年的靡靡之音。
终于，在1924年底，田纳西州议员约翰·巴特尔（John Butler）开始着手推行一项旨在阻止学校教授演化论的巴特尔法案（Butler Act）。
当时的田纳西州州长奥斯汀·佩伊（Austin Peay）也是个和稀泥的主，他想着这样的法案反正也不太可能真的严格执行，不如就干脆通过了骗骗乡下人的选票也好。
但这就捅了马蜂窝，要知道那年代，美国最不缺的就是投机分子。
最先盯上这事的，是美国老牌保守派政客威廉·布莱恩（William Bryan），这位仁兄三次竞选美国总统失利，正愁没机会翻身。
他立刻高调地站出来给巴特尔法案站台，号称要把反演化论教育推向全国。
布莱恩这种开历史倒车的行为，在当时的公知圈里炸开了锅，机缘巧合之下，这引起了一个叫乔治·拉帕耶（George Rappleyea）的煤铁商人注意，当时他正愁着自己的生意不好做，他待的这个叫代顿（Dayton）的小镇，属于犄角旮旯地区，大家听都没听过，就更别提来投资了。
拉帕耶思路比较清奇，他想要是趁机在代顿策划一场宗教与科学的大审判，那么代顿不就被人熟知了么？拉帕耶在代顿物色了一名叫约翰·斯科普斯（John Scopes）的高中教师，劝导其公开宣称自己在课堂上教过演化论。
于是在1925年的5月25日，斯科普斯受到了田纳西州检查局的公诉，布莱恩当即宣布将免费当检方的辩护律师。
拉帕耶这头也不含糊，他请来美国律师界的“名嘴”克莱伦斯·达罗（Clarence Darrow），并也说服他为斯科普斯免费辩护。
第1篇一、案件背景美国猴子案件，又称“卡兹诉哈里森”案，是美国历史上著名的动物权益案件。
该案始于1962年，当时一名名叫卡兹的男子在动物园内用刀刺杀了哈里森的宠物猴子。
卡兹被起诉后，案件引发了关于动物权益、动物福利以及法律地位等问题的广泛讨论。
二、案件争议焦点1. 动物是否具有法律地位？2. 如何界定动物的权益？3. 如何在保护动物权益与人类利益之间找到平衡？三、案件审理过程1. 地方法院审理卡兹被起诉后，案件首先在地方法院进行了审理。
法院认为，猴子不具备法律地位，因此卡兹的行为不构成犯罪。
卡兹被判无罪。
2. 州最高法院审理卡兹不服一审判决，向州最高法院提起上诉。
州最高法院认为，猴子虽不具备法律地位，但人类有义务保护动物的福利。
法院撤销了一审判决，将案件发回重审。
3. 重审及上诉在重审过程中，法院认为卡兹的行为构成对动物福利的侵害，判处其有期徒刑。
卡兹不服，再次向州最高法院提起上诉。
4. 州最高法院判决州最高法院维持了一审判决，认为卡兹的行为构成对动物福利的侵害，应受到法律制裁。
同时，法院强调，在审理此类案件时，应充分考虑动物福利和人类利益之间的关系。
四、案件影响美国猴子案件在法律界引起了广泛关注，对动物权益保护产生了深远影响。
以下是案件带来的主要影响：1. 动物权益保护意识提高该案使人们开始关注动物权益保护问题，认识到动物也享有一定的权利。
2. 动物福利法规不断完善案件发生后，美国各地纷纷出台动物福利法规，加强对动物的保护。
3. 法律地位问题引发讨论该案引发了关于动物是否具有法律地位的讨论，为动物权益保护提供了理论依据。
五、法律讲堂1. 动物权益保护的重要性动物权益保护是现代文明社会的重要标志，关乎人类道德观念、伦理观念和法治观念。
2. 动物福利法规的作用动物福利法规是保护动物权益的重要手段，有助于提高动物福利水平。
3. 动物权益保护的法律途径动物权益保护可以通过法律途径实现，包括但不限于动物福利法规、动物保护法等。
猴子审判案On the seventh day of trial, Raulston asked the defense if it had any more evidence. What followed was what the New York Times described as "the most amazing court scene on Anglo-Saxon history." Hays asked that William Jennings Bryan be called to the stand as an expert on the Bible. Bryan assented, stipulating only that he should have a chance to interrogate the defense lawyers. Bryan, dismissing the concerns of his prosecution colleagues, took a seat on the witness stand, and began fanning himself.Darrow began his interrogation of Bryan with a quiet question: "You have given considerable study to the Bible, haven't you, Mr. Bryan?" Bryan replied, "Yes, I have. I have studied the Bible for about fifty years." Thus began a series of questions designed to undermine a literalist interpretation of the Bible. Bryan was asked about a whale swallowing Jonah, Joshua making the sun stand still, Noah and the great flood, the temptation of Adam in the garden of Eden, and the creation according to Genesis. After initially contending that "everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there," Bryan finally conceded that the words of the Bible should not always be taken literally. In response to Darrow's relentless questions as to whether the six days of creation, as described in Genesis, were twenty-four hour days, Bryan said "My impression is that they were periods."Bryan, who began his testimony calmly, stumbled badly under Darrow's persistent prodding. At one point the exasperated Bryan said, "I do not think about things I don't think about." Darrow asked, "Do you think about the things you do think about?" Bryan responded, to the derisive laughter of spectators, "Well, sometimes." Both old warriors grew testy as the examination continued. Bryan accused Darrow of attempting to "slur at the Bible." He said that he would continue to answer Darrow's impertinent questions because "I want the world to know that this man, who does not believe in God, is trying to use a court in Tennessee--." Darrow interrupted his witness by saying, "I object to your statement" and to "your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes." After that outburst, Raulston ordered the court adjourned. The next day, Raulston ruled that Bryan could not return to the stand and that his testimony the previous day should be