242 



SCIENCE 



[Vol. LV, No. 1418 



the unprecedented expenditure of money on 

 scientific education in American schools. 



Edwin E. Slosson" 

 Science Service, 



Washiington, T>. C. 



QUOTATIONS 

 WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN ON EVOLUTION' 

 The only part of evolution in which any con- 

 siderable interest is felt is evolution applied to 

 man. A hypothesis in regard to the rocks and 

 plant life does not aflfect the philosophy upon 

 which one's life is built. Evolution applied to 

 fish, birds and beasts would not materially 

 affect man's view of his own responsibilities 

 except as the acceptance of an unsupported 

 hypothesis as to these would be used to support 

 a similar hypothesis as to man. The evolution 

 that is harmful — distinctlj- so — is the evolution 

 that destroys man's family tree as taught by 

 the Bible and makes him a descendant of the 

 lower forms of life. This, as I shall try to 

 show, is a very vital matter. 



The latest word that we have on this subject 

 comes from Professor Bateson, a high Englisli 

 authority, who journeyed all the way from 

 London to Toronto, Canada, to address the 

 American Association for the Advancement of 

 Science the 28th day of last December. His 

 speech has been published in full in the Janu- 

 ary issue of Science. 



Professor Bateson is an evolutionist, but he 

 tells with real pathos how every effort to dis- 

 cover the origin of species has failed. He takes 

 up different lines of investigation, commenced 

 hopefully but ending in disappointment. He 

 concludes by saying, "Let us then proclaim in 

 precise and unmistakable language that our 

 faith in evolution is unshaken," and then lie 

 adds, "our doubts are not as to the reality or 

 truth of evolution, but as to the origin of spe- 

 cies, a technical, almost domestic problem. Any 

 day that mystery may be solved." Here is 

 optimism at its maximum. They fall back on 

 faith. They have not yet found the origin of 



1 From an article in the New York Times for 

 February 25. The editor states that Mr. Bryan 

 will be answered by Professor Henrj' Fairfield 

 Osborn and Professor Edwin Grant Conkin in the 

 issue for March 2. 



species, and yet how can evolution explain life 

 unless it can account for change in species? Is 

 it not more rational to believe in creation of 

 man by separate act of God than to believe in 

 evolution without a particle of evidence? 



The objection to Darwinism is that it is 

 harmful, as well as groundless. It entirely 

 changes one's view of life and undermines 

 faith in the Bible. Evolution has no place for 

 the miracle or the supernatural. It flatters the 

 egotist to be told that there is nothing that his 

 mind cannot understand. Evolution proposes 

 to bring all the processes of nature within the 

 comprehension of man by making it the ex- 

 planation of everything that is known. Crea- 

 tion implies a Creator, and the finite mind 

 cannot comprehend the Infinite. We can under- 

 stand some things, but we run across mystery 

 at every point. Evolution attempts to solve 

 the mystery of life by suggesting a process of 

 development commencing "in the dawn of time" 

 and continuing uninterrupted up until now. 

 Evolution does not explain creation; it simply 

 diverts attention from it by hiding it behind 

 eons of time. If a man accepts Darwinism, or 

 evolution applied to man, and is consistent, he 

 rejects the miracle and the supernatural as 

 impossible. He commences with the first chap- 

 ter of Genesis and blots out the Bible story of 

 man's creation, not because the evidence is 

 insufficient, but because the miracle is incon- 

 sistent with evolution. If he is consistent, he 

 will go through the Old Testament step by 

 step and cut out all the miracles and all the 

 supernatural — the virgin birth of Christ, His 

 miracles and His resurrection, leaving the Bible 

 a story book without binding authority upon 

 the conscience of man. 



Christians do not object to freedom of 

 speech; they believe that Biblical truth can 

 hold its own in a fair field. They concede the 

 right of ministers to pass from belief to ag- 

 nosticism or atheism, but they contend that 

 they should be honest enough to separate them- 

 selves from the ministry and not attempt to 

 debase the religion which they profess. 



And so in the matter of education. Chris- 

 tians do not dispute the right of any teacher to 

 be agnostic or atheistic, but Christians do deny 



