SCIENCEVOL. LXI MARCH 6, 1925

CONTENTS

The American Association for the Advancement ofScience:Darwin and Bryan A Study in Method: PRO-

pESSOREDWARD L. RICE ....... .................................. 243William Francis Hillebrand: DR. C. E. WATERS ............ 251

Scientiflc Events:The Drift of the "Maud"; The Baltimore Meet-ing of the American Chemical Society; Universityof Michigan Biological Station; Memorial to Dr.

ThomasL. Watson ............ ............................... 253

ScientificNotes and News ................... ........................ 256UniversityandEducational Notes ........................................... 259

Discussion and Correspondence:Hemerarch and Feralarch, Two Additional Termsin Ecology: PROFESSOR FRANK C. GATES. TheEffect of Noise on Hearing: B. On Student Mis-information: DEAN RoscoE POUND, DR. KIRKBRYAN. Anthropological Studies on the Nativesof the Yenisei River: DR. A. HRDLI6KA ........................ 260

Scientiflc Books:Lewis's Handbook of Solar Eclipses: PROFESSOR

FREDERICK SLOCuM....................... 262

Laboratory Apparatus and Methods:A Method of Demonstrating Mesonephric Tubules:PROFESSOR ALDEN B. DAWSON ......... .............. 262

Special Articles:Wave-Length Shifts in the Scattering of Light:

DR.PAULD.FOOTE AND A. E. RUARK .............................. 263

The American Association for the Advancement ofScience:Botanical Sciences at the Washington Meeting ...... 264ScienceNews ........................................... x

SCIENCE: A Weekly Journal devoted to the Ad-vancement of Science, edited by J. McKeen Cattelland published every Friday by

THE SCIENCE PRESS

Lancaster, Pa. Garrison, N. Y.New York City: Grand Central Terminal.

Annual Subscription, $6.oo. Single Copies, 15 Cts.

SCIENCE Is the official organ of the American Associa-

tion for the Advancement of Science. Information regard-

Ing membership In the association may be secured from

the offlce of the permanent secretary, in the Smithsonian

Institution Building, Washington, D. C.

Entered as second-class matter July 18, 1923, at the Post

Office at Laicaster, Pa., under the Act of March 3, 1879.

DARWIN AND BRYAN-A STUDY INMETHOD'

A FEW days ago a friend, with whom I was discuss-ing the subject of this address, turned to me with thequick remark, "What I can not understand is whyyou, a scientist, should pay any attention to the atti-tude toward evolution of Mr. Bryan or any other lay-man." Others may be raising the same question, andan apologia pro argumento meo may be in order.

If I were only a scientist, I think I should pay noattention, beyond a smile, to writings like those ofMr. Bryan on evolution. Scientifically, it is of littlemoment whether Mr. Bryan or any other individualdoes or does not believe in evolution or in any otherscientific theory.But I am not merely a scientist; in common with

the majority of the members of Section F, I am ateacher. As teachers, we may well be jealous of thatfreedom of investigation and freedom of teachingthrough which the intellectual progress of the pasthas been won and through which the intellectual prog-ress of the future must come. There must, of course,be limits to this freedom-liberty must not becomelicense; but undue restriction can lead only to mentalstagnation. Mr. Bryan's proposition to delegate tostate legislature or church council the determinationof the orthodoxy of scientific theory savors of theMiddle Ages rather than of twentieth century Amer-ica. And Mr. Bryan wields an influence not to beignored. Tremendous moral earnestness and extra-ordinary oratorical power make a combination potentfor right, but equally potent for error if misdirected-in no case to be disregarded.To most of us the matter may have no personal

bearing; to others the crisis is immediate. The par-1 Address of the vice-president and chairman of Sec-

tion F-Zoology-American Association for the Advance-ment of Science, Washington, D. C., December, 1924.This criticism of Mr. Bryan 's method is based on a rathercareful study of the following authentic publications:" The Bible and Its Enemies, " 1921; " In His Image, "1

1922; "God and Evolution," in New York Times, Feb-ruaiy 26, 1922; " Moses vs. Darwin," in HomileticReview, June, 1922; "Orthodox Christianity versusModernism," 1923; "Is the Bible True?" in The BridalCall Foursquare, November, 1924. No attention is paidto unconfirmed newspaper reports of his multitudinousspeeches. References to Darwin and Huxley are basedupon the following editions: "Life and Letters ofCharles Darwin, " Appleton, 1901; ' More Letters ofCharles Darwin, " Appleton, 1903; "Darwiniana,"Volume 2 of Huxley's Collected Essays, Appleton, 1893.

on Septem

ber 3, 2020

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from

[VOL. LXI, No. 1575

ticularly picturesque attack in the Kentucky legis-lature was lost by a single vote. Some states havealready passed more or less extensive restrictive laws;the question is now pending in other states; and Mr.Bryan promises that the campaign is to be carriedinto every state legislature.

