140 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XVIII. No. 448. 



Many men of science will heartily sym- 

 pathize with Sir W. T. Thiselton-Dyer 's 

 protest against the attack on the Darwinian 

 theory of evolution recently delivered at 

 the University College. But it seems to 

 many of us somewhat astonishing that an 

 institution which professes to stand in the 

 vanguard of scientific work in London, and 

 which possesses its accredited teachers in 

 biology, should open its doors to irrespon- 

 sible lecturers on ' directivity, ' even if they 

 are supported by the doyens of physical 

 science. To these public lectures con- 

 demning Darwinism men and women stu- 

 dents from all London colleges are invited, 

 and the president of the college congratu- 

 lates the assembly on the proceedings of 

 the day. I have always imderstood that 

 the college was absolutely non-sectarian in 

 character, and that religious controversy 

 and theological propagandism were not ad- 

 mitted within its walls. To the founders 

 of the college, Grote, Bentham, Hume, it 

 would have been a painful revelation to 

 find the truth or falsehood of any scien- 

 tific hypothesis questioned within its walls 

 from the standpoint of theological polem- 

 ics. I think there is small doubt that the 

 wishes of these founders, that science and 

 scholarship should be treated apart from 

 theological opinions, have been rigorously 

 carried out in the teaching of the many 

 distinguished men who have held chairs in 

 the college. This non-theological attitude 

 has attracted to the college many of our 

 fellow subjects of Buddhist, Mahomedan 

 and Jewish faiths. But will they find the 

 college the same free ground if they see 

 its authorities recognizing a public course 

 of lectures on ' Christian Apologetics ' ? A 

 faculty of theology making a scholarly 

 study of dogmatics has a totally diiierent 

 footing from an irresponsible association 

 providing a controversial treatment of the 

 basis of modem biological science. The 

 attack is not delivered openly in the organs 



where scientific men criticize the founda- 

 tions of their knowledge, but covertly, with 

 the tacit assumption that the truth in ques- 

 tion is hostile to the Christian belief. It 

 can not be too often reiterated that the 

 theory of natural selection has nothing 

 whatever to do with Christianity. Many 

 good Christians accept it on the scientific 

 evidence; many agnostics reject Christi- 

 anity without being biased by any theory 

 of evolution. If Lord Kelvin -ndshes to 

 attack Darwinism, let him leave the field 

 of emotional theological beUef and descend 

 into the plane where straightforward bio- 

 logical argument meets like argument. Let 

 him examine the facts of heredity, of varia- 

 tion, and of selection, and offer controvert- 

 ing facts. A dozen biological journals 

 would be open to receive his criticisms and 

 meet them with courteous rejoinder. In 

 this way he would be adding to his already 

 immense services to science; he does not 

 forward knowledge when he adds the 

 weight of his name to an anti-Darwinian 

 crusade which does not proceed from the 

 inspiration of science, but from a mistaken 

 notion that man can a priori assert what 

 method of conducting the universe is or is 

 not consonant with the Divine dignity. 

 Kael Pearson. 

 Hampstead, May 7, 1903. 



I feel compelled as a physiologist to ex- 

 press my regret that a most distinguished 

 British botanist has thought it necessary 

 to 'cross swords' with the most distin- 

 guished of British physicists with refer- 

 ence to a question on which it is desirable 

 that all men of science should be in accord. 

 I shall not inquire whether the views ex- 

 pressed by the director of Kew Gardens in 

 his letter which appeared on May 7 are 

 entertained by biologists generally. My 

 object is to disclaim on the part of my 

 own science, that of physiology, any par- 

 ticipation in the opinion that, for the dis- 



