# If the defense could break down the Fundamentalists" most contradictory beliefs towards evolution, man would come one step closer to breaking free of the Victorian era and emerging as a Modernist society in which science could blossom.
The Prosecution's primary purpose was simply to convict Scopes of breaking the law; however, it's greater purpose was to defend the doctrines of Christian belief "that the progress of science [and Modernism] seemed to threaten most."# A central tenant of Fundamentalism was the literal interpretation of the Bible, including the story of creation. As a result, the defense's ultimate path toward victory was finding a way to invalidate this method of interpretation. One of Clarence Darrow's (defense) first arguments was that the Bible was open to a plethora of interpretations. With this fact, Darrow attempted to convince the court that the law was unconstitutional because "it is so uncertain and impossible that every man must be sure that he has read everything in the Bible and not only read it but understand it, or he might violate the criminal code."# In other words, the Bible was open to so many interpretations that it was impossible for anyone to really know what the true understanding was. Therefore, the theory of Creation as stated in the Bible was open to any man's interpretation. Darrow furthered this point by bringing the prosecutor William Jennings Bryan to the stand. In order to convince the court and even the prosecution that "everything in the Bible need not be interpreted literally,"# Darrow focused on Bryan's idea of the age of the Earth and amount of time God took to create Earth. Gradually breaking down each barrier, Darrow guided Bryan to admit not only that he believed the Earth might be millions of years old, but also that God's six days of creation were not six twenty-four hour periods. By this feat alone, Darrow proved the Fundamentalists" method of literal interpretation was unreliable.