In some church colleges the crisis is also acute.Permit me to quote, without names, a letter receivedby the president of my own institution within theeurrent college year:

Do your professors present the facts of evolution tostudents in lectures? Do they use text-books which havethe theory of evolution in them?

If so, do you regard this policy injurious to the esteemin which the Bible is held by students? Are studentsmore or less Christian on account of such tuition?

In what sense, if any, could evolution and the Bibleconflict 7

Ludicrous as these questions appear in your environ-ment, I hope you will render me the service which thereplies to these questions will bring. We are having downsouth here a rather heated light among the differentbranches of the church. The fight is very hotin [name of state], and especially atUniversity.

As educators it behooves us to take notice of thetrend of events and not to sit in smug security.

But, in common with many members of this section,I am not simply a scientist and a teacher but also aChristian. I recognize and respect the various shadesof belief and unbelief represented in this company.The scientific spirit, which recognizes the fallibilityof all belief, should exclude the spirit of dogmatismand intolerance toward honest differences in belief.You will not all agree with me, but I hope you willrespect my position when I say that it is preciselyas a Christian that I most resent the attitude of Mr.Bryan.

Mr. Bryan's scientific belief and religious beliefare matters personal to Mr. Bryan; but when Mr.Bryan uses his moral earnestness and his oratoricalgenius to proclaim to the world that belief in evolu-tion precludes belief in God or, at least, is seriouslyhostile to religious belief, he becomes fundamentallydangerous, not to science, but to religion. Evolutionis the universal belief of science to-day; and modernyouth in America is essentially scientific. Confrontedwith Mr. Bryan's alternative, some young men willgive up science; this is unfortunate, but relativelyunimportant. Others (more, I believe) will feel them-selves compelled to give up religion; this I regard asan inestimable loss to them and to the Christianchurch. In this day of the world's desperate need ofreligion, I can not look with equanimity upon anymovement which tends to split the forces of the church

rather than to bring them into harmony, or upon anyattempt to read essentially religious men out of thechurch because of non-essential differences in scien-tific or theological belief.For these reasons I have decided, albeit with some

misgivings, to attempt to discuss one phase of thisage-old conflict which has been fanned into new flameby the oratory of Mr. Bryan. I shall not attempt acomprehensive defense of evolution nor a systematicharmonizing of evolution and religion; I ask yourattention only to the comparison of the methods usedby Mr. Darwin and Mr. Bryan in reaching their con-clusions and in expounding their views. For anexhaustive treatment of this one phase of the ques-tion I have neither the time nor the requisite philo-sophical training. I can only hope to bring togethersome interesting and useful items, many of which arefamiliar to you and all of which are within easy reach.In the snowball fights of our boyhood the snow wasavailable to all alike; but it was found good militarytactics to delegate certain individuals to manufacturesnowballs for the use of those on the firing line. Sim-ilarly, it is my hope to be able to collect material andto shape some scientific snowballs which I trust othersmay be able to use to good purpose.During the last few years Mr. Bryan has been re-

peating to the world in most categoric form that thework of Darwin is mere guessing. Now emphaticrepetition may have a marked psychological effectalike upon the speaker and the hearers, as suggestedby the health formula of Coue and the organizedcheering of the stadium and the all-too-familiar "peprally." "Hypothesis equals guess" has a catchysound; moreover, it has a considerable element oftruth, particularly if "to guess" be interpreted ac-cording to the second definition of Webster (followingNew England dialect, but with the added authority ofMilton and Dryden) as "to judge or form an opinionof, from reasons that seem preponderating, but arenot decisive." In passing, it may be noted that thesynonymy of the "guess" with the scientific hypothesisis not new with Mr. Bryan; the same parallel waspointed out by Huxley years ago, with the pungentcomment-"The guess of the fool will be folly, whilethe guess of the wise man will contain wisdom."2 Thehypothesis (or "guess") has its place in Mr. Darwin'swork, as in all scientific method.

In his volume entitled "The Method of Darwin,"Frank Cramer has given an interesting and illumi-nating analysis of Darwin's work as a conspicuousillustration of scientific method. The inductivemethod of science includes the use of hypothesis, butdoes not stop there-except in the judgment of Mr.Bryan. The initial hypothesis may be the result of

2 "Darwiniana," p. 375.

