For the amount of information that is portrayed, it is truly remarkable that it is accomplished in such a short space.

The writing is of high quality and highly relevant. It manages to convey a great deal of essential details and ideas within a concise framework.

This not only showcases the author's skill in presenting information effectively but also makes it easily accessible and engaging for the reader.

Despite the brevity, the content is rich and thought-provoking, leaving a lasting impression.

It is a testament to the power of good writing and the ability to communicate complex concepts in a clear and concise manner.

Overall, this piece is a great example of how much can be achieved with just a few well-chosen words.

Nicely done! The work is truly remarkable. It is clear and concise, presenting all the information in a good and logical order. What's more, it manages to avoid being overly romantic, which is a great achievement. This approach allows the readers to focus on the essential details without being distracted by excessive emotions or sentimentality. It shows a high level of professionalism and objectivity. The writer has done an excellent job of communicating the message effectively. Overall, it is a well-written piece that is both engaging and informative.

If you have been following my blog for the past year or so, you are well aware that I have had more than a casual interest in the battles in the American courts regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design, also known as Creationism, in high school science classes. After reading numerous books on the famous 2005 case in Dover, PA, I made the decision to direct some of my attention to the trial with which it is most frequently compared, the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, TN.

I came across Edward J. Larson's Pulitzer Prize-winning account of the trial in a display at my local library that was set up to honor Charles Darwin's 200th birthday. I was completely engrossed by this book from beginning to end. Although Larson's account of the case is extremely detailed, it is also beautifully written and highly recommended for reading. It provides a fascinating look into the events and personalities involved in this landmark trial, and offers valuable insights into the ongoing debate over the teaching of evolution and creationism in our schools.

It seemed a propitious time to read Edward Larson’s Summer for the Gods. This past February, Bill Nye made the (unfortunate, lose-lose) decision to debate young earth creationist Ken Ham at the Creationist Museum. Four months earlier, Texas – which has enormous sway in the textbook industry – once again began working on legislation to “teach the controversy,” a euphemistic way of saying “teach creationism” alongside evolution.

This is all well and good, because there is literally nothing else going on in the world that demands our attention.

The evolution controversy (manufactured and for-profit) is not a new phenomenon. It has been brewing ever since Charles Darwin wrote his impenetrable classic, On the Origin of Species, which sits unread on my bookshelf, right next to Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.

One of the first – and undoubtedly most famous – salvos in this ongoing (and thoroughly ridiculous battle) was the 1925 case of State of Tennessee vs. John T. Scope, more familiarly known as the Scopes (or Scopes Monkey) Trial. Undoubtedly you’ve heard of the case. Perhaps, like me, you sometimes drink wine and watch Turner Classic Movies and saw part of Inherit the Wind before passing out one night.

Summer of the Gods is the brisk (266 pages of text), readable, Pulitzer Prize winning story of this seminal case. And if you’re like me, and your knowledge about this event is restricted to imbibing Yellow Tail chardonnay and watching Spencer Tracey spar with Frederic March, you will be surprised by what you learn.

Most surprisingly, perhaps, is that the Scopes Trial began as a publicity stunt. Whenever a controversial law is passed, opponents of that law will look for a test case to challenge the law’s constitutionality. Tennessee’s law, the Butler Act, forbade the teaching of evolution in public schools.

(The Butler Act made teaching evolution a jail-able offense, a fact that made even supporters of the law uncomfortable. Marinate on that, for a second. A law that would put teachers in jail for teaching a subject. In America. Jailed in America for teaching. It boggles the mind.)

The American Civil Liberties Union offered to provide the defense of anyone charged with violating the Butler Act. This would allow them to get the case before the State – and ultimately – United States Supreme Court, where they hoped it would be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment.

In Robinson’s Drugstore in Dayton, Tennessee, an entrepreneurial coal company manufacturer and several other conspirators – including the school superintendent – decided that a trial on the law would be great for tourism. With that in mind, and with all parties colluding, including the prosecutors and local judges, a teacher named John Scopes (with minimal local ties, for obvious reasons) was recruited to serve as the defendant. He was indicted, went before the judge, and was released without bond pending trial.

(It is unclear that Scopes ever actually violated the law. In later years he denied teaching evolution subsequent to the Butler Act. At his trial, the students called to testify against him – with Scopes’ blessing – were vague in the extreme. If Scopes ever taught them evolution, he didn't teach it very well).

