558 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



We leave this question to be answered 

 by the " Independent." Having gone 

 behind the returns and looked into the 

 subject, it reports that, in Yale, Pro- 

 fessors Marsh and Dana are pronounced 

 evolutionists, and that what is true of 

 these two men is true ofVerrill, Brewer, 

 Smith, and of all the other teachers of 

 the biological sciences in Yale College ; 

 and it quotes Marsh as having said before 

 the American Scientific Association : 

 " It is now regarded among the active 

 workers in science as a waste of time 

 to discuss the truth of evolution. The 

 battle on this point has been fought and 

 won." As regards Princeton, the " In- 

 dependent " says : " Dr. McCosh is quite 

 outspoken in defense of the legitimacy 

 of evolution, though not a Darwinian 

 nor a naturalist. Professor Macloskie, 

 their only naturalist, a man who has de- 

 veloped remarkably within a few years, 

 is even more decided in the same di- 

 rection, as are, without reserve, the dis- 

 tinguished Professors of Astronomy and 

 Physics, Young and Brackett." 



In respect to Brown University, we 

 are told that " Professor A. S. Packard, 

 Jr., is the only instructor in zoology or 

 botany that we recall in Brown. He 

 fully believes in evolution — man's physi- 

 cal structure no exception — and his pub- 

 lished books support evolution through 

 and through." 



As to Amherst, " It is sufficient to 

 state that the Professor of Geology in 

 Amherst is an unreserved theistic evo- 

 lutionist, who teaches the antiquity of 

 the human race, and we have no doubt 

 the same is true of his young colleague 

 in natural history." 



The "Independent" then presses 

 the question as follows : 



" Why did not the ' Observer ' in- 

 quire of the President of Harvard Col- 

 lege? Probably because he was afraid 

 of the answer he would get. But did 

 he not know that Harvard is one of 

 those ' best schools,' having ' scientific 

 authorities,' which we were talking 

 about; and that Louis Agassiz, the 



great opponent of evolution, the most 

 influential naturalist that ever lived in 

 America, was a Harvard professor, 

 while Asa Gray, the great American 

 botanist, a champion of religion against 

 materialism, and a devout member of 

 an orthodox church, is another Harvard 

 professor ? But its omission was wise. 

 Of all the younger brood of working nat- 

 uralists whom Agassiz educated, every 

 one — Morse, Shaler, Verrill, Niles, Hy- 

 att, Scudder, Putnam, even his own son 

 — has accepted evolution. Every one of 

 the Harvard professors whose depart- 

 ments have to do with biology — Gray, 

 Whitney, A. Agassiz, Hagen, Goodale, 

 Shaler, James, Farlow, and Faxon — is 

 an evolutionist, and man's physical 

 structure they regard as no real excep- 

 tion to the law. They are all theists, 

 we believe ; all conservative men. They 

 do not all believe that Darwinism — that 

 is, natural selection — is a sufficient the- 

 ory of evolution ; they may incline to 

 Wallace's view, but they accept evolu- 

 tion. It is not much taught ; it is rather 

 taken for granted. At Johns Hopkins 

 University, which aims to be the most 

 advanced in the country, nothing but 

 evolution is held or taught. In the ex- 

 cellent University of Pennsylvania all 

 the biological professors are evolution- 

 ists — Professors Leidy and Allen in 

 comparative anatomy, Professor Eoth- 

 rock in botany, and Professor Lesley in 

 geology. We might mention Michigan 

 University, Cornell, Dartmouth, Bow- 

 doin ; but what is the use of going fur- 

 ther ? It would only be the same story. 

 There can scarcely an exception be 

 found. Wherever there is a working 

 naturahst, he is sure to be an evolution- 

 ist. We made inquiry of two ex-Pi-esi- 

 dents of the American Association for 

 the Advancement of Science. One 

 wrote us, in reply, 'My impression is 

 that there is no biologist of repute 

 nowadays who does not accept, in some 

 form or other, the doctrine of deriva- 

 tion in time, whatever be the precise 

 form in which they suppose the evolu- 



