APPENDIX. 151 
show, and all attempts of others have failed to prove, 
that the law of selection or any other can account for 
the origin of life and the origin of man.” (p. 157.) How 
can Professor Osborn quote Dr. McCosh for his cause? 
Let the reader weigh carefully chapter eight of the present 
volume, and then compare with the data there submitted 
the bold assertions of recent writers on evolution, as 
though any one form of the hypothesis were accepted by 
scientists generally, and he will understand the charge 
of dishonesty here made against those who assert “a 
flood of proof and truth.” 
There is, indeed, another reason for this sudden revi- 
val of efforts to maintain popular respect for the scientists 
who stand committed to evolution. Some very dis- 
tinguished scientists have in late years openly declared 
that they are through with Darwinism, and that evolution 
itself is unproved, a mere theory. The man who -has 
brought most sorrow to the evolutionists of late is Pro- 
fessor Bateson, President of the British Association for 
the Advancement of Science. Speaking in Australia a 
few years ago, Professor Bateson said that the (Dar- 
winian) view of evolution by natural selection has not 
received “the smallest encouragement or sanction” from 
modern research. December 29, 1921, the same scientist 
said at Toronto before the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science that the origin of new species 
has never been observed: “From time to time a record 
of such an observation is published. But none has sur- 
vived criticism.’ ‘Professor Bateson holds to a belief in 
some kind of an evolutionary process, but knows of no 
“acceptable account” of the origin of species. So we 
have been right, the whole thing was a guess and a bad 
guess. Professor Osborn, however, in the New York 
Times, repudiates Professor Bateson’s statement as “di- 
rectly contrary to the truth,” and explains this fall from 