stricken from evidence.The confrontation between Bryan and Darrow was reported by the press as a defeatfor Bryan. According to one historian, "As a man and as a legend, Bryan was destroyed by his testimony that day." His performance was described as that of "a pitiable, punch drunk warrior." Darrow, however, has also not escaped criticism. Alan Dershowitz, for example, contended that the celebrated defense attorney "comes off as something of an anti-religious cynic."The trial was nearly over. Darrow asked the jury to return a verdict of guilty in order that the case might be appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Under Tennessee law, Bryan was thereby denied the opportunity to deliver a closing speech he had labored over for weeks. The jury complied with Darrow's request, and Judge Raulston fined him $100.Six days after the trial, William Jennings Bryan was still in Dayton. After eating an enormous dinner, he lay down to take a nap and died in his sleep. Clarence Darrow was hiking in the Smoky Mountains when word of Bryan's death reached him. When reporters suggested to him that Bryan died of a broken heart, Darrow said "Broken heart nothing; he died of a busted belly." In a louder voice he added, "His death is a great loss to the American people."A year later, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Dayton court on a technicality--not the constitutional grounds as Darrow had hoped. According to the court, the fine should have been set by the jury, not Raulston. Rather than send the case back for further action, however, the Tennessee Supreme Court dismissed the case. The court commented, "Nothing is to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case."The Scopes trial by no means ended the debate over the teaching of evolution, but it did represent a significant setback for the anti-evolution forces. Of the fifteen states with anti- evolution legislation pending in 1925, only two states (Arkansas and Mississippi) enacted laws restricting teaching of Darwin's theory</P< p>1859– Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species is published. Darwin argues in his introduction that "the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained — namely, that each species has been independently created — is erroneous."1871– Darwin publishes his second book, The Descent of Man. In this work, Darwin directly addresses the debate over the origin of mankind, arguing that "man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World."1914– George William Hunter's A Civic Biology, the book that is later used in biology courses in Dayton, Tenn., is published. A Civic Biology describes evolution as "the belief that simple forms of life on the earth slowly and gradually gave rise to those more complex and that thus ultimately the most complex forms came into existence."1921– Former congressman and ex-Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan becomes a leader in the anti-evolution movement, delivering speeches entitled "The Menace of Darwinism" and "The Bible and its Enemies." Bryan declares in one address that "[i]t is better to trust in the Rock of Ages, than to know the age of the rocks; it is better for one to know that he is close to the Heavenly Father, than to know how far the stars in the heavens are apart."TrialClarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan chat in court during the Scopes Trial.The ACLU had originally intended to oppose the Butler Act on the grounds that it violated the teacher's individual rights and academic freedom, and was therefore unconstitutional. Mainly because of Clarence Darrow, this strategy changed as the trial progressed, and the earliest argument proposed by the defense once the trial had begun was that there was actually no conflict between evolution and the creation account