Page Two 



EVOLUTION 



April, 1929 



McCabe- Riley Evolution Debate 



MECCA AUDITORIUM, Nc2v York, Feb. 7, 1929 



The Debaters: 



Prof. JJoseph McCabe, of England, World's Greatest 



Populariscr of Science. 



Rev. Wm. B. Riley, President, World's Christian 



Fundamentals Association. 



The Chairman: 



Justice John Ford of the Xcw )'ork Supreme Court. 



The Subject: 



Resolved: That Evolution Is True and Should Be 



Taught in tJic Schools. 



In opening the meeting, Mr. Allan Strong Broms, 

 Science Editor of EVOLUTION, made the follow- 

 ing explanation ; "There will be two official decisions, 

 one on the question itself by the audience, the other 

 by a group of judges upon the stage on the merits 

 of the debate. There will also be an unofficial canvas 

 of a group of high school students who are present, 

 to find out how they re-act to the evolutionary and 

 anti-evolutionary arguments, a very vital question to- 

 night." He then turned the meeting over to the chair- 

 man of the evening, with the injunction to "make the 

 combatants behave." 



THE CHAIRMAN. JUSTICE JOHN FORD :— 

 Ladies and Gentlemen, as I conceive it, we are here to 

 find out from the argiunents presented, and from 

 nothing else, upon which side the weight of the evi- 

 dence lies. You should put the pros and cons as you 

 find them stated by the debaters, and vote accordingly 

 no matter what your personal views may be upon the 

 subject. That is only fair play for the debaters. 



The debate will be opened by Professor McCabe of 

 England, who will speaK for twenty minutes in favor 

 of the proposition, followed by the Reverend Dr. Riley, 

 who will speak twenty-five minutes in the negative. 

 Then Mr. McCabe will speak twenty minutes and Dr. 

 Riley twenty-five minutes ; Professor McCabe closing 

 with five minutes. Then the judges will vote and you 

 will vote. 



I have now the great pleasure and the honor of intro- 

 ducing to you Professor Joseph McCabe of England. 

 (Applause.) 



PROFESSOR JOSEPH McCABE: — Our chair- 

 man, no doubt, feels quite at home in this court to- 

 night, but I wonder whether he ever presided over a 

 case in which all the expert witnesses in the world 

 were on one side. I submit to you, first of all, that 

 unless my opponent produces an expert witness — that 

 is the situation you confront tonight. 



I want you to understand clearly from the outset the 

 respective positions of my opponents and myself. I am 

 not a man of science. I am but a humble interpreter 

 of science to the general public. And my every word 

 tonight will have behind it the unanimous assent of all 

 the scientific experts in the world. My opponent rej>- 

 resents the minority which, unless he produces some 

 new authority's name tonight, does not include one 



single professor in the fifteen branches of modern 

 science which are concerned with evolution. 



You are, therefore, in listening to Dr. Riley, not 

 listening to an interpretation of a body of experts. 

 You are listening to him posing as an expert, alone, 

 against this unanimous testimony of all the scientific 

 experts in the world ^n a scientific subject. He has 

 only a few clergymen, one or two medical men, and 

 one or two teachers in religious colleges in America. 



This would hardly be an issue to be debated if it were 

 not for the grave situation that has arisen in America. 



It is for you of New York to ascertain why whole 

 States in this great Republic have Ijeen pledged to ex- 

 clude from their schools a doctrine which all the scien- 

 tific experts in the world regard as the most solidly, 

 established doctrine of modern science, and the most 

 illuminating idea that the modern man of science uses 

 in his researches. 



I need only outline for you those evidences which 

 have convinced all the scientists in the world that 

 evolution is true. I will try to give you a very simple 

 and clear, intellectual outline because I invite you to 

 pass an intellectual verdict on this debate. 



Look around the universe and most particularly this 

 earth of ours. For ages we have wondered aboiit the 

 different animals and plants found in different regions. 

 Why have you no lions and tigers in America? Why 

 have you no elephants and camels in America? Extend 

 that over the whole world. What is its meaning? What 

 was the agency distributing the animal and flower pop- 

 ulation of the globe? 



Men of science tell you that there is only one pos- 

 sible interpretation of the actual distribution of living 

 things on this earth. From the centers in which they 

 were evolved they spread right and left as geographical 

 conditions permitted. 



I ask my opponent to suggest some other agencies 

 of the distril)Ution of the animal and plant population. 

 I ask him to explain why this distribution coincides 

 in every single detail with what would occur if those 

 animals and plants had come forth by evolution. 



I will only give you one illustration on that point. 

 The geologists tell us that millions of years ago New 

 Zealand was split off from the rest of the globe. Ge- 

 ology shows that at that time no animal existed in the 

 world higher than the reptile. What is the present pop- 

 ulation of New Zealand? Except for animals or plants 

 that can float or fly. there is no native animal in New 

 Zealand higher than the reptile, and that reptile is the 

 most primitive known on this eartli. I ask Dr. Riley 

 to explain that. 



The geologists tell us that Australia was cut off from 

 the rest of the world at a certain time. The evolution- 

 ist finds that at that time there was no animal in the 

 world higher than the kangaroo. There is no native 

 animal in .Australia higher than the kangaroo, except 

 such as could float or fly from another region. 



( Continued on Page 12') 



