This paper examines the Scopes trial's contribution to American intellectual history by studying the historical context of the controversy from a rhetorical perspective. The trial became a rhetorical vehicle which focused on the modernist-fundamentalist religious controversy and polarized these movements. By analyzing the rhetorical terms--purpose, profiles, symbols, values, consequences, content, and strategy--four fundamental conclusions are drawn. Dialectical enjoinment was restricted because: (1) the disputants remained mired in unresolved epistemological questions; (2) little attempt was made to create common ground between the two alternative philosophies which seemed equally appealing; (3) Darrow refused to clash directly with legal arguments but transcended them to consider the constitutionality of the Tennessee statute; and (4) the artificial atmosphere created by the commercial interests of the religious controversy probably attracted attention to the Scopes trial but possibly undermined rational judgment. (TS)