in the Bible (a viewpoint later called theistic evolution). In support of this claim, they brought in eight experts on evolution. Other than Dr. Maynard Metcalf, a zoologist from Johns Hopkins University, the judge would not allow these experts to testify in person. Instead, they were allowed to submit written statements so that their evidence could be used at the appeal. In response to this decision, Darrow made a sarcastic comment to Judge Raulston (as he often did throughout the trial) on how he had beenagreeable only on the prosecution's suggestions, for which he apologized the next day, keeping himself from being found in contempt of court.[17]The presiding judge John T. Raulston was accused of being biased towards the prosecution and frequently clashed with Darrow. At the outset of the trial Raulston quoted Genesis and the Butler Act. He also warned the jury not to judge the merit of the law (which would become the focus of the trial) but on the violation of the act, which he called a 'high misdemeanor'. The jury foreman himself wasn't convinced of the merit of the Act but acted, as did most of the jury, on the instructions of the judge.[18]By the later stages of the trial, Clarence Darrow had largely abandoned the ACLU's original strategy and attacked the literal interpretation of the Bible as well as Bryan's limited knowledge of other religions and science.Only when the case went to appeal did the defense return to the original claim that the prosecution was invalid because the law was essentially designed to benefit a particular religious group, which would be unconstitutional.Bryan chastised evolution for teaching children that humans were but one of (precisely) 35,000 types of mammals and bemoaned the notion that human beings were descended "Not even from American monkeys, but from old world monkeys."[19]Malone responded for the defense in a speech that was universally considered the oratorical triumph of the trial.[20] Arousing fears of "inquisitions", Malone argued that the Bible should be preserved in the realm of theology and morality and not put into a course of science. In his conclusion, Malone declared that Bryan's "duel to the death" against evolution should not be made one-sided by a court ruling that took away the chief witnesses for the defense. Malone promised that there would be no duel because "There is never a duel with the truth." The courtroom went wild when Malone finished, and Scopes declared Malone's speech to be the dramatic highpoint of the entire trial and insisted that part of the reason Bryan wanted to go on the stand was to regain some of his tarnished glory.[21]On the sixth day of the trial, the defense ran out of witnesses. The judge declared that all of the defense testimony on the Bible was irrelevant and should not be presented to the jury (which had been excluded during the defense). During the court proceedings (7th day of the trial) the defense asked the judge to call Bryan as a witness to question him on the Bible as their own experts have been rendered irrelevant; Darrow hadplanned the day before and called Bryan a "Bible expert". This move surprised those present in the court, as Bryan was a counsel for the prosecution and Bryan himself (according to a journalist reporting the trial) never made a claim of being an expert; although he did tout his knowledge of the Bible.[22] This testimony revolved around several questions regarding biblical stories and Bryan's beliefs (as shown below), this testimony culminated in Bryan declaring that Darrow was using the court to "slur the Bible" while Darrow replied that Bryan's statements on the Bible were "foolish".