300 



SCIENCE 



[Vol. LVI, No. 1446 



March 3, 1922, pp. 242, 243.) in these words: 

 "Christians do not dispute the right of any 

 teacher to be agnostic or atheistic, but Christ- 

 ians do deny the right of agnostics and 

 atheists to use the public school as a forum for 

 the teaching of their doctrines." Some scien- 

 tists through half a century with rapidly in- 

 creasing boldness have made themselves critics 

 of religious beliefs, holding in complete dis- 

 dain the opinions of churchmen, without 

 themselves entering experimentally into the 

 merits of the ease. There really seems but 

 little reason for a scientist thinking himself 

 fully fitted to discuss at any length the beliefs 

 of a non-scientifleally trained man unless the 

 latter is at the same time given full right to 

 discuss the opinions of the former. To put 

 the matter 'bluntly — ^both are dealing with sub- 

 jects entirely out of their field and about which 

 they are, in most cases, essentially ignorant. 



The grievance, from the viewpoint of the 

 churchman, has been increased and in some 

 cases made unbearable by the type of biological 

 teaching found in many high schools. The 

 responsibility for the recent diffieulties may be 

 largely traced to this cause in all probability. 

 Among the first things impressed upon the col- 

 lege freshmen in natural science courses is the 

 infallibility of a theory of evolution. This is 

 usually made impressive by indefinite, incom- 

 plete or inaccurate illustrations with reference 

 to the origin of man. The thorough student 

 of biology soon finds himself facing other 

 theories of evolution, and later forms a proper 

 valuation of these theories with respect to the 

 evidences in fact upon which they are founded. 

 We have met with senior and graduate stu- 

 dents, however, in college and university de- 

 partments of biology, in whose minds the 

 theoretical phases of evolution completely over- 

 shadow the basic facts, whose whole conception 

 of Darwinism is included in the descent of man 

 from monkey. Churchmen are not to be 

 blamed for objecting to the promulgation of 

 such ideas. Any right minded man should 

 strenuously oppose such a program, and scien- 

 tists ought to blush for shame at such a crude 

 presentation of the story of organic develop- 

 ment. 



The teaching of science, particularly of bio- 



logy or related subjects, in the high school is 

 the chief area of stress, the place where mis- 

 understandings may most readily occur. Here 

 the teacher is usually to blame, albeit unin- 

 tentionally so in many instances. Most of the 

 high-school teachers of botany, zoology and 

 biology are drawn from among those students 

 who have spent a year or less in such classes 

 in college and who try to pass on to their 

 students the ideas presented in those elemen- 

 tary courses. It is small reason for wonder 

 that the ideas of evolution oaught on the wing 

 in brief lecture periods, unsupported by wide 

 reading and undigested by extensive labora- 

 tory work and field observation, should be in- 

 accurate, calculated to rouse protest in any 

 community. It certainly seems that in the 

 interest of public support of true scientific 

 work, such teachers should be kept from ser- 

 vice. Under present conditions of school or- 

 ganization this is impossible, but changes in 

 the organization and emphasis in elementary 

 biology courses in colleges would materially 

 lessen the harm from this source. 



The elementary courses in college and uni- 

 versity courses taken as electives to fulfill 

 general requirements in science are also 

 dangerous, turning out as they do thousands 

 of young folks with but a momentary view 

 of limited phases of biology. But behind all 

 this is a warped view of the relative import- 

 ance of facts and theories on the part of col- 

 lege and university instructors. After all is 

 said a theory of evolution is but a theory. 

 Which particular line of procedure has pro- 

 duced new forms of life in the past is a basis 

 for discussion and disagreement among the 

 most learned. However much we may respect 

 the theory, however well it may be supported 

 by accumulations of facts, it is subject to ad- 

 justment or even serious modification with the 

 presentation of every new fact, and is liable 

 to more or less rough handling by some new 

 Darwin, Lamarck, or DeVries, as some older 

 theories have been shaken by an Einstein. 

 Certainly a theory of evolution suffers violence 

 at the hands of any one who presents it as 

 anything other than a theory. The idea of 

 orderly development, which is all the term evo- 

 lution may rightly include, will very, very rare- 



