150 APPENDIX, 
Glancing over the articles recently published in de- 
fense of evolution, we note that there is much ridicule, 
some patent dishonesty, and no proof. 
The favorite weapon of the spokesmen for evolution 
is ridicule. There is reference to “a curious revival of 
medieval prejudice,” the opponents are called “medie- 
valists,” “pancakes not turned,” etc. Dr, Butler of Co- 
lumbia University suggests facetiously that no book 
should be permitted even to contain the letters of the 
alphabet out of which the word “evolution” can be 
formed, — the kind of joke that raises a brave laugh 
from sophomores. 
Then there is considerable dishonesty, conscious, it 
would seem. Prof. H. F. Osborn says that evolution is 
no longer a theory, but an accepted natural law; there 
has been “a flood of proof and truth.” Prof. E. G. 
Conklin says that the brute origin of man is “proven 
conclusively,” and refers us to the Neanderthal man and 
other fragments of bone, concerning which there is 
much speculation to the present day even among scien- 
tists. The reader is permitted to believe that the missing 
link has been found, hair, tooth, and claw, whereas all 
these “brute-men” together consist of a few brain-pans 
and leg bones, not enough to fill a Boston bag. In order 
to prove that churchmen may accept evolution, Dr. Mc- 
Cosh, the Princeton theologian of forty years ago, is re- 
ferred to by Professor Osborn. Possibly this writer has 
never seen the following statement in McCosh’s Intwutions 
of the Mind: “No living species can proceed except from 
a parent of its own kind, no vegetable or animal can 
spring from a vegetable or animal inferior to itself. In 
particular, human beings with intelligences, and such 
only, — certainly not apes or monkeys, — can have an 
offspring possessed of reasonable and responsible souls.” 
(p. 190.) And again: “Mr. Darwin does not attempt to 