[19][edit] Examination of BryanOn the seventh day of the trial, Clarence Darrow took the unorthodox step of calling William Jennings Bryan, counsel for the prosecution, to the stand as a witness in an effort to demonstrate that belief in the historicity of the Bible and its many accounts of miracles was unreasonable. Bryan accepted, on the understanding that Darrow would in turn submit to questioning by Bryan. Although Hays would claim in his autobiography that the cross-examination of Bryan was unplanned, Darrow spent the night before in preparation. The scientists the defense had brought to Dayton —and Charles Francis Potter, a modernist minister who had lost a public debate on evolution with the fundamentalist preacher John Roach Straton—prepared topics and questions for Darrow to address to Bryan on the witness stand.[23]Kirtley Mather, chairman of the geology department at Harvard and also a devout Baptist, played Bryan and answered questions as he believed Bryan would.[24][25] Raulston had adjourned court to the stand on the courthouse lawn, ostensibly because he was "afraid of the building" with so many spectators crammed into the courtroom, but probably because of the stifling heat (227; Scopes and Presley 164).[edit] Adam and EveAn area of questioning involved the book of Genesis, including questions such as if Eve was actually created from Adam's rib, where did Cain get his wife, and how many people lived in Ancient Egypt. Darrow used these examples to suggest that the stories of the Bible could not be scientific and should not be used in teaching science with Darrow telling Bryan, "You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion."[26]Bryan's declaration in response was "The reason I am answering is not for the benefit of the superior court. It is to keep these gentlemen from saying I was afraid to meet them and let them question me, and I want the Christian world to know that any atheist,agnostic, unbeliever, can question me anytime as to my belief in God, and I will answer him."[27]Stewart objected, demanding to know the legal purpose of Darrow's questioning. Bryan, gauging the effect the session was having, snapped that its purpose was "to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible". Darrow, with equal vehemence, retorted, "We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States." (299)A few more questions followed in the charged open-air courtroom. Darrow asked where Cain got his wife; Bryan answered that he would "leave the agnostics to hunt for her" (302–03). When Darrow addressed the issue of the temptation of Eve by the serpent, Bryan insisted that the Bible be quoted verbatim rather than allowing Darrow to paraphrase it in his own terms. However, after another angry exchange, Judge Raulston banged his gavel, adjourning court and bringing the drama to a sudden close(303–04).[edit] End of the trialThe confrontation between Bryan and Darrow lasted approximately two hours on the afternoon of the seventh day of the trial. It is likely that it would have continued the following morning but for Judge Raulston's announcement that he considered the whole examination irrelevant to the case and his decision that it should be "expunged" from the record. Thus Bryan was denied the chance to cross-examine the defense lawyers in return, although after the trial Bryan would distribute nine questions to the press to bring out Darrow's "religious attitude". The questions and Darrow's short answers were published in newspapers the day after the trial ended, with the New York Times characterizing Darrow as answering Bryan's questions "with his agnostic's creed, 'I don't know,' except where he could deny them with his belief in natural, immutable law".