328 RAYMOND J. NOGAR 



were it to be submitted to the biologists working the various dis- 

 ciplines today. If, however, a second question were asked, one 

 requiring a definition of organic evolution, it is equally likely that 

 a varied suite of answers would result, and, if the answers were 

 honest, there would be a fair sprinkling to the effect " I don't 

 know." * 



After insisting that there is a silent segment of significant num- 

 bers among biologists and other scientists who feel that much 

 of the fabric of evolutionary theory accepted by the majority 

 today is actually undemonstrated or even false, Olson goes on: 



The statement is frequently made that organic evolution is no 

 longer to be regarded as a theory, but is a fact. This, it seems to 

 me, reveals a curious situation that causes considerable difficulty in 

 understanding evolution both among laymen and among biologists 

 who are not intimately concerned with its study ... If organic 

 evolution can be defined simply and loosely as the changes of 

 organisms through successive generations in time, then it can hardly 

 be questioned that, within our understanding of the earth and its 

 life, evolution has occurred. In this sense it must be considered a 

 reality . . .^ 



If, however, the definition of evolution goes further and 

 asserts that contemporary synthetic theory (neo-Darwinian, 

 mutation-selection) is the theory of evolution, as was done 

 many times during the Convention,'' then. Dr. Olson points out, 

 that " fact of evolution " must be rejected as unproved and 

 invalid. The explanation of how the process of orderly change 

 of successive generations through time has been accomplished 

 must be dissociated from the statement that such an orderly 

 succession has taken place. Only then will many scientists 

 accept the proposition " evolution is a fact." ^ 



Olson's critical series of observations in the midst of the 

 Centennial discussion of the status of evolutionary theory 

 today throws important light upon the confusion which has 

 reigned for over a decade about this proposition: " evolution 

 is a fact." In 1951, the eminent geneticist T. Dobzhansky 

 wrote: 



* Op. cit., I, 525. ^ Ihid., p. 526. « Loc. cit. '' Ibid., p. 527. 



