Page Four 



EVOLUTION 



January, 1928 



Is Evolution A Guess? 



By Harry Hibschman 



ANTI-EVOLUTIONISTS and Fundamentalists are so 

 persistent in contending that evolution is not a fact 

 but a mere hypothesis, theory, or guess, that it seems 

 worth the time and effort to point out the fallacies in 

 their arguments and to note the conclusions of eminent 

 scientists themselves regarding this subject. 



The foes of evolution err wilfully or ignorantly in 

 three respects: 



First, they fail to distinguish between the fact of 

 evolution and the explanation of evolution. The scien- 

 tist accepts as scientifically established the conclusion 

 that present existing forms of life, including man, have 

 been derived by a natural process from earlier, simpler 

 and lower forms that themselves came from distant 

 inorganic aggregates. As to how this happened, there 

 are various views of theories. Regarding them there is 

 great difference of opinion. But a rejection of a given 

 theory of evolution, or of all present theories, is not a 

 denial of evolution itself. Evolution as a fact has been 

 proven. The theory of how it operates is something 

 quite different. 



Confuse Darwinism and Evolution 

 Second, they confuse Darwinism and evolution and 

 speak as if the two meant the same thing. Darwin 

 brought together in logical and decisive form the evi- 

 dence of the fact of evolution, and his conclusions on 

 that point have been accepted as sound. At the same 

 time he undertook to explain the process of evolution, 

 suggesting that it took place through natural selection 

 and the survival of the fittest. This is Darwinism — 

 Darwin's theory regarding the way of evolution. It may 

 be totally wrong. Many who accept the conclusions of 

 Lamarck or De Vries think it is at least inadequate. 

 But it does not follow that if Darwin's particular theory 

 as to the manner of evolution is rejected, the concep- 

 tion of evolution itself is rejected or even attacked. 



A simple illustration will serve to clarify the distinc- 

 tion. Suppose that John Doe and Richard Roe are walk- 

 ing down the street one morning and come to the still 

 smoking debris of a school building that burned down 

 during the night. They examine the ruins and try to 

 determine how the fire originated. John Doe, finding 

 some rags soaked with kerosene, says it was set on 

 fire; but Richard Roe concludes that it was struck by 

 lightning. They may both be mistaken, but that does 

 not alter the fact that the building has gone up in fire 

 and smoke. Its destruction is a fact. What John Doe 

 and Richard Roe think regarding the origin of the fire 

 which destroyed it is theory. The former is indubitably 

 true, though the latter may be false. And so it is with 

 evolution and Darwinism. The former is a fact, the lat- 

 ter its attempted explanation. 



Change Hypothesis to Guess 

 Third, they take the scientist's word "hypothesis," 

 convert "hypothesis" into "theory" and "theory" into 

 "guess" and then proclaim without shame of their 



Harry Hibschman 



intellectual dishonesty that evolution is nothing but a 



guess. 



The Standard 

 Dictionary defines 

 "hypothesis" as "a 

 state of things as- 

 sumed as a basis of 

 reasoning, experi- 

 ment or investiga- 

 tion"; and also as 

 "loosely and gen- 

 erally, an unsup- 

 ported or ill-sup- 

 ported t h e o r y." 

 Now it may be pos- 

 sible for a theolog- 

 ian to use the word 

 "loosely" in the sec- 

 ond sense, but cer- 

 t a i n 1 y a scientist 

 never uses it in such 

 a way. 



Obviously the hy- 

 pothesis of the 

 scientist is something vastly different from the guess of 

 the layman. It is a reasoned conclusion, based on a 

 comprehensive grasp of scientific facts and laws in the 

 field of knowledge, in which he ventures to formulate it. 



A child guesses in which hand its playmate hides a 

 lolly-pop. A scientist finds a new gas on the sun, and 

 he works on the hypothesis that the same gas must exist 

 on the earth. As a result we fill a bag with helium and 

 fly across the continent. 



But after all, the best way to settle the question whether 

 evolution is a mere guess or not is to turn to the words 

 of the scientists themselves. They, of all men, can 

 speak with authority on this subject; and their attitude 

 was made a matter of record in a statement adopted in 

 December, 1922, by the council of the American Asso- 

 ciation for the Advancement of Science, which has a 

 membership of over fourteen thousand — surely worthy 

 of credit and respect in this connection as against the 

 biased misrepresentations of the enemies of science: 



"(1) The council of the association affirms that, so 

 far as the scientific evidences of the evolution of plants 

 and animals and man are concerned, there is no ground 

 whatever for the assertion that these evidences constitute 

 a "mere guess." No scientific generalization is more 

 strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than 

 is that of organic evolution. 



(2) The council of the association affirms that the 

 evidences in favor of the evolution of man are suffi- 

 cient to convince every scientist of note in the world, 

 and that these evidences are increasing in number and 

 importance every year." , 