244 SCIENCE

on Septem

ber 3, 2020

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from

MARCH 6, 1925]

a long and laborious collection of individual facts,their careful comparison and the selection of the ele-ments common to the series-an induction in the nar-rower sense of the word; it may come as a flash ofinspiration with few data as a foundation-a happy"guess"; or, lastly, an old but unsupported hypothesismay be adopted and rehabilitated. However derived,the hypothesis is only the hypothesis-perhaps thatof wisdom, perhaps of folly.In the case of evolution Darwin found the rival

hypotheses of creation and derivation already in thefield; but the evolution hypothesis, as worked out, forexample, by his own grandfather or by Lamarck,appealed to him but little at the beginning of hisscientific career. In common with his scientificfriends, he was a strict creationist. But the Beaglevoyage brought the young Darwin in contact with awealth of new facts; and to Darwin a new fact wasa new starting point for hypothesis-"I can not re-sist forming one on every subject."3

Evolution was still hypothesis to him, but becom-ing ever more attractive. Instead of accepting it anddogmatizing, he opened that "first note-book" in 1837,which, with its successors, was to shake the thoughtof the world. And note the direction taken in thisinvestigation-not a hit-or-miss collection of data, butan instinctive dash at the crux of the matter. Ani-mals and plants under domestication are particularlysubject to variation; here, if anywhere, might sugges-tions be expected as to the character and cause ofvariation in nature. Fifteen months of careful col-lection of data concerning domesticated animals andplants, and the accidental reading of Malthus broughthim to a new hypothesis-not an alternative nor anequivalent, but a supplementary hypothesis concern-ing the method of evolution. Evidently a reasonableexplanation of the method of evolution would makemore probable the original hypothesis of evolution;historically it was this hypothesis of natural selectionwhich brought evolution into the forefront of scien-tific and popular discussion.Again another man might have stopped and dog-

matized-not Darwin. It may fairly be said that thebalance of his life was given to the verification ofthese two hypotheses. In part the verification con-sisted simply in the collection and correlation of moredata similar to those already gathered; but, in greaterdegree, it included the carrying out of one deductionafter another from his theory-not as ends in them-selves but for verification of the main thesis. As-suming the truth of derivative origin, what was to beexpected in the geological succession of the fossils?Then to the rocks for corroboration or contradiction.On the basis of evolution, what was to be expected in

3 I I Life and Letters, "I Vol. 1, p. 83.

the relations of the faunas of Europe, North Amer-ica, Africa, Australia, the Galapagos? And, again,to the maps, the museums and the journals of explor-ers for corroboration or contradiction. One afteranother the most diverse series of data were found,with singular uniformity, to confirm the main hy-pothesis; and thus was gradually built up that struc-ture of interlocking hypothesis and verification whichconvinced Darwin himself, made speedy converts ofHuxley, Lyell, Hooker, Gray and others of his inti-mate friends, threw the thought of the third quarterof the nineteenth century into turmoil and to-daydominates the whole scientific world.

It is to the evolution theory in general, not thetheory of natural selection, that I refer as dominat-ing the scientific world. In the nature of the case,the inductive method (the method of everyday life aswell as of science) can never arrive at a demonstra-tion; it must always remain a matter of less or greaterprobability. As the testing of a hypothesis bringsone and another line of seemingly unrelated data intoharmony, its probability increases to that of a theory;the more numerous and the more diverse the corre-lated data, the greater the probability of the theory,until, finally, practical certainty is attained. In thealmost unanimous judgment of biologists the evolu-tion theory has reached this status.Of the two subsidiary theories to which the name

"Darwinism" or "Darwinian theory" is properly re-stricted, natural selection is accepted by most biolo-gists, although often with decided restrictions, whilesexual selection is relegated by many to the rank ofa somewhat doubtful hypothesis rather than theory.Note carefully, however, that the evolution theorystands upon its own evidence, independent of the sub-sidiary theories. Like scaffolding, useful in the workof construction but unnecessary to the permanentedifice, natural selection and sexual selection mightconceivably be torn down without materially affectingthe evolution theory. Parenthetically, I may add mypersonal conviction that the destruction of the theoryof natural selection is hardly less improbable thanthat of the general evolution theory.

I have laid emphasis upon these familiar distinc-tions because they are largely ignored by Mr. Bryan.In his writings he refers indiscriminately to evolu-tion in general, human evolution and Darwinism; inat least one passage he explicitly states that he has"used 'evolution' and 'Darwinism' as synonymousterms."4 If I understand him correctly, Mr. Bryan'sobjection is not to Darwinism in its technical mean-

ing, but to evolution in any form as applied to man.

Evolution of the lower animals and of plants interestshim only "as the acceptance of an unsupported hy-

4 "Orthodox Christianity versus Modernism," p. 35.

SCIENCE 245

on Septem

ber 3, 2020

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from

[VoL. LXI, No. 1575

pothesis as to these would be used to support a similarhypothesis as to man."-5 Human evolution and theevolution of the lower forms rest upon similar evi-dence; and Mr. Bryan denies one as categorically asthe other. I believe I am doing him no injustice inlimiting my further discussion to evolution in itsgeneral sense, applying alike to man and the lowerforms of life, but independent of any theories as toits method.

