April, 1928 



EVOLUTION 



Page Nine 



tions and structures. The rapid muta- 

 tions of the modem world revealed them- 

 selves in social science and historioal 

 theor)'. 



At this time modem geology was born 

 and the earth was seen in an entirely 

 new light. The rocks embedded beneath 

 its surface disclosed the changes that had 

 occured in its history and the presence of 

 fossils identified these epochs. A certain 

 ecclesiastic of note maintained that these 

 fossils had been inserted into the soil by 

 God in order to test men's faith. Never- 

 theless, geology progressed and through 

 its evolutionary hypothesis became an im- 

 portant science for man. 



Into the study of society and the family 

 the idea of evolution was introduced. In 

 political science and economics the evo- 

 lutionary attitude became paramount. The 

 same evolutionary approach is marked in 

 the study of literature and art. In this 

 same era arose an evolutionary concep- 

 tion of religion. And in psychology the 

 whole modern outlook is a dynamic evolu- 

 tionary one. 



The theory of evolution advanced by 

 Darwin is therefore only part of a vast 

 mo^•ement which shook every field of 

 thought with its vibrations. To oppose it 

 is to oppose the entire advance of human 

 intelligence in every avenue of thought. 

 The evolution of man from more primi- 

 tive forms of life is bound up closely 

 with the idea of evolution in every other 

 field of study. Only ignorance can today 

 deny its truth. 



BREAD AND BUTTER VALUE OF 

 EVOLUTION 



In a recent address at the New York 

 Botanic Gardens the renowned botanist. 

 Dr. John M. Coulter, pointed out the 

 "bread and butter" value of a knowledge 

 of evolution to the human race. In the 

 last ten years the increase in the possi- 

 bilities of food production has begun to 

 outstrip the increase in population, thanks 

 to a study of plant crops in the light of 

 evolutionary knowledge. So perhaps Mai 

 thus was barking up the wrong tree. 



THE VERDICT OF COLLEGE 

 PRESIDENTS 



'T^O ascertain the attitude of the college 

 world toward the issues raised by the 

 fundamentalists we recently sent a "Con- 

 fidential Questionnaire"' to eveiy college 

 and university president listed in the New 

 York World Almanac. Eighty-three out 

 of 560 answered. No replies came from 

 the larger universities, which would, of 

 course, be unanimous for evolution. But 

 the answers from medium-sized institu- 

 tions came from all over the country, and 

 can be accepted as fairly representative 

 of the college world. 



(Considering only the "yes'' and "no"' 

 votes, the proportions would be as shown 

 in the diagram.) 



The questions and answers were: 



EVOLUTION DINNERS 

 At the time of going to press we had 

 word that Evolution dinners were being 

 arranged in Denver, Chicago, Detroit, Los 

 Angeles and Rochester, to take place at 

 the same hour as the Evolution dinner 

 at Cafe Boulevard, New York, 6:45 Fri- 

 day evening, April 13, to celebrate our 

 first anniversarj'. 



Undoubtedly readers of Evolution will 

 also gather in many other cities on that 

 evening. A complete report will appear 

 in our next issue. 



At the New York Evolution dinner 

 Charles Francis Potter will be toastmaster 

 and Alexander Goldenweiser will open the 

 symposium on "The Evolution of Evolu- 

 tion." Among the other speakers will be: 

 Leonard D. Abbott, Allan S. Bronis, 

 George Dorsey, Harry Hibschman, Joseph 

 Lewis and Henshaw Ward. There will be 

 music by Laura Newell-Veissi, Harpist, 

 and Lorene Davis, Trumpet and Mello- 

 phone Soloist. 



excellence, who comes back at us with: 

 "You as a scientist must know, as I do, 

 that evolution is a method and a process 

 and not a fact."' And a truly fancy pussy- 

 footer who squelches us: "Your question 

 indicates immaturity of thought." 



One who does not hide his light under 

 a bushel, but lets us have his comment 

 for publication, is C. E. Erickson of Up- 

 sala College. Under the heading, "Evo- 

 lution, Fact or Theory?" he writes: 



"It is a rather uncritical way of stating 

 the question. Is there a sharp line of 

 division between fact and theory? I be- 

 lieve that evolution leans more toward 

 the theory side than toward the fact side. 

