April, 1929 



EVOLUTION 



Page Thirteen 



them are not merely consistent with, but most eloquent 

 examples of the doctrine of evolution. 



Those are the reasons why, for the last twenty-five 

 years, there has not been one man of science who 

 doubted evolution. Seventy years ago Charles Darwin 

 gave out this doctrine to the world. You know the con- 

 troversy. Ten years later ten per cent of the scientific 

 men of the world were evolutionists. Twenty-five 

 years ago the last scientific man died who questioned 

 evolution. .And there is not an expert of the fifteen 

 branches of sciences today who will not tell you that 

 it is one of the most solid principles we have in modern 

 science. Its basis is the universe, and the mark of 

 evolution is stamped upon every particle in that uni- 

 verse. 



The second part of my thesis I have deliberately 

 almost ignored, not because my time is up, but because 

 I need not debate it. If evolution is true, it must be 

 taught in all the schools. The whole question is : Is 

 evolution true ? 



If Dr. Riley tells us that, whether evolution is true 

 or not, he will oppose its teaching, he puts himself 

 in the ambiguous position of saying to the men and 

 women of this nation that truth shall not be taught 

 to the children in the schools. 



I believe that I have in a simple outline justified 

 that unanimous verdict of the men of science of the 

 world. That is all you will require of me in the open- 

 ing speech. Now, I ask for some alternative explana- 

 tion of that convergence of the four or five massive 

 lines of evidence for the doctrine of evolution. I ask 

 for some general explanation other than that I have 

 put before you. But I am particular that you keep 

 clearly in your mind that intellectual conception of the 

 doctrine of evolution as an interpretation of the nature 

 that lies before you, and I am sure you will find in the 

 end that those men of science are justified who say 

 that never until Darwin appeared was there so illum- 

 inating a truth. Never was there such a sudden light 

 thrown upon the problems that have agitated the 

 human mind during the last two thousand years. (Ap- 

 plause.) 



THE CHAIRMAN :— On the other side. Dr. Riley 

 will speak for twenty-five minutes. 



DR. W. B. RILEY: — Mr. chairman, ladies and 

 gentlemen : I have listened, as I have on former oc- 

 casions, to my friend and opponent. Professor McCabe, 

 and have been reminded, as I have been on previous 

 occasions, of what President King of Oberlin said : 

 "An educated man can make a fair speech on any 

 subject." And I am willing to consent that my brother 

 has done the best he could with the theme that he had 

 in hand. (Laughter.) 



A great many of you have, doubtless, at some time 

 or other, seen, in the streets, little youngsters carrying 

 a balloon. The thing is beautiful as long as it has 

 4^ htunan breath in it. But the moment you puncture it. 

 it is a sad-looking afifair. And that is exactly what T 

 propose to do with this McCabe speech. (.'Applause.) 



I want, therefore, to set aside all irrelevant dis- 

 cussion, and I can do that bv agreeing absoluteh- with 



Professor McCabe's last point. If evolution is true, 

 by all means it should be taught in public schools. 

 It should be taught everywhere. (Applause.) The truth 

 should be taught. (Applause.) But if evolution has 

 no truth in it, not a scintilla of science, then it should 

 be suppressed, and not imposed upon immature minds. 

 That is my contention. (Applause.) 



This is the sixth debate that the Professor and I 

 have engaged in. Each time he has begun as he did 

 and ended as he did tonight. He has one forceful 

 argument, namely, that "all scientific men are agreed." 



It would seem to me after having read the Profes- 

 sor's published books, as I have assiduously done, 

 that he should have learned by this time that no science 

 is established by the counting of noses. Now, as a 

 matter of fact, he does know that, and he has con- 

 sented to that very proposition. 



I want to quote from him tonight: (Reading) "li'e 

 do not even 'rely on the testimony of millions' if they 

 have nothing better for their assertion than the nega- 

 tive evidence. Men, even scientific men and philosoph- 

 ers, have been convinced for ages that certain ideas 

 were true: and yet were compelled at last to recognize 

 their falseness." 



Certainly, that is his own statement. That is a quo- 

 tation from his own writings ; "* * * compelled at last 

 to recognize their falseness." That is exactly what is 

 to happen to the evolutionary philosophy. In fact, 

 that is what has happened to it more than once already. 



Instead of having been ]:iorn with Charles Darwin 

 in 1859, this doctrine was in great vogue six hundred 

 years before Jesus Christ was born. Those old Greeks 

 originated and taught it. It was one of their favorite 

 philosophies. But it perished from sheer weakness, 

 and was blotted out of sight and forgotten for more 

 than two millenniums, and then, Charles Darwin's 

 grand-father, old Erasmus, began to give it expression, 

 Charles gave it voice and in the present-day teaching 

 it is screaming aloud. But greater activity is not always 

 evidence of life. 



I was brought up on a farm, and I have cut oflf 

 the head of many a chicken, and I have seen him far 

 more active when his head was off; he was dead but 

 he did not know it. That is the exact condition of this 

 thing at the present time. It is in its death throes. 

 I am here tonight to just give it another little tap 

 and put it out of its misery. (Applause.) 



Let me say that all scientific men are not agreed on 

 this subject. On the other hand, there never was a 

 subject before scientific men on which there was such 

 confusion. You can take any single point by which 

 this system is built up, and there are no two outstand- 

 ing men that will agree upon it. 



.'^tart. if you please, with "the origin of things!" 

 Thev are not agreed at all. Take up the subject of 

 "natural selection!" They are not agreed there. Not 

 at all ! You have the Darwin notion : you have Marx's ; 

 you have the McCabe notion, and no two of them are 

 agreed. 



I have tried, in every debate that I have met my 

 opponent, to force him to employ arguments that are 

 u<ed in the textbooks of the schools at the present time. 



