_Kirtley F. Mather, Chairman of the Department of Geology, Harvard University_: Science has not even a guess as to the original source or sources of matter. It deals with immediate causes and effects.... Men of science have as their aim the discovery of facts. They seek with open eyes, willing to recognize it, as Huxley said, even if it “sears the eyeballs.” After they have discovered truth, and not till then, do they consider what its moral implications may be. Thus far, and presumably always, truth when found is also found to be right, in the moral sense of the word.... As Henry Ward Beecher said, forty years ago, “If to reject God’s revelation in the book is infidelity, what is it to reject God’s revelation of himself in the structure of the whole globe?” _Maynard M. Metcalf, Research Specialist in Zoology, Johns Hopkins University_: Intelligent teaching of biology or intelligent approach to any biological science is impossible if the established fact of evolution is omitted. _Horatio Hackett Newman, Professor of Zoology, University of Chicago_: Evolution has been tried and tested in every conceivable way for considerably over half a century. Vast numbers of biological facts have been examined in the light of this principle and without a single exception they have been entirely compatible with it.... The evolution principle is thus a great unifying and integrating scientific conception. Any conception that is so far-reaching, so consistent, and that has led to so much advance in the understanding of nature, is at least an extremely valuable idea and one not lightly to be cast aside in case it fails to agree with one’s prejudices. Thus the two sides lined up as dialectical truth and empirical fact. The state legislature of Tennessee, acting in its sovereign capacity, had passed a measure which made it unlawful to teach that man is connatural with the animals through asserting that he is descended from a “lower order” of them. (There was some sparring over the meaning of the technical language of the act, but this was the general consensus.) The legal question was whether John T. Scopes had violated the measure. The philosophical question, which was the real focus of interest, was the right of a state to make this prescription. We have referred to the kind of truth which can be dialectically established, and here we must develop further the dialectical nature of the state’s case. As long as it maintained this dialectical position, it did not have to go into the “factual” truth of evolution, despite the outcry from the other side. The following considerations, then, enter into this “dialectical” prosecution.