EDITOR'S TABLE. 



267 



of many men of high standing who yet rec- 

 ognize and accept its truths. It is this sort 

 of neglect or cowardice, I think, which em- 

 boldens some minds to gratify their resent- 

 ment of opinions or views they have a senti- 

 mental repugnance to by indulging in the sly 

 thrust; trusting to the perhaps unpopular 

 nature of the matter for their immunity from 

 consequences. 



I can not conceive Helen Zimmern being 

 as ignorant of Malthus's writings as the words 

 I quote from her paper would imply ; and I 

 am very unwilling to suppose she would will- 

 fully misrepresent. 



Respectfully, Arthur F. Palmer. 



152 Ckawpord Road, Cleveland, Ohio, 



September 80, 1896. 



NATIVE AMERICAN POTTERY. 



Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



Sir : Of course the name " Alaska " is a 

 slip of the pen with Madame Le Plongeon in 



the September Popular Science Monthly, what- 

 ever other locality the distinguished writer 

 may have had in mind. The only pottery to be 

 seen in Alaska is exceedingly rude, perhaps 

 the worst in the world. The Athapascans 

 of the interior boil food in baskets and 

 boxes, with hot stones. The Tlingit (Kolos- 

 chan) of the coast have no pottery, using 

 boxes of alder and other woods for vessels. 

 The Aleuts have no pottery and no substi- 

 tutes therefor, except such dishes as they 

 make from driftwood. But the Eskimo 

 tribes about Bristol Bay do mix up mud with 

 hair and blood to form their lamps and grease 

 bowls. Excepting this rude ware, there was 

 no pottery made by the Pacific coast tribes 

 between the Santa Barbara Islands, Lower 

 California, and the Eskimo of Bristol Bay. 

 Thirty-five of the families or stocks of Indi- 

 ans north of Mexico are not known to have 

 ever practiced making pottery. 



Otis T. Mason. 

 Washington, D. C, September 7, 1896. 



gcXitor^s SaMje. 



A THEOLOGICAL VIEW OF EVOLUTION. 



ON more than one occasion lately 

 we have had to note the grow- 

 ing liberality of theological thought 

 in relation to scientific questions; 

 and we now have before us another 

 striking example of the same tend- 

 ency in an address delivered at the 

 recent Church Congress in England 

 by Archdeacon Wilson, of Manches- 

 ter, on The Bearing of the Theory 

 of Evolution on Christian Doctrine. 

 Thoughtless critics sometimes en- 

 deavor to cast ridicule upon the clergy 

 for troubling themselves with discus- 

 sions of this kind. Then" idea is that 

 theologians should expound and de- 

 velop their doctrines in entire inde- 

 pendence of, if not indifference to, 

 what the scientific world may be do- 

 ing, and that the scientific workers 

 should equally ignore theology. We 

 can not accept such a view. The 

 human mind is not built in thought- 

 tight compartments, if we may use 

 the expression. Every thought hon- 



estly entertained claims the privilege 

 of traveling everywhere, and asks 

 for illustration and confirmation 

 wherever it goes. If the scientific 

 man is a religious man he will want 

 to blend his science with his religion, 

 and the religious man will want to 

 know that the doctrines to which he 

 adheres are not contradicted by any 

 portion of his acquired knowledge. 

 If the leaders of religious thought 

 were to withdraw from all interest 

 in the teachings of science, the infer- 

 ence would certainly be drawn that 

 they were conscious of a hopeless an- 

 tagonism between the principles of 

 science and the doctrines of religion. 

 They would seem to present to the 

 world the alternative: "Science or 

 Religion ; choose which you will, you 

 can not have both." 



Far better is the attitude of those 

 who, believing in both, believing that 

 men have need of religion, and that 

 they can not deny the authority of 

 science, strive to see what measure of 



