MACHINE SCIENCE. 717 



paratively modern investigators, including his own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, 

 had discussed it before he published his first work upon the subject in 1859. But 

 at just about that period in the history of science, the geologists, biologists and 

 theologians had somewhat harmonized their differences and disagreements, and 

 there was comparative peace. Consequently, when the development theory was 

 promulgated, great excitement ensued. It ran counter to established beliefs and 

 convictions, arousing the most vehement assaults from all sides. However, the 

 more it was combatted, the more it was brought into prominence and its claims 

 tested in the light of investigation and philosophy, the better its facts, premises 

 and conclusions were understood, and the stronger hold it took upon men's 

 minds, until today, though not even yet demonstrated, it is more generally ac- 

 cepted and approved than any other. 



This theory is known indifferently by the ordinary reader as the development 

 or evolution theory, and, as opposed to the theory of special creation, may be de- 

 fined to be an explanation of the processes of nature in originating and perpetuat- 

 ing life upon the earth by evolution, or by the derivation of one species from the 

 one preceding it ; modified by the attendant circumstances or environment. 



It appears very clear to a great number of the leading naturalists of the 

 world that the adoption of such a theory need not affect men's belief in a prime 

 originator or Creator. On the contrary they deem it only a stronger evidence of 

 his wisdom and power, that He was able to animate the first atom or germ of 

 organic matter and give to it the potentiality to develop, by innumerable steps or 

 grades, and through an immensely prolonged period of time, from a moneron into a 

 man. Such thinkers are known as theistic evolutionists. There are, however, 

 other thinkers and investigators who assume that the processes of development 

 are entirely independent of any divine originator, and that they are self originat- 

 ing and self-existent. These are styled atheistic evolutionists. 



It is not the object of this address to discuss the facts of the evolution or de- 

 velopment theory, but simply to inquire what effect, if any, its various phases 

 (for it has received many alterations and additions,) are having or may have up- 

 on students of any branch of science requiring physical investigation or philo- 

 sophic examination. Such an inquiry seems to me eminently proper at this time, 

 in view of the fact that the officers of the University of Kansas City contemplate 

 the establishment of its other departments very soon. Professors in other 

 branches will shortly have to be chosen, and the welfare of the public, through 

 its youths, is vitally concerned in this choice. It would be an excellent thing to 

 have our university well endowed and well provided with the means of instruc- 

 tion, but after all it is the professors who will make the reputation of the institu- 

 tion and it is their teachings that will make sound and practical men or shallow 

 dullards of our children. Mr. Hewett says, " Inability on the part of a professor 

 to impart to a student the distinct methods and training of a scientist, or philolo- 

 gist or a student of history, is to pervert and misdirect the energies and often to 

 vitiate the fruits of years of study." 



The purpose of a university is to develop the intellects of its students in ev- 