Mr. Bryan outlines the matter as follows:

The issue can be presented in two questions: First, isDarwin's hypothesis (evolution applied to man) true orfalse ? Second, if false, is it harmful16

Granting, in common with theistic evolutionists,that God "could make man by the long-drawn-outprocess called evolution just as easily as he couldmake him by separate act," Mr. Bryan continues:"The question is narrowed down to one of fact-Did God create man by evolution or by separateact ?"7

Eliminating Mr. Bryan's restriction to man andhis confusion of evolution and Darwinism, the firstof his questions becomes-Is evolution true? Thisquestion Mr. Bryan answers as follows:

In order that there may be no misunderstanding asto the position of those who believe as I do, let me saythat the evidence is not sufficient to establish evolutionas the process employed by the Almighty in either plantlife or in animal life below man. I am aware that manyscientists deal with evolution as if it were an establishedfact, but no one is compelled to accept any scientist asan authority except as the facts support him. The worldcan niot be warned away from investigation by a scien-tific gesture. The scientist should be the last to ask thatopinion be accepted as a substitute for fact.8

But Mr. Darwin has collected a library of facts,and it is Mr. Bryan who is doing the gesticulation,although I grant that it is hardly a "scientific gesture."As AMr. Bryan demands facts rather than opinions,

let us note briefly the main lines of evidence in favorof the evolution theory. This evidence was summar-ized by Huxley for the ninth edition of the Eneyelo-paedia Britannica in a statement which is valid to-day as well as in 1878. The seven categories of Hux-ley's summary (all of which were mapped out in Dar-win's "Origin of Species") are so familiar to everybiologist that they may be mentioned by title only,as the evidence from

'"Gocl and Evolution."6-Moses vs. Darwin," p. 446.7'Moses vs. Darwin," p. 447.8';Moses vs. Darwin, p. 447.

(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)

EmbryologyHomologiesGeographical distributionRudimentary organsClassificationModification under varying conditionsGeological succession.

Let us see how Mr. Bryan meets these various linesof evidence. The numbering corresponds to that ofthe preceding list.

(1 to 3) To the first three of these items (embryol-ogy, homologies and geographical distribution) I findno reference in Mr. Bryan's writings, unless a meremention of Darwin's emphasis on the similarity ofhuman and simian embryos may be construed as areference to the argument from embryology.

(4) To the evidence from rudimentary organs hegives hardly more attention-merely a sarcastic refer-enee to a young collegian, whose faith is shaken whenhis "attention is called to a point in the ear that islike a point in the ear of the ourang, to canine teeth,to muscles like those by which a horse moves hisears."9 This is hardly an adequate treatment of theone hundred and fifty and more rudimentary organsfound in man alone.

(5) Similarity of structure as between man andthe apes Mr. Bryan does admit; in fact he says that"the whole case in favor of evolution is based onphysical resemblances."10 But he evidences no appre-ciation of the universality of gradations in structureupon which the classificatiQa of both animals andplants depends.

(6) Mr. Bryan's discussion of modifications israther astounding-a flat denial, on Biblical author-ity, that there can be such modifications. The italicsof the following quotation are his own:

Evolution joins issue with the Mosaic account of crea-tion. God's law, as stated in Genesis, is reproductionaccording to kind; evolution implies reproduction notaccording to kind. While the process of change impliedin evolution is covered up in endless eons of time it ischange nevertheless. The Bible does not say that repro-ductioni shall be nearly according to kind or seeminglyaccording to kind. The statement is positive that it isaccording to kind, and that does not leave any room forthe changes however gradual or imperceptible that arenecessary to support the evolutionary hypothesis."r

Such changes as have been actually observed inpigeons and cabbages are calmly ignored by Mr.Bryan; he also appears oblivious of the rather palpa-ble fact that not all the present diverse human races

9"In His Image," pp. 111, 112.10 "Orthodox Christianity versus Modernism,'' p. 35."11In His Image," p. 104.

