they do not do. The idea that the Eternal God took mud or mortar and moulded it with hands or tools into the human form is not only irreverent, it is ridiculous. How much more like the usual workings of that power, by whom and through whom are all things, is the view of evolution that God made the first man as He has made the last, and that His creative power is manifest just as truly and greatly in the origin of the last child of Adam, as in the origin of Adam himself.

Is it any more degrading to hold that man was made through a long line of animal ancestry than to believe that he was made directly from the dust? Surely the horse and the dog and the monkey belong to higher orders of existence than do the clod and the stone. Whether we accept the teachings of evolution or the most literal interpretation of the Biblical account we are compelled to recognize the fact that our bodily origin has been a humble one; as Sir Charles Lyell once said, “It is mud or monkey." But this lowly origin does not destroy the dignity of man; his real dignity consists not in his origin but in what he is and in what he may become.

If only the theological opponents of evolution could learn anything from past attempts to confute science by the Bible they would be more cautious. It was once believed universally that the earth was flat and that it was roofed over by a solid "firmament" and when scientific evidence was adduced to show that the earth was a sphere and that the "firmament" was not a solid roof, it was denounced as opposed to the Scriptures. Those who have visited the Columbian Library in the Cathedral of Seville will recall the Bible of Columbus with marginal notes in his own handwriting to prove that the sphericity of the earth was not opposed to the Scriptures, and a treatise written by him while in prison to pacify the Inquisition. Today only Voliva and his followers at Zion City maintain that the earth is flat, and the heavens a

solid dome, because this is apparently taught by the Scriptures.

The central position of the earth in the universe with all heavenly bodies revolving around it was held to be as certain as holy writ. All the world knows the story of "Starry Galileo and His Woes" at the hands of the Inquisition, but the Copernican theory was opposed not only by the Roman Catholic Church, but also by the leaders of the Reformation. Martin Luther denounced

it as "the work of a fool," Melanchthon declared that it was neither honest nor decent to teach this pernicious doctrine, and that it shoud be repressed by severe measures, and John Wesley declared that it "tended toward infidelity." Even as late as 1724 the Newtonian theory of gravity was assailed by eminent authorities as "atheistic," since "it drove God out of His universe and put a law in His place."

BRYAN'S AUTO DE FE

The conflict between geology and Genesis as to the days of creation and the age of the earth lasted until the middle of the last century, and students of Dana's geology will recall the reconciliation between the two which that great man devoutly undertook. But, by the ultraorthodox, he and other Christian geologists were denounced as infidels and as impugners of the sacred record. It took three hundred years to end this conflict, if it may be said to be wholly ended now, but certainly no intelligent person now believes that the earth was made just 5,926 years ago and in six literal days.

And now comes Mr. Bryan in this twentieth century of enlightenment preaching a new auto de fe, attempting to establish an inquisition for the trial of science at the bar of theology! He proposes to prohibit the teaching of evolution by fine and imprisonment, to repeal a law of nature by a law of Kentucky. He proposes to gather

into the fold of his narrow theology all existing public and private schools, colleges and universities and to allow evolutionists and agnostics to found their own schools. In view of the fact that, with the exception of a few sectarian institutions, all our colleges and universities are dedicated to "the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men." that for a generation at least they have turned away from the teaching of dogmatic theology to the cultivation of science, literature and art, that they have during this period received great benefactions for the expressed or implied purpose of carrying on this work in the spirit of freedom to seek, to find and to teach the truth as God gives men to see the truth-in view of these considerations it may well be asked whether it would not be more fitting for Mr. Bryan to establish his own institution for teaching his own views of science and theology, as Dowie, for example, did at Zion City, rather than to attempt to convert existing institutions to that purpose.

Scientific investigators and productive scholars in almost every field have long since accepted evolution in the broadest sense as an established fact. Science now deals with the evolution of the elements, of the stars and solar system of the earth, of life upon the earth, of various types and species of plants and animals, of the body, mind and society of man, of science, art, government, education and religion. In the light of this great generalization all sciences, and especially those which have to do with living things, have made more progress in the last half century than in all the previous centuries of human history. Even progressive theology has come to regard evolution as an ally rather than as an enemy.

In the face of all these facts, Mr. Bryan and his kind hurl their medieval theology. It would be amusing if it were not so pathetic and disheartening to see these modern defenders of the faith beating their gongs and firing their giant crackers against the ramparts of science.

ANOTHER SCIENTIST'S REPLY TO
MR. BRYAN'

The real question is, Did God use evolution as His plan? If it could be shown that man, instead of being made in the image of God, is a development of beasts we would have to accept it, regardless of its effect, for truth is truth and must prevail. But when there is no proof we have a right to consider the effect of the acceptance of an unsupported hypothesis.-William Jennings Bryan, New York Times, Sunday, February 26, 1922.

I appreciate the invitation of The Times to present the state of our knowledge today regarding Darwinism and the evolution of man, especially in relation to religion, the Bible, and the all-important question of the moral education of our youth. Thousands of good people throughout this country who love the Bible of their fathers and are full of religious faith have been deeply affected by the eloquent and sincere addresses which the great commoner has been delivering. Large audiences have listened to him in all parts of the Union with deep interest, and on the members of the Kentucky legislature he made so profound an impression that this body by only a very narrow vote missed the exclusion of evolutionary teaching in all the schools of the state.

As evidence of Mr. Bryan's sincerity, I have purposely quoted above the sentence which I consider the crux of his whole address, namely: "The real question is, Did God use evolution as His plan? If it could be shown that man, instead of being made in the image of God, is a development of beasts we would have to accept it, regardless of its effect, for truth is truth and must prevail." I interpret this sentence as meaning that he is open to conviction, even if convinced against his will. I am deeply impressed with the fact that he has familiarized himself with many of the debatable points in Darwin's

1 By Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History, Vertebrate Paleontologist of the United States Geological Survey, Research Professor of Zoology in Columbia University. New York Times. Sunday, March 5, 1922.

opinions, such as the theory of sexual selection, and it is not at all surprising, not being a specialist in biology, that he is extremely confused-as, in fact, many evolutionists are-by the radical differences of opinion as to the power of natural selection itself, expressed by recent writers such as John Burroughs and Professor Bateson. If it is difficult for biologists to think straight on this very intricate subject of evolution, how much more difficult must it be for the layman? I have elsewhere shown in a recent number of Science that Bateson is living the life of a scientific specialist, out of the main current of biological discovery, and that his opinion that we have failed to discover the origin of species is valueless and directly contrary to the truth.

I have not yet had time to answer John Burroughs' wholly misleading article on natural selection in The Atlantic Monthly, but I would like to state positively, as a result of twenty-one years of a single research for the United States Geological Survey, that in my opinion natural selection is the only cause of evolution which has thus far been discovered and demonstrated. I believe there are many other causes which remain to be discovered. Mr. Bryan, who is an experienced politician, and who has known politicians to disagree, should not be surprised or misled when naturalists disagree in matters of opinion. No living naturalist, however, so far as I know, differs as to the immutable truth of evolution in the sense of the continuous fitness of plants and animals to their environment and the ascent of all the extinct and existing forms of life, including man, from an original and single cellular state.

There are two aspects of Mr. Bryan's address: One, religious and philosophical, on which I may first comment, the other, natural, or coming within the field of direct observation, namely, the origin of species and the origin of man. The former affects our religious beliefs or ideas of God and His relation to nature; the latter is simply a matter of direct observation of the testimony of