Clarence Darrow Archives

July 30, 2025July 29, 2025

Free Will: Is It an Illusion?

Did you decide to read this article, or do you just think you made that decision? Do you have the ability to choose or reject any action? When we hear about someone murdering another person or a group of people, did that person choose to do it? Those who deny that we have free will argue that we cannot make our own decisions because the molecules in our brain neurons, our environment, and circumstances control us. This is the view held by atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Stephen Hawking.

Those who deny the existence of free will are materialists, believing that matter is all that exists. What we call our mind is merely the accidental activity of atoms and molecules in our nerve cells. Since these accidents direct our actions, free will is just an illusion. The atheist attorney Clarence Darrow, of Scopes trial fame, wrote, “It has been generally assumed that man was created different from all the rest of animal life; that man alone was endowed with a soul and with the power to tell good from evil; … that man not only knew good from evil, but was endowed with “free will,” and had the power to choose between good and evil…As a matter of fact, every scientific man knows that the origin of life is quite different from this; that the whole current conception of the individual and his responsibility is a gross error…”

Darrow’s views stem from his belief in materialistic evolution. We must ask, “If we have no free will to choose our actions, why do we think we do?” Of course, the atheist would say that blind and undirected evolution has planted within us the illusion that we can make free will choices. If we are nothing but accidental collections of atoms, the mind is an illusion, and free will cannot be possible. If what we perceive as design in the natural world is only an illusion, then free will is also an illusion. If there is an ultimate MIND that created this universe, life, and our minds, that would explain why we see design in the universe, our solar system, planet Earth, life, and our bodies. If God does not exist, there is no design, no purpose, and no free will.

As I consider this scenario, I wonder how anyone can truly live life believing there is no design, purpose, or free will. Most casual atheists probably have not considered the implications of their worldview, or they choose not to dwell on them. They simply say, “There is no God, so just enjoy life.” But how can you choose to enjoy life if you have no real choice? It seems to me that this whole atheist mindset, worldview, philosophy—whatever you want to call it—denies reality. Design in the universe and in nature is real, and so is our ability to choose. Therefore, choose wisely.

Reference: “Crime: Its Cause and Treatment” by Clarence Darrow

July 23, 2025July 22, 2025

Bryan’s Arguments Against Darwin

Yesterday, July 21, 2025, marked the 100^th anniversary of the end of the famous Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee. Over the past few days, the media have commemorated it, and we have written about it HERE and HERE. The play “Inherit the Wind,” loosely based on the Scopes trial, was adapted into a movie twice, with the names changed to protect the innocent, or guilty. The real name was William Jennings Bryan, and although Bryan’s arguments against Darwin were not presented in the play or movies, they have still not been answered in the 100 years since Scopes.

William Jennings Bryan was a renowned orator of his day and a devout Christian who was not convinced of the truth of naturalistic macroevolution. One of his arguments against it involved the origin of life. Evolution does not explain creation. Evolution requires creation, and Darwin merely suggested that life got started in a “warm little pond” without explaining how that might have happened. Bryan said this:

“Those who reject the idea of creation are divided into two schools, some believing that the first germ of life came from another planet, and others holding that it was the result of spontaneous generation. Each school answers the arguments advanced by the other, and as they cannot agree with each other, I am not compelled to agree with either.”

After 100 years of research, scientists are no closer to solving the mystery of the origin of life than they were in Bryan’s day.

Another area that Bryan challenged was genetics (the passing of traits through generations) and morphology (the shape and structure of living things). Bryan expressed his doubts with a watermelon illustration:

“I was eating a piece of watermelon some months ago and was struck with its beauty…One [seed], put into the ground, when warmed by the sun and moistened by the rain, takes off its coat and goes to work; it gathers from somewhere two hundred thousand times its own weight, and forcing this raw material through a tiny stem, constructs a watermelon. It ornaments the outside with a covering of green; inside the green it puts a layer of white, and within the white a core of red, and all through the red it scatters seeds, each one capable of continuing the work of reproduction. Where does that little seed get its tremendous power? Where does it find its coloring matter? How does it collect its flavouring extract? How does it build a watermelon? Until you can explain a watermelon, do not be too sure that you can set limits to the power of the Almighty and say just what He would do or how He would do it. I cannot explain the watermelon, but I eat it and enjoy it.”

Today, we know that DNA carries the code for proteins and regulates cell functions, but science still does not understand the body plan of living things. What was once called “junk DNA” (non-coding) appears to be involved in morphology, but its mechanism of action remains unknown. Consider the similarities between the DNA of humans and fruit flies, and notice the vast differences in their body plans.

William Jennings Bryan’s arguments against Darwin have still not been answered by science. The origin of life and the secrets of genetics and morphology are still unexplained. Tomorrow, we will look at two more of Bryan’s arguments against Darwin.

Reference: “Still Unrefuted: William Jennings Bryan’s Key Arguments Against Darwinian Theory” by Rick Townsend in the summer 2025 issue of Salvo magazine, Pages 28-32.

November 6, 2017October 5, 2018

Scopes Monkey Trial Nonsense Continues

In July of 1925, a silly trial took place in Dayton, Tennessee. A school teacher named John Thomas Scopes had broken Tennessee law by teaching evolution. People call it the Scopes monkey trial.

On the prosecution side was William Jennings Bryan, the spokesman for fundamentalist advocates of the Bible. (Bryan is sitting on the left side of the picture.) Clarence Darrow was the humanist opponent arguing for the defense. (You can see him standing on the right questioning Bryan. The judge had moved the trial outside because of the heat in the packed courtroom.) At the time, people called it “the trial of the century.” After eight days of the trial, it took the jury nine minutes to convict Scopes, and the judge fined him $100.

The problem was that no one bothered to define “evolution.” Nobody took the time to see what the Bible really said. The weaknesses of denominational teaching were attacked, not the evidence or understanding of what science and the Bible actually say on the subject. Both sides claimed a win, but in reality, neither side won. Books, theatrical productions, and movies have perpetuated the story, and it has given great promotional value to the little town of Dayton.

The latest example of how this battle goes on appeared on July of 2017 when a statue of Clarence Darrow was dedicated on the Dayton courthouse lawn. The dedication drew an organized protest by fundamentalists who already have a statue of William Jennings Bryan in the area. The newspapers billed it as a “religion versus science” debate. A recent Gallup poll shows that the number of Americans who believe that evolution is the only possible answer to the origin of all living things has grown from 9% in the late 1980s to 19% today.

Science and faith are friends and not enemies. That has to be true because the same God who created the universe and life gave us the account of what He did. If there is a conflict, we either have bad science or bad theology. The lesson of history and the Scopes monkey trial is that we have had a lot of both.
–John N. Clayton © 2017