Septembbb 15, 1922] 



SCIENCIf 



299 



lution should not be taught in the institutions 

 under their control. The question has been 

 taken to the legislatures of two or three states 

 with a near approach to tragedy to scientific 

 work. In a brief and somewhat generalized 

 form this is the history of the case through the 

 past few months. 



As is usual in such eases, as has been true 

 throughout the conflict between scientific and 

 religious men, this difficulty has arisen through 

 gross ignorance, useless misunderstanding and 

 thoughtless intolerance. We have not found 

 any prominent scientists among the opposers 

 of the teaching of evolution. From the vague 

 and inconsistent references to the meaning of 

 evolution and the subject matter of courses 

 in which it is involved it hardly seems possible 

 that the opponents of this teaching have had 

 the most elementary training in the ways of 

 science or have had any sort of open-eyed 

 contact with the world about them. It is al- 

 ways dangerous to take any diffieult or ab- 

 struse question to any average legislative body 

 — and it becomes especially dangerous when the 

 real issue is hidden in a mist of ignorance and 

 misconception as in the ease in review. Legis- 

 lators must hear the majority of the people 

 — not judge the truth of scientific theory nor 

 establish the rectitude of religious belief. 

 Such misunderstandings with more or less 

 serious disturbance are wholly unnecessary, 

 and would never arise but for unwarranted 

 provocative aggression by one or both parties 

 in the case. 



We know one man well, who through twenty 

 years of teaching in high school and college 

 has never had reason to think of his biological 

 training and religious beliefs as conflicting. 

 He has been able to maintain perfectly har- 

 monious relations with different leading Pro- 

 testant churches, and no question as to his 

 religious uprightness or sincerity has ever been 

 raised. He has had a fair training in bio- 

 logical science and has touched the general 

 field of science enough to understand the 

 lines of hai-mony and possible variance as 

 touching common or popular beliefs. Doubt- 

 less, many other men have had a similar ex- 

 perience of freedom from conflict between their 

 religious, social and scientific work. It is 



easy to see how all things scientific may seem 

 strange and often unbelievable to the man who 

 has no scientific training or but very meager 

 training and that of doubtful accuracy, and 

 how theories or even facts carelessly or inac- 

 curately stated so as to seemingly conflict with 

 as deep-seated a thing as a religious belief 

 would be cast out as unbelievable or heretical 

 by such sincere folks. It must be remembered 

 as a scientific fact that a great many people, 

 probably a majority of Americans as well as 

 of other folks, actually live and die by their 

 religion, shaping social, financial, political, 

 and moral decisions of each day and year by 

 their religious beliefs. Scientists who will ac- 

 cept at once the newest and most far-fetched 

 theory sometimes fail to take into consideration 

 the fact just mentioned, even though the ac- 

 ceptance of the most important scientific teach- 

 ing depends upon the attitude of the teacher 

 toward that fact. That the untrained cannot 

 understand the scientist's point of view is taken 

 for granted. Is it asking too much of the 

 scientist to expect him to take such a sym- 

 pathetic attitude toward churchmen as he ex- 

 pects them to take toward himself? As much 

 of the present difficulty has arisen through a 

 failure of some who call themselves scientists 

 to make themselves fully acquainted with the 

 ideas of the people they would teach as through 

 the "misguided reformers" who do not at all 

 understand the theories they think they must 

 oppose. 



There has appeared an alarming amount of 

 bigotry on the part of some who proclaim 

 themselves the champions of science. The 

 really desirable thing, after all, is the free- 

 dom for scientists to pursue their lines of re- 

 search and constructive work, and on the part 

 of others a feeling of trust that our scientific 

 men are really doing something worth while 

 instead of merely spinning useless or even 

 dangerous theories. The attitude of the op- 

 ponents of evolution does not seem to lead 

 toward this desirable end; and some of the 

 scientific men of the country have not been 

 conciliatory in their remarks when discussing 

 the question. 



The chief cause for disagreement was stated 

 clearly by Mr. Bryan (Quoted in Science, 



