New-York tribune., 1902-06-04
ADAM AND EVOLUTION.
A CRITIC OF PROFESSOR SMITH AND THE
TRIBUNE.

TRIBUNE.
To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: leader in this days Tribune shows that
even an editor may be misled by some Of pro-
fessors who write respectable articles on sub
jects which have not studied. In order to
sa We some Of these writer's from further mischief
working I would beg liberty to say:
First-It IS not the present doctrine Of biology
that man is descended from the anthropoid or any
! other division of apes. About eleven years ago
It was discovered that the human foot cannot be
derived from the anthropoid posterior hand. or
from that of any of the monkeys.
Second-The next theory. that is descended
from lemurs. has also been abandoned because of
the discovery that lemurs not closely allied
either to monkeys.
Third-In 1897 Hubrecht saved the tars!ids from
being condemned along with the lemurs. and showed
that Copes Hemunculus fossil skull OF early
date belongs the tarsiids. is a true primate.
and may possibly be in the ancestral line both of
monkeys and man. I believe he still investi-
eating his interesting thesis.
From this II appears stu true that (using the
words of Claus published in 1850 the view that
has originated from one OF the lower forms OF
prmates is only deduction from the Darwnian
theory" II has not yet been verified and scien-
tac men not yet able to formulate its whence
or how
Like most biologists. believe that some sort of
evolution of the has occurred, ana that this
was Gods way OF creating man: and certainly
there must have been very special factor in
this case. both TO have produced strange
suits and to have left few traces OF It's method.
natr jfb enrnrisj,a, nac1Iiarites Of least IN one
parent these intensified and perpetuated through
sexual prepotency and isolation. But Investigators
not certain these points they likely
to discover that the dominant parent called
Adam. or that the isolation wa5 in a garden or
park. And neither science nor theology will ever
say that the yerbage in which the sacred nara
terpreted than are the visions of the Apocalypse.
and thereby turned into ridicule-
Under these circumstances it would seem pre-
s as to accord Win sGentiac thaoTies not yaf
even Formulated Scientific INVESTIGATORS are them
selves calling halt. which one of your contem-
case is settled; but they at a stand in perpIex-
ity as TO what will come next The chief question
seems to be whether our first parents are his
torca or prehisSr,cal tori. There can scareey be
well. Mr. Editor, that men fallen very low and
need watching and warning and castigation
AS to Biblical chronology. the late DR. William
Henry Green & OF PFnget0n, after careful & eS
conclusion that Scripture gives no data for con-
an Improbable controversy for the benefit both of
Bibicists and of arch@ooglsts. one of the writers
whom you cite seeks to reinstate Usshers explod-
ed chronology SO So that & he nay may use It as s an arg1
rant of the view which he endeavors to refute that
he ascrbes it to A A. Hodge, instead Of its real
biological Department Princeton University.
May 26. 1902.
Had our correspondent read The Tribune edi-
toria the article which it based. with
greater care he would have discovered that
Professor Smith does not express any belief in
the direct descent of man from any known ape.
He regards it proved that "close connection
exists between them. but presumably he holds.
Will. most authorities the subject that they
had a common ancestry In other words. he
probably looks at man, not as a grandson, but as
a distant cousin of the ape. That presumption
may be strengthened some day by the discov-
Of n mis- Hapckal thinks
bols's pithecanthropus erectus is such. The
opinion is derived primarily. though from logic.
1t is natural to think that If the doctrine of
descent (evolution) holds good for all other
ganisms. 1t is likely to be true for man. How
ever, The Tribune was not arguing the sound
ness of that proposition last Monday. 1t mere
" sought to point out that the Lane Theolog-
ical Seminary professor. like many other
lgious teachers accepts this theory, and has
been led thereby to revise his notions about the
antiquity of the human race, the origin and
penalty of sin and the personality of Adam.
Concerning the sincerity of Professor Smiths
avowaIs on these points, and the significance of
his frankness there would seem to be no ques-
toni
WANTS OTHER IDOLS WRITTEN UP.
To the Editor of The Tribune
Sir: 1 have just read in your paper OF to-day
your amusing article concerning "a healthy idol.
a wide shouldered child of a superstitious BRAIN"
the painted bespanged creature brought from
China and set up for worship in the pagan ca
thedral No 16 Mott-st. Why not give us an
equally jocose and amusing article other equally
healthy and well painted and bespangled creatures
TO be found in other places of worship in New
York-children of superstitious brains. and while
your hand is in why not touch up the perhaps
equally superstitious beliefs of Protestant sects-
only lacking handmade idols wouldn't your
circulation and party vote bear you out in it?
with such articles in paper of your character is
IL a wonder that the hoodlums want 10 pull the
Chinamans queue? JOSEPH NJ IVES.
Conn Nav d. 1902