246 SCIENCE

on Septem

ber 3, 2020

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from

MARCH 6, 1925 ]

can be exactly like the traditional ancestors demandedby his theory.12

(7) Mir. Bryan's attitude on geological successionis set forth in a series of statements, not perfectlyclear in all points, but apparently intended as a cate-goric. denial of the presence of connecting formsamong the fossils. The following passage is repre-sentative:

NVherever there is found living to-day any species ofwhich an ancestor has been found in the rocks the livingdescendant is like the fossil ancestor. If this is whatthe evidence proves, why should we assume the truth ofan hypothes:is which is contradicted by everything whichhas been found and supported by nothing?Darwin insisted that his hypothesis should be accepted

even tho the missing links had not been found, andevolutionists still insist that the hypothesis should beaccepted even tho the missing links have not yet beenfound. They boldly demand that we substitute a guessfor the Word of God even tho the guess has not beenproven-in fact, has been disproven by all the evidence.13

MIr. Bryan can see no evidence for evolution in themarvelous wealth of fossil forms, some of them ob-viously intermediate in character between distinctspecies, genera or larger groups of to-day, and othersforming unbroken gradational series between earlierand later fossil fonns or between fossil and recentspecies. Darwin, in 1859, counted the scarcity (notabsence) of connecting forms the greatest objectionto his theory, and met it with his characteristic frank-ness. Twenty-one years later conditions had sochanged as to justify Huxley's exclamation:

If the doctrine of evolution had not existed, palaeon-tologists must have invented it, so irresistiblv is it forcedupon the mind by the study of the remains of the Ter-tiary mammalia which have beefn brought to light since1859.14

And H. F. Osborn expresses himself even morestrongly in 1910:

The complete geologic succession of the vast ancientlife of the American continent was destined to demon-strate the evolution law.15

This difference in reaction of Mr. Bryan and thepaleontologists to the evidence of the fossils is ex-actly paralleled by the difference in reaction of Mr.Bryan and biologists in general to other lines of evi-

12 For fuller discussion see Piper, C. V., "Does theBible teach evolution?" SCIENCE, Vol. 56, p. 109, July28, 1922.

13 "Moses vs. Darwin," p. 447.14 C"Darwiniana, I Ip. 241.15 "The Age of Mammals," p. 10.

dence for evolution. Mr. Bryan advances no newevidence; the data collected by scientists he ignoresor denies. To the biologists the evidence seems con-clusive for evolution; to Mr. Bryan it has no signifi-cance. In large part, doubtless, this difference is dueto Mr. Bryan's simple ignorance of the facts. Ignor-ance of the details of biology is no disgrace to alawyer; but a lawyer should be slow to pronounce ajudicial decision upon technical evidence which hedoes not understand.

In larger part, however, Mr. Bryan's hostile atti-tude is due to the fact that he does not approaeh thematter with an open mind. In theory he recognizesthat the "hypotheses of scientists should be consideredwith an open mind. Their theories should be care-fully examined and their arguments fairly weighed" ;16practically the whole matter is decided for him in ad-vanee without reference to the scientific data. "TheBible," he writes, "not only does not support Dar-win's hypothesis but directly and expressly contra-dicts it.117 Further, the Bible, according to Mr.Bryan, is "the revealed will of God, and thereforeinfallible" ;jl and other statements imply very clearlythat Bible interpretation must be strictly literalthroughout.Here is no seientific method in induction-hypothe-

sis tested out by deduction and verification. Hereis no question of greater or less probability; in suchdeductive reasoning correct logic must lead to a cor-rect conclusion, provided, of course, that the firstassumption is correct; evolution must be false, pro-vided the first two chapters of Genesis are literaland accurate science. But what is Mr. Bryan's guar-antee of the literal infallibility of the Bible? Thisview has not been universally held by the leaders ofreligious thought in past centuries; it was not ac-

cepted, for example, by Luther or Calvin, by Augus-tine or Jerome. Going back to New Testament times,it was a theologian, not a scientist, who warned theCorinthian Church that "the letter killeth, the spiritgiveth life." And, going still a step further back, tothe author of our faith, note how whole sections ofthe Old Testament code are amended in the brusqueand authoritative formula, "It was said to those ofold time . . .; but I say unto you . . ." In him theLaw and the Prophets were fulfilled; but how uniqueand unexpected the form of the fulfilment! JesusChrist was a Modernist, not a Fundamentalist, inthe matter of Old Testament criticism; and the Gos-pels are fuLll of his efforts to overcome the deadlyliteralism even of his own disciples. Take, for ex-

16 "In His Image, " p. 93.17 "God and Evolution. '"18 " Orthodox Christianity versus Modernism," p. 5.

SCIEINCE 247

on Septem

ber 3, 2020

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from

[VOL. LXI, No. 1575

ample, this dialogue from the fourth chapter of John:"I have meat to eat that ye know not. . . . Hath anyman brought him aught to eat? . . . My meat is todo the will of him that sent me and to accomplishhis work." Verily, "the letter killeth; the spirit giv-eth life." The dogma of a literally inerrant Bibleis not Biblical, not Christian. It is not with the Bible,but with Mr. Bryan's interpretation of the Bible thatevolution is in conflict.What are the alternatives? iMr. Bryan says: "The

