190 RAYMOND C. OSBURN Vol. XXII, No. 7 



thing anomalous in the effort to dominate that field by the 

 superficialities of platform oratory." 



Professors Henry Fairfield Osborn and Edwin Grant Conklin 

 have also recently replied, through the "New York Times" 

 of March 5, to an article by Mr. Bryan in an earlier number of 

 the same paper. Osborn points out that "evolution takes its 

 place with the gravitation law of Newton." Conklin com- 

 ments on Bryan's attempt "to establish an inquisition for the 

 trial of science at the bar of theology," and grows facetious 

 over his proposition "to repeal a law of nature by a law of 

 Kentucky. " 



Mr. Edward M. Kindle, of the Canadian Geological Survey, 

 writes in a recent number of "Science," "A Don Quixote of 

 Mr. Bryan's calibre only appears once or twice in a century 

 and the opportunity to study in cold print the celebrated 

 Nebraskan's proposal to resurrect the 'special creation of 

 species' myth must be appreciated by our scientific brethren 

 who are interested in studying the mysterious ways in which 

 the human mind works when it approaches subjects unfamiliar 

 to it." 



It might be added that the English churchmen knew enough 

 to quit fifty years ago when the proof of evolution was 

 demonstrated to them. The modern opponents of the theory 

 have not a single idea at their disposal that was not worn 

 threadbare and proved useless a half century ago, while the 

 facts supporting the theory have accumulated continuously 

 and voluminously. The more enlightened churchmen the 

 world over, long ago accepted evolution as one of the great 

 fundamental truths, leaving only the ignorant and prejudiced 

 among them to butt their heads against the wall of scientific 

 ■evidence. 



Why then, with this mass of evidence which is so clear to 

 the mind trained in the formation of scientific conclusions, 

 has not the general public been more ready to accept these 

 conclusions? Has the public no faith in the findings of the 

 trained scientist? It would seem so, not only in this matter, 

 but in many others. Who is to blame for this condition of 

 affairs? I fear that the scientists themselves are considerably 

 at fault for not making more effort to place their discoveries 

 before the public in such form that they can be " understanded 

 of the people." Scientists have proved to be very poor 



