554 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



T 



EVOLUTION AND EDUCATION AGAIN. 



Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



Sir : I have not before this acknowledged 

 your reference to me in a spirited and in- 

 structive editorial that appeared in the De- 

 cember number of your excellent magazine, 

 because an immediate reply might have been 

 taken to indicate a desire, on my part, for a 

 controversy, which I expressly disclaim ; and 

 besides, I have desired that the public might 

 read and consider your views dispassion- 

 ately. I care but little for the effect upon 

 myself, if the cause of truth shall be ma- 

 terially strengthened. 



I am not surprised that you refer to me as 

 " ignorant," " negligible," etc., because it has 

 for a long time been painfully clear that the 

 " scientific mind " is exceedingly sensitive, 

 and while much given to praising forbear- 

 ance and kindness, still resorts to language 

 reasonably regarded as abusive. 1 have 

 always found this to be true, and the present 

 controversy is no exception to the rule. The 

 " broadly scientific mind " is, alas ! too often 

 narrow and intolerant in treating opposing 

 views. I do not wish, however, to find fault 

 with the abuse — it may prove to be good 

 discipline, and is, therefore, thankfully ac- 

 cepted ; but I do very much desire to correct 

 a mistaken inference that you drew from my 

 reference to Herbert Spencer. There are 

 some typographical errors in the quotations 

 that you make, which, however, do not 

 change the meaning. Allow me then to say 

 that I have a great regard for Mr. Spencer ; 

 that I have read his writings with much 

 profit, and that I have never failed to accord 

 him full credit for the work he has accom- 

 plished. That I can not understand and ac- 

 cept all his teachings does not lessen my 

 respect for him. 



At the time that I made my informal 

 talk to the teachers of this city, I had no 

 thought that my remarks would be published 

 or would excite public criticism, or that I 

 would be honored with so distinguished, so 

 critical an audience, or I should have been 

 more careful in the use of terms ; but it does 

 seem to me that there is no excuse for the 

 distorted meaning that you and others have 

 given to the quotations. I referred to Mr. 

 Spencer's age to show that we could hope 

 for no change in his philosophy, and the 

 criticism that follows, if it may be styled a 

 criticism at all, is that he has refused to 

 recognize the Deity, and thereby fails to 

 " bless, cheer, and comfort suffering human- 

 ity." You discuss it as if I had said that he 

 had not bettered the condition of his fellows ; 

 but that idea is not in the statement that you 

 quote at all. The word "suffering" was in- 

 tended to apply to those who, by reason of 

 the misfortunes of this life, are compelled to 

 look beyond themselves and their surround- 

 ings for comfort, and who in all ages and 

 among all peoples have turned their thoughts 

 toward a Divine Being for comfort. I 



merely intended to say, in a very mild and 

 harmless way, that the consolations of a 

 religion based upon a belief in a Divine 

 Providence are necefsiry for suffering hu- 

 manity, and my immediate reference to Car- 

 dinal Newman by way of contrast in almost 

 the same language clearly shows this to be 

 the true meaning of my remarks. The em- 

 phasis was on the word ' suffering," which 

 was not intended to include more than a 

 fraction of mankind. 



I am obliged to you for y r our reference to 

 Mr. Gladstone, who in his last illness illus- 

 trated most fully what I had in my mind. 

 However great his pain, or cheerless the out- 

 look, he continually with serene cheerfulness 

 murmured, "I know that my Redeemer 

 liveth," and " Our Father," etc. It is per- 

 haps unnecessary to add that I am sorry that 

 any one has been led to believe that I under- 

 rate the value of the life and work of Herbert 

 Spencer. 



Please allow me to refer to the statement 

 in your editorial, " Again dealing with the 

 modern scientific view, that in the develop- 

 ment of the human individual all antecedent 

 stages of human development are in a man- 

 ner passed through," etc., in order that I 

 may express my regret that you seem to 

 vitiate the force of the statement altogether 

 by the use of the unscientific phrase " in 

 a manner." The tremendous consequences 

 glowing out of the view make serious and 

 exact definition and treatment imperative, 

 and I had hoped that 1 was entering upon a 

 helpful discussion of it, but was greatly dis- 

 appointed. I am also unwilling to believe 

 that students of Emerson will be easily con- 

 vinced that he looked at life " from a sta- 

 tionary point of view," but I do not feel that 

 I can claim your valuable time for a discus- 

 sion of this point. 



May I trust your forbearance in pointing 

 out a manifest misconception in your state- 

 ment, " We are not imposed upon by child- 

 ish imitations of mature virtues " ? The re- 

 mark indicates that you have not been 

 brought into immediate association with 

 school children in a schoolroom, at least in 

 recent years. 



I refer very reluctantly, but I trust with- 

 out seeming egotism, to your remarks touch- 

 ing my election to the position which I hold. 

 I am innocent of all responsibility in the 

 matter. I had no "pull" (is the term scien- 

 tific?). I wrote to the board declining to be 

 a candidate. I refused to allow my friends 

 to speak to the members of the board in my 

 behalf; 1 preferred the position (Principal 

 of the St. Paul High School) which 1 had 

 held for years, and I accepted the office with 

 much hesitation ; but the intimation that our 

 Board of School Inspectors, composed of 

 business men in every way highly esteemed 

 by the citizens of St. Paul, and deemed 

 worthy of all confidence, had been actuated 

 by unworthy motives, is entirely gratuitous 

 and out of place in a journal such as you 