Bible is either the Word of God or merely a man-made book."19 This method of exclusion is alwaysdangerous. Darwin applied it to the Parallel Roadsof Glen Roy to his cost. "My error," he writes,"has been a good lesson to me never again to trustin science to the principle of eXClusion."20 There isvery likely to be a third alternative hiding somewhere;in the interpretation of the Bible it is exactly thisthird alternative which is accepted by the theisticevolutionist to-day, as well as by the great majorityof intelligent Bible students. To these men the Bibleis not the "Word of God" in the sense of verbal dic-tation from God; no more is it "merely a man-madebook"; but it is a progressive, evolving revelation ofGod's will to man, changing with the evolution ofthe human race. Moreover, it is a text-book in re-ligion, not in science. A cardinal of the time ofGalileo described the Bible as teaching "how to go toHeaven, not how the heavens go." Mr. Bryan writesthat "it is more important that one should believe inthe Rock of Ages than that he should know the ageof the rocks";21 he might well have added that it isof the "Rock of Ages" that the Bible treats-not ofthe "age of the rocks" nor their contained fossils.The lesson of the first ehapter of Genesis is the crea-torship of God, not details of the method. WithGenesis, thus interpreted, evolution has no quarrel.

I do not question that Mr. Bryan is perfectly sin-cere in his belief in the falsity of the evolution theoryand its danger to the Christian religion; but is he per-fectly sincere in the character of his argumentation?Certainly he is not frank. His method is that of thelawyer striving to win his case rather than that ofthe earnest seeker for truth. The contrast with Dar-win is most striking and not to the advantage of theprofessed defender of the faith of the Christ whocharacterized himself as "the truth."

Three short quotations show three phases of Dar-win's attitude to truth:

I believe there exists, and I feel withiin me, an instinct

19 "'Orthodox Christianity versus Modernism," p. 9.20O"Life and Letters," Vol. 1, p. 57.21 "Moses vs. Darwin," p. 452.

for truth . . . of something of the same nature as theinstinct of virtue.22

L have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free soas to give up any hypothesis . . . as soon as facts areshown to be opposed to it.23As I am writing my book [The Origin], I try to take

as much pains as possible to give the strongest casesopposed to me.24

That he succeeded is seen in the impression madeupon those who knew him best. Let Huxley speakfor all:

It has often and justly been remarked that what strikesa candid student of Mr. Darwin's works is not so muchhis industry, his knowledge, or even the surprising fer-tility of his inventive genius; but that unswerving truth-fulness and honesty which never permit him to hide aweak place or gloss over a difficulty, but lead him, on alloccasions, to point out the weak places in his own armour,and even sometimes, it appears to me, to make admis-sions against himself which are quite unnecessary. Acritic who desires to attack Mr. Darwin has only to readhis works with a desire to observe, not their merits, buttheir defects, and he will find, ready to hand, more ad-verse suggestions than are likely ever to have suggestedthemselves to his sharpness, without Mr. Darwin 's self-denying aid.25

In Mr. Bryan's writings, on the other hand, no ob-jections are mentioned, no difficulties suggested; in-stead we find the ex-cathedra statement, oft repeated,that there are no evidenees for evolution, thereforeno difficulties with Mr. Bryai's position. It is tempt-ing to multiply quotations; one must suffice:

Neither Darwin nor his supporters have been able tofind a fact in the universe to support their hypothesis.26

And, in another connection, I have already tracedout how the main lines of evidence upon which theevolution theory is based are, one after the other,simply ignored or categorically denied. Very differ-ent from the method of Darwin-rather the methodof an earlier critic of whom Darwin himself writes:

The reviewer gives no new objections, and, being hos-tile, passes over every single argument in favor of thedoctrine. . . . As advocate, he might think himselfjustified in giving the argument only on one side.27

As an advocate, yes; as a scientist, no.AMany such omissions of relevant evidence and some

22 More Letters," Vol. 1, p. 61.23 "Life and Letters," Vol. 1, p. 83.24 More Letters," Vol. 1, p. 95.25 "Darwiniana," p. 184.26 "God and Evolution. "27 "Life and Letters," Vol. 2, pp. 19, 24.

248 SCIENCE

on Septem

ber 3, 2020

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from

MARCH 6, 1925]

apparent misrepresentations of the evolution theoryand its supporters may well be due to Mr. Bryan'sunfamiliarity with the facts in the case. A lawyerwho does not know law or a doctor who has notstudied medicine is a quack and subject to legal con-trol; even a school teacher must be duly certificated.Is there not a moral obligation that a man professingauthoritative leadership on evolution should firstfamiliarize himself with the subject?