 What brand of evolution would you call 

 a fact? Lamarckian, Darwinian. Berg- 

 sonian. Mutation? Or can we believe in 

 evolution in general as a fact without 



1. "Is evolution taught in your institu- 

 tion?" Yes, 64; no, 11; noncommittal, 8. 



2. "Is it taught as fact or as mere the- 

 ory?' Fact, 41; theory, 27; false, 5; non- 

 committal, 10. 



3. "Do YOU consider evolution a fact?" 

 Y'es, 40; no, 25; noncommittal, 18. 



4. "Should teaching evolution be pio- 

 hibiled by law?"' Y'es, 5; no, 66; non- 

 committal, 12. 



YES 



NO 



YES 



NO 



NO 



If these eighty-three colleges are di- 

 vided into four sections, it is found that 

 there is nothing sectional in their attitude 

 toward these questions^ The sixty-four 

 colleges teaching evolution as a fact in- 

 clude: East, 16 out of 22; Central, 20 

 out of 24; West, 15 out of 19; South, 13 

 out of 18. On the other hand, each sec- 

 tion has one- of the college presidents 

 that want the teaching of evolution pro- 

 hibited by law except the East, which has 

 two, both in New York State. Needless 

 to say that these are all presidents of 

 rather insignificant denominational col- 

 leges. 



Since we agreed in this questionnaire 

 to keep the answers confidential unless 

 comment was w'ritten on a separate sheet, 

 we cannot indicate the identity of the col- 

 leges participating, but our readers may 

 rest assured that the full details would 

 give the fundamentalists small comfort. 



A few of the Honorable Presidents made 

 delightful contortions in their efforts to 

 avoid direct answer to the question, "Do 

 YOU consider evolution a fact?" One 

 counters with: ".^ny scientific theory is 

 subject to revision, i. e., gravitation and 

 relativity.' A most profound observation. 

 Another sidesteps rather awkwardly: "Our 

 professor of biology does. I am not a 

 scientist." And another shows his inex- 

 perience at pussyfooting by: "It depends 

 on what you mean by evolution." He 

 needs to take lessons from the more expert 

 colleague, who observes very learnedly: 

 "In my judgment, a very valuable and in- 

 teresting hypothesis, worthy of careful and 

 candid consideration with an open and 

 inquiring mind."' 



And then we have a sidestepper par 



agreeing on the details? Can we believe 

 in ivhat without knowing how? This we 

 can do only when our knowledge is made 

 up of facts of sense experience. But evo. 

 lution is mainly a logical construction, 

 and if the logic fails, what becomes of 

 the theory? There is at least as much 

 loose thinking on evolution today as there 

 ever was in theology." 



How true, professor, how true. This 

 last about "loose thinking' we mean. 



But you'll agree that there's nothing 

 loose about the following, which comes 

 straight from the manly shoulder of Presi- 

 dent Frazer of Queen"s College: 



"The institution at Queen's College has 

 no interest whatever in your propaganda 

 concerning evolution. We have a corps 

 of enlightened teachers and run our in- 

 stitution according to our conception of 

 truth, and do not wish to have anything 

 whatever to do with such propaganda as 

 you are interested in." 



And there's a real wallop from J. Oliver 

 Buswell, Jr., whose letter head proclaims 

 "Let There Be Light and There Wa3 

 Light." He tells us what's what as fol- 

 lows: "We have a thoroughly equipped 

 and well organized group of scientific 

 laboratories in Wheaton College, but we 

 have no sympathy whatsoever with an 

 atheistic propaganda which masks itself 

 with the popular scientific terms of our 

 day." 



Thus the college presidents. In spite 

 of these comments, according to the result 

 of this questionnaire, the overwhelming 

 majority recognize evolution as a fact and 

 teach it as such in their institutions, and 

 they are almost unanimously opposed to 

 the fundamentalist efforts to prohibit the 

 teaching of evolution by law. 