The run-up to the trial promised everything the Dayton chamber of commerce could’ve hoped for. The prosecutors brought in William Jennings Bryan, a former secretary of state, presidential nominee, and ardent creationist. The defense countered with a controversial choice (even among other defense attorneys): Clarence Darrow, a latter day cross between Richard Dawkins and Barry Scheck.

The defense eventually settled on a strategy of arguing that evolution and the Bible were compatible. After the prosecution staged its case-in-chief, showing that Scopes taught evolution in violation of the law, Judge John Raulston suddenly tired of the spectacle. He ruled that the defense’s proposed experts were irrelevant to the narrow question of whether or not Scopes taught evolution.

To preserve a record for appeal, the defense made an offer of proof outside the presence of the jury. Darrow also shocked everyone by calling Bryan to the stand (and Bryan shocked everyone by taking the stand). The Darrow-Bryan examination is the most famous aspect of the Scopes trial, the part you’ve heard of even if you don’t know anything else about the case. Interestingly, Judge Raulston eventually determined Bryan’s testimony irrelevant and had it expunged from the record.

With its strategy thwarted, the defense conceded Scope’s conviction. Scopes was fined $100 and the defense appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The high court upheld the conviction, but overturned the sentence (the fine) on a technicality. Then, in an extremely unusual bit of dicta, they recommended that the prosecution not retry the case. The purpose of this suggestion was to keep the defense from appealing to the United States Supreme Court.

Larson tracks these many twists and turns in clear and transparent prose. He is a law professor, but writes for laypeople. He is good at explaining the different legal strategies and nuances of a fairly convoluted proceeding.

The tone of Summer for the Gods is restrained. This is not by any means a polemic. Larson does not have an axe to grind. Of course, I’m sure there are certain readers who will find Larson’s lack of bias to be a bias in and of itself. (It might also have made the book a bit more lively. Objectivity is fine; subjectivity is more fun).

If there is a bias, it is the bias of fact and history. Neither Darrow or Bryan come out looking very good. Darrow is portrayed as something of a jerk, gravely disliked by his putative colleagues (the ACLU tried its best to get him off the case). Bryan simply looks like a fool. Darrow’s decision to call Bryan was a sublime strategic move. Even though it did not change the trial, it hurt the creationist cause. Bryan’s steadfast reliance on a Biblical interpretation led him to deny natural realities. When you read the transcript of his examination, Bryan seems an ignorant buffoon.

(Bryan died in his sleep shortly after the trial. Darrow stated he “died of a busted belly.” H.L. Mencken allegedly remarked, “We killed the son-of-a-bitch!”).

Maybe the most stunning thing about Summer for the Gods is that it was written in 1997. It feels like it came out yesterday. It is disheartening, to say the least, that this issue is still alive in 2014, and that we’ve walked in a large circle since 1925, ending right back in Dayton where we started.

Due in part to Supreme Court rulings on the First Amendment, the nature of the debate has changed. It is no longer about keeping evolution out, but of allowing alternate explanations in. The “competing theories” movement is far more subtle and nuanced than anything propounded by William Jennings Bryan. That’s what makes it so perfidious.

I don’t pretend to know with any certainty how the world began. On most days, I don’t even care. But I do know that in science, “theory” does not mean something scribbled on a napkin during happy hours at Applebee’s. It is an idea that gets put through the scientific method, that is verified through observations and experiments. Evolution rightly belongs in public school science classes. Creationism does not.

I went to Catholic schools from fifth grade all the way through law school. I learned a couple things from that. First, Catholic schools are expensive. Second, that the separation of church and state works, even within a parochial school. The math classes I went to taught math. The science classes taught science. The theology classes taught theology. It worked.

My experience does not point the way to an answer. It’s obvious that the solution it to maintain separation, to have different spheres for science and faith. It’s equally obvious, as Larson notes, that huge numbers of people view the Bible as authoritative on matters of science (and on every other aspect of life). For certain church leaders, the controversy is the giving tree, inspiring activism and donations and publicity. Larson is probably correct in noting that the Scopes Trial is not the trial of the century, but more aptly the trial of the centuries.

A verdict is not expected any time soon.