In some cases it is difficult to believe that Mr.Bryan's omissions are due to ignorance. Mr. Bryanlays the utmost stress upon the verbal accuracy ofthe Biblical story of creation. But which story ?We can hardly believe that his attention has neverbeen called to the fact that there are two such storiesin Genesis, the first ending with the third verse ofthe second chapter. Each has its great moral teach-ing, different from the other but consistent with it.But, literally interpreted, their mutual inconsistencyis no less glaring than the inconsistency of either,thus interpreted, with the observed facts of geologicalsuccession. There may be a reference to this con-tradiction in Mr. Bryan's writings; I have never seenone. Is it conceivable that Charles Darwin wouldignore a difficulty of this sort?

Contrast, again, the dogmatic certainty of Mr.Bryan concerning a subject wholly aside from hismain professional work with the modesty and cautionof Mr. Darwin, whose life was devoted to the studyof this problem. A review in a prominent and ratherconservative church paper contains these words:

There is something interesting in the naive notionwhich Mr. Bryan has of the contrast between the abso-lute certainty of his own religious opinions and themerely probable opinions of scientifie men. He refers tothe fact that Darwin is continually using such words andphrases as "apparently," "probably," "we may wellsuppose." "The eminent scientist," says Mr. Bryan,"is guessing." Because Darwin and other scientificmen, in the truly scientific spirit, recognize their beliefsas only more or less probable, and claim for them noabsolute certitude, Mr. Bryan considers that their opin-ions are of no consequence at all. He knows. For himit is a matter of absolute certainty that there is a God,that every sentence of the Bible is the word of God, andthat he himself understands ariglht every sentence of theBible. All his religious opinions are utterly above therealm of probability, dwelling in a serene and heavenlyatmosphere of absolute certitude.28

No less certain is he concerning scientific matters.Let me remind you of a sentence already quoted-"Let me say [the italics are mine] that the evidenceis not sufficient to establish evolution as the process

28Wm. North Rice, in The Christian Advocate, April20, 1922, p. 478.

employed by the Almighty, etc." Darwin gave twentyyears to the collection of material for "The Origin ofSpecies" and "thirteen months and ten days' hardlabor" to the preparation of the manuseript.29 Per-haps a similar application to the subject would leaveMr. Bryan, however he might decide the main issue,less sure that he had probed the problem to its utmostdepths. Perhaps it would bring him to an apprecia-tion of the meaning of "probably" in scientific argu-ment.Mr. Bryan's writings are done in a style which can

hardly be characterized as calmly scientific. He ex-presses regret at the "epithets" with which the "lib-erals" attempt to "terrorize the masses of the churchinto accepting without proof or even discussion theviews of those who put their own authority abovethe authority of the Bible."30 But his own constantplay on the word "guess," his repeated sarcasticparody of the evolution of eyes from "freckles" andof legs from "warts" are hardly conducive to calmdiscussion; his aphorism that "cousin ape is as ob-jectionable as grandpa ape,"'31 and his statement thatevolution gives Christ "an ape for his ancestor onhis mother's side at least,"'32 are suggestive of thefamous speech of Bishop Wilberforce in 1860, per-haps also deserving of a reply like that of Huxley onthat historic occasion. Such rhetoric is entertaining,and, in this day of slogans, may be effective withthe masses-perhaps also with state legislatures; butit is not science; nor is it the method of Darwin.Sarcasm and ridicule are as conspicuous for theirabsence from Darwin's writings as for their presencein Bryan's.In addition to the question of the truth of the evo-

lution theory, Mr. Bryan raises the second questionof its harmfulness. By his own formulation-"Iffalse, is it harmful ?"-this question becomes rele-vant only in case evolution is proven false. Althoughby no means granting the falsity of evolution, I wishto call your attention briefly to two points in Mr.Bryan's argument concerning its supposed harmful-ness.

First, he argues, evolution, if it does not crowd Godout of his universe, at least pushes him so far awayin space or time as to make him negligible. I quote:

Why should we want to imprison such a God in animpenetrable past? This is a living world; why not a

living God upon the throne? Why not allow him to worknow?33

29 "Life and Letters," Vol. 1, p. 70.30 "Orthodox Christianity versus Modernism," p. 15.31 "1 In His Image, " p. 102.32 "The Bible and Its Enemies," p. 35.33 "In His Image, "I p. 106.

SCIENCE 249

on Septem

ber 3, 2020

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from

[VOL. LXI, No. 1575

Is not this exactly the position of the theistic evo-lutionist, for whom natural law is merely a humanatternpt to formulate the method of divine activity,and evolution a human attempt to formulate themethod of divine creation?But not all evolutionists are theists; and Mr. Bryan

urges that it is evolution wlhich has made them agnos-tic or athieistic. As his principal illustration he usesthe familiar case of Darwin--a gradual drift fromanx orthiodox belief to a conidition of agnosticism,albeit with times, even in hlis later life, when he felthimself "compelled to look to a First Cause havingatn intelligent mind in some degree analogous to thatof man," and inl whiidh he deserved "to be called atheist."34 But is it so certaini that evolution was thesole cause or even the chief cause of Darwin's changeof belief? O-ther elemenits should certainly be con-sidered.

