The Scopes Trial and Its Long Shadow

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is less a historical narrative and more a criticism of Fundamentalist resistance to evolutionary science.  The first half of the article reviewing the trial is fine.  The promise of a “long shadow” is lacking, however.  The author’s talk of a “turning inwards” of fundamentalism is a major problem, as that notion has been discredited many years ago.  It speaks to the major problem with the article: Inattention to contemporary scholarship on Fundamentalism.  I would consider a revised essay that was informed by the scholarship on Fundamentalism by Matthew Sutton, Daniel Hummel, Tim Gloege, Darren Dochuk, Molly Worthen, Michael Kazin, and Mark Edwards, “rethinking the scopes trial,” Fides et Historia.

Author Response

Thank you for your critique of my talk of fundamentalism turning inwards. Of the sources you mentioned, I found Edwards piece on “Rethinking Antievolutionism . . . after 1925.” I found it very helpful, though I disagree with his assessment that Bryan would have been able to accomplish more statewide or national legislation against evolution in education had he lived longer (manuscript pp. 9-11). I agree that an attribution of an inward turn is not appropriate in light of fundamentalist successes on textbooks and with local school districts.

I have done more to show the shadow of the trial—both as remembered and misremembered—in responses relating to fundamentalism and science. As a scholar of the relationship between science and religion, I accept established science regarding the reality of evolution and speciation. So criticism of fundamentalist resistance to evolutionary science remains a central part of my analysis of the conflict between fundamentalism and scientific knowledge.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The remembering the 100th anniversary of the Scopes Trial provides a look back at the arguments and environment at that time concerning science and religion. By laying out the people involved, the content of the trial and the aftermath, the article provides clearly the difficulty of saying who won and who lost. That judgment which stands to this day on either side of the debate. There was no clear winner then and there is no clear today but the consequences as pointed out continues to effect public opinion on fundamentalism and science. It seems that both sides are balancing their place in American society.  The use of the long shadow in the title provides an image that will remain with the American public as long as people search for understanding and meaning. 

There are no concerns raised but an appreciation for reflecting on this trial on its anniversary. 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your very appreciative comments on my article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction to the study is well organised and clearly outlines all the points it intends to address. However, I found the formulation of a clear hypothesis lacking. This would have enabled the author to present their own perspective.

 The author identifies several fields in the first cahpter, including culture, art and film, in which fundamentalism has exerted its influence. However, this could be situated within a broader context, with the opinions of certain authors being given greater prominence.

(Warren L. Vinz: The Politics of Protestant Fundamentalism in the 1950s and 1960s Journal of Church and State, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Spring 1972), pp. 235-260

 Alfred Darnell, Darren E. SherkatThe Impact of Protestant Fundamentalism on Educational Attainment American Sociological Review, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 306-315,

Heather Hendershot: God's Angriest Man: Carl McIntire, Cold War Fundamentalism, and Right-Wing Broadcasting American Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Jun., 2007), pp. 373-396)

The first two chapters are accessible and engaging, but are somewhat descriptive in nature. A synthesis of extant knowledge and information is provided, with the author's own contribution to the field remaining obscured. Nevertheless, this is to be expected of a journal of such high quality.

This assertion is applicable to the succeeding chapters as well. The publication is characterised by its readability and engaging nature; however, the integration of the author's original material, research, and personal opinions remains underdeveloped. Incorporating these elements more extensively into the revised version would be advantageous.

The author's perspective is most clearly articulated in the final chapter and the conclusion. The final chapter is distinguished by a comprehensive array of literary sources, which serve to distinctly articulate the varied perspectives of the authors. In this instance, the author would have been well-advised to articulate their personal perspective with greater emphasis.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. I have developed and sharpened my theses on the conflict between fundamentalism and science in light of the Scopes Trial. I have added summarization of these theses to the Introduction, more strongly indicted the media for its spectacle/circus-like coverage that aggravated rather than ameliorated the conflict (section 6, the closing lines on media coverage), connected the anti-intellectualism of fundamentalism with its doubling down on positions incompatible with science (section 7. Latter Day Fundamentalism and Science, 3^rd paragraph), added to section 8 on Developments in Evolutionary Theory to strengthen my case that the neo-Darwinian synthesis overreacted to fundamentalist opposition to evolution, especially by adding a closing paragraph to the section. In the Conclusion, I brought these elements together regarding how the trial and responses to it aggravated the conflict between science and conservative religion.

Regarding the sources you suggested, I found the piece on Darnell and Sherkat helpful on the anti-intellectualism angle (section 7, paragraph 3). My concern is not to do a general overview of fundamentalism in American culture, or even fundamentalism in the political arena, from 1925 to the present, but rather to focus on the antagonism between fundamentalism and science and how that played out in relevant areas of culture. Therefore, I judged that the other two sources you mentioned would not advance my project.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a novel text with relevant contributions to the discussion on fundamentalist discourses and their social impacts.
I would like to make a couple of observations for improvement:
In the introduction, it is important to describe the working methodology, an aspect lacking in this section.
It would be important to better connect the ninth and final section of the text with the conclusions, to emphasize its relevance (although it is partially addressed, it could be explored further).

Author Response

Thank you very much for your appreciative comments and helpful observations.

I have added material concerning my methodology to the Introduction.

I have more strongly connected my material on Developments in Evolutionary Theory, as well as other elements of my article, with the Conclusion regarding how the Scopes Trial and various responses to it aggravated the conflict between fundamentalism and scientific knowledge and regarding lessons learned that could ameliorate conflict.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the essay is fine in its present form.