Maybe. But it sounds like Darrow was defending a dumb, and dangerously dumb, Darwinism. I can’t find automatic fault with the effort to reconcile the Bible with science (though it’s not something I personally would trouble myself with), to show that it wasn’t necessarily contrary to reason and known facts, which seemed to be the issue in Darrow’s cross-exam of Bryan. Prior to Darwin’s explanation for the origin of things, there wasn’t really any other explanation than the Bible’s, and Darwin’s explanation, at least as presented in the Scopes case, appeared to be seriously wanting. Now, I agree with you that none of the factual assertions in the Bible really matter, not even the assertion that Jesus rose from the dead. But I can understand the reluctance to simply jettison wholesale the Bible’s explanation of things in favor of Darwin’s, on the mere authority of Darwin or even the authority of a purported scientific consensus (I’ve experienced firsthand the fallibility of such a “consensus”), particularly when Darwin was presented as implying total and abject materialism and as nullifying any need for God.