May, 1922 common misconceptions of evolution 189 



to place any reliance on his views. If the question as to the 

 truth of evolution were to be put to a public vote today, I 

 have little doubt that the scientists would be overwhelmingly 

 voted down. 



The newspapers still mistake scientific discussions as to 

 the method of evolution for doubts as to the fact of evolution 

 and often herald this error in glaring headlines, such as "Great 

 Scientist Disputes Darwinian Theory," "Evolution Theory 

 Disproved, " etc., etc. This happened no later than last winter 

 following Prof. Bateson's address before the American Associa- 

 tion for the Advancement of Science at Toronto. At the close 

 of his address, Bateson said, "Let us then proclaim in precise 

 and unmistakable language that our faith in evolution is 

 unshaken. * * * q^j. (doubts are not as to the reality or 

 truth of evolution, but as to the origin of species, a technical, 

 almost domestic problem. Any day that mystery may be 

 solved." Though the greatest pains were taken to insure that 

 no mistakes should creep into the subject matter presented to 

 the newspapers for publication, the headliner got in his deadly 

 work uncensored, with the result that the next morning's 

 papers carried headlines announcing the unwarranted assertion 

 that this famous British scientist disputed the fact of evolution. 



It is quite apparent that the mass of the reading public 

 are unable to distinguish the difference between fact and 

 method in this field of thought. The campaign against evolu- 

 tion just now being waged by a certain notorious speaker is a 

 case in point. When a man who is very evidently unskilled 

 in the handling of scientific data, unfamiliar with the details 

 of the subject, and solely by an appeal to the emotions through 

 his oratorical presentation, can obtain a wide hearing throughout 

 the country and can even influence a state legislature to con- 

 sider measures for preventing the teaching of evolution, we 

 must admit that the idea has not yet been fully accepted by 

 many so-called educated people. 



The editor of "The Congregationalist, " (March 16, 1922, 

 p. 32G), however, wisely points out that "Addresses such as 

 that which Mr. Bryan delivered in Philadelphia will do ver}' 

 little to affect the course of science, but we think they are 

 calculated to do irreparable harm to religion." And again, 

 "When one realizes the patience, care and courage with which 

 the sincere scientist pursues his quest of truth, there is some- 