First among these is the matter of continued illhealth. When one considers the mass of scientificwork accomplished, in connection with the bodilyweakness which reduced the working day to a mini-nluml and necessitated frequent periods of completerest and sanitarium treatment, can one wonder that,in his own words, his mind should become a "kind ofmachine for grinding general laws out of large col-lections of facts," and that there should be a corre-sponding "atrophy of that part of the braini . . .

on wbhieh the higher tastes depend ?"35 All are famil-iar A ith the pictures of the boy Darwiin readingShakespeare in the old window of the school, of theyoung traveller carrying Milton's "Paradise Lost" onshore trips in South America when only one volumewas possible, ancd the aged scientist realizing withregret that he could no longer "endure to read a lineof poetry" and that Shakespeare had become "so in-tolerablyv dull that it nauseated" him.36 May it notwell be that his loss of formal religious faith was aparallel of this atrophy of the esthetic sense, seen alsoin the partial loss of the love for muLsic, art, and, inlesser degree, for natural seenery. It may well bequestioned, however, whether Darwin's scientific cau-tion and questioning attitude did not lead him to anover-emphasis of his religious doubts, particularly inreaction against the dogmatic certainty of many ofhis critics.

There is another element in this problem to whichBryan has not referred. May not the responsibilityfor Darwin's loss of religious belief be laid, in partat least, upon the impossible character of the domi-nianit orthodox theology of his day. In the storm ofinvective which burst upon his head after the publi-

34 'Life and Letters," Vol. 1, p. 282.95 "Life aind Letters," Vol. 1, p. 81.36"'Life and Letters,"' Vol. 1, p. 81.

cation of the "Origin," is it strange that even a manof Darwin's amazing charity and poise should haveturned away from organized religion as well as dog-matic theology?

But neither in 1859 nor in 1924 can the blame forthe conflict of evolution and religion be placed whollyon the theologians. There is an odium scientificumas well as an odium theologicurm. In 1859 there werematerialistic scientists who seized eagerly upon theevolution theory as a new weapon for attackingChristian faith; among the theologians, on the otherhan-d, were strong meii who, from the start, recog-nized the truth of evolution as an aid to faith. To-day, again, very many leading theologians take issuewith Mr. Bryan's position as sharply as can the scien-tist; and some biologists are hardly less dogmatic intheir support of a materialistic philosophy than isMr. Bryan in his attack upon evolution. It mayfairly be questioned whether the materialistic scien-tist is not as responisible for the present anti-evolu-tion flareup as is 'Mr. Bryan himself. It is unfortu-nate that Mr. Bryan could not have directed his cam-paign against this materialism of individual evolu-tionists rather than against the evolution theory it-self.

I have tried in this address to eniphasize the hope-less inadequacy of the method exhibited in Mr.Bryan's attack upon the evolution theory, and theillegitimacy of his claim to popular leadership insuCh an issue. For his religious earnestness and hisdevotion to moral reforin I have profound respect,although I deeply regret the reopenling of the age-old conflict of science and religion under his leader-ship.From the present phase of this unhappy conflict,

two happy results are, however, already becomingapparent. On the one hand, there is an increasingpopular interest in evolutioni and a more intelligentunderstanding of its signifieance. On the other hand,an iniereasing number of our leading scientists arepublicly proclaiming their own theistic philosophy,and emphasizing anew the essential harmony of aprogressive scientific belief with real religion. I re-joice in the public utterances of such men as Conklin,Coulter, Millikan and Osborn. May their tribe in-crease! And may their efforts conabine with the in-creasing popular interest in science toward the bring-ing in of the day when a more scientific religion anda miore religious science shall joinl in a common wel-come to truth, whether revealed in nature, in humanlife, or in the Bible, and shall present an unbrokenfront in the struggle for the higher evolution of thehuman race.OHIO WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY EDWARD L. RICEDELAWARE, OHIO

250 SCIENCE

on Septem

ber 3, 2020

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from

A STUDY IN METHOD−−DARWIN AND BRYANEdward L. Rice

DOI: 10.1126/science.61.1575.243 (1575), 243-250.61Science 

ARTICLE TOOLS http://science.sciencemag.org/content/61/1575/243

REFERENCES

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/61/1575/243#BIBLThis article cites 1 articles, 1 of which you can access for free

PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions

Terms of ServiceUse of this article is subject to the

is a registered trademark of AAAS.ScienceScience, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. The title (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published by the American Association for the Advancement ofScience

No claim to original U.S. Government Works.Copyright © 1925 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science.

on Septem

ber 3, 2020

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from