[28]After the defense's final attempt to present evidence was denied, Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury only to have them come to a guilty verdict:We claim that the defendant is not guilty, but as the court has excluded any testimony, except as to the one issue as to whether he taught that man descended from a lower order of animals, and we cannot contradict that testimony, there is no logical thing to come except that the jury find a verdict that we may carry to the higher court, purely as a matter of proper procedure. We do not think it is fair to the court or counsel onthe other side to waste a lot of time when we know this is the inevitable result and probably the best result for the case.After they were brought in, Darrow then addressed the jury, telling them that:We came down here to offer evidence in this case and the court has held under the law that the evidence we had is not admissible, so all we can do is to take an exception and carry it to a higher court to see whether the evidence is admissible or not... we cannot even explain to you that we think you should return a verdict of not guilty. We do not see how you could. We do not ask it.Darrow closed the case for the defense without a final summation. Under Tennessee law, when the defense waived its right to make a closing speech, the prosecution was also barred from summing up its case.Scopes never testified since there was never a factual issue as to whether he had taught evolution. Scopes later admitted that, in reality, he was unsure of whether he had taught evolution (another reason the defense did not want him to testify), but the point was not contested at the trial (Scopes 1967:59–60).After eight days of trial, it took the jury only nine minutes to deliberate. Scopes was found guilty on July 21 and ordered to pay a US$100 fine (approximately $1,250 in 2010 when adjusted from 1925 for inflation).[29] Raulston imposed the fine before Scopes was given an opportunity to say anything about why the court should not impose punishment upon him and after Neal brought the error to the judge's attention the defendant spoke for the first and only time in court:Your honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom — that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our constitution, of personal and religious freedom. I think the fine is unjust (World's Most Famous Court Trial 313).。
猴子审判：宗教与科学之争的斯科普斯案1 达尔文进化论提起进化论，我们自然会想到英国生物学家、进化论的奠基人，查尔斯ž罗伯特ž达尔文（Charles Robert Darwin）。
1809年2月12号，达尔文出生在英国的一个小城市，从小家庭优越，父亲罗伯特ž达尔文是一名医生。
1828年，达尔文19岁的时候，被父亲送进了剑桥大学基督学院（Christ’s College, Cambridge），并且希望达尔文有朝一日能够成为一名牧师。
在剑桥期间，达尔文成为植物学家约翰ž史蒂文斯ž亨斯洛（John Stevens Henslow）的学生和挚友，更加废寝忘食地吸收和探索科学知识。
1931年，从剑桥毕业后，达尔文在导师亨斯洛的推荐下，以半个博物学家的身份，跟随应该皇家舰艇贝格尔号（HMS Beagle），开启了长达五年的自费环球考察。
每到一处，达尔文都会在陆地上调查地质、收集自然历史的各种样本。
接触的地理环境越多样，看到的世界各地的物种越复杂，达尔文就越坚定一个信念，这一切不可能是上帝一瞬间造出来的，而是千百万年来不断变化产生的结果，物种的进化论在达尔文的脑子里逐渐清晰。
1859年，在达尔文50岁的时候，出于各种原因，他用大量压倒性的证据出版了他的恢弘巨著《物种起源》（On the Origin ofSpecies），标志着生物进化论的诞生。
他是非常谨慎的人，不希望自己因为坚持真理，而落得和伽利略一样的下场。
所以，他在书中主动回避了对猿猴和人类进化的讨论。
即便如此，达尔文的进化论自问世以来，在思想界、宗教领域引起剧烈的震动。
因为在达尔文生活的19世纪，整个欧洲都还是“神创论”（creationism）主宰的地区，在基督教的影响下，大家当时普遍都认为是上帝亲手创造了地球上的各种物种，并且按照自己的外形创造了亚当，进而用亚当的肋骨创造了夏娃。
创世纪虽然科学界已经接受进化论的推理，但是神创论和进化论之间的激烈斗争，一直到现在还在全世界上演。
“猿猴诉讼案”进化论成被告达尔文在其科学巨著《物种起源》中，用进化论推翻了“神创论”，完成了人类正确认识自然界的一次飞跃。
然而，在《物种起源》问世的第66年，达尔文逝世后的第43年，在资本主义世界的“相对稳定”时期，在号称最发达的美国，竟然发生了一场举世瞩目，令人啼笑皆非的对“猿猴诉讼案”的审判。
因在课堂上讲解达尔文进化论的被告，被拉进了法庭，推上了审判台，最后被处以100美元的罚款。
这一案件的发生，审判的进程及其结局，难道不发人深省，令人深思吗？20世纪20年代初，美国社会兴起了一场由威廉-詹宁斯-布赖恩领导的反进化论运动，这股逆流对美国政治产生的影响是如此之大，乃至1923年佛罗里达州议会通过决议，声称“达尔文主义、无神论和不可知论”不应在该州公立学校作为真理进行讲授。
1924年北卡罗来纳教育局也禁止在公立学校讲授进化论。
1925年田纳西州的法令更明确宣布：本州的一切大学，师范学校和其他各级公立学校，它们的任何教师如果讲授了任何否认上帝创造了人的圣经学说的异端，都将作为违法论罪。
随着这股逆流的泛滥，1925年5月7日，布莱恩伙同田纳西州戴顿镇地方政府向法院起诉，指控当地年青的生物教员斯科普斯在课堂上讲授进化论，违反该州法律。
法院决定7月10日开庭审理。
这一案件惊动了整个美国。
开庭的这一天，以哈佛大学科特莱-马瑟教授为首的许多有声望的教授，科学家，都到庭就坐，准备为被告辩护。
100多名记者蜂涌而至，现场采访报导。
戴顿镇附近山区原教旨派的信徒则赶来为布莱恩助威。
人口仅1500人的小镇顿时沸腾了起来。
原告的主要律师就是大腹便便、反进化论运动的领袖布莱恩。
他能言善辩，曾3次被民主党推选为总统候选人，且有其子田纳西州首席检查官汤姆-斯蒂瓦特作助手。
被告的辩护人是著名的刑事律师克拉伦斯-达洛、风度翩翩富有魅力的达特莱-菲尔德-麦洛、以及具有学者气质，对法律造诣非浅的阿瑟-加菲尔德-海斯。
双方的阵容令人咋舌，可陪审团却相形见绌了。
