The Washington herald., 1922-04-09
ANTI-EvOLUTIoNIsTs
BRING NO NEW ARGUMENTS


r religious. denominations and Sfdte
leoisiatarcs- to suppress the teach
tI0 OF epolnfion IN colleges has re-
vtced interest IN the old coAtro-
uersy and made II accessory to
haze clear explanations of hoD
srointion is nop pieped by scien-
t1fic men Of today. DR.. Vernon
Kellogg. secretary Of the National
Research Council. formerly protes-
sor Of entomology In Stanford Uni-A
>versitp. and author Of "Dar,oinism
Today" and numerous other scien-
tific books, In the article sbelop ear
plains the lack Of neto arguments
against epoIation used IN the pres
ent attack, and also points out the
fact that mans high position Is due
to his social epofation rather than
his biologic evoiution.
The recent recrudescence of at
tacks upon the fact--nst theory
OF organic evolution necessarily at
tracts the attention of scientific
men. They are used to having to
win their fights with Ignorance over
and over again. but each new neces-
sity for a re winding of the evolu-
est because. II 1t results in no other
good. 1t at any rate furnishes a
special stimulus and occasion to
take stock Of the advance that has
been made. by science; in connection
with the Investigation of evolution;
the evidences that prove ii. the fac
tors that produce II. and the. results
of its incessant working. 1t is also
A.-k
angles, IL any. are taken by the at
tackers. whether the successors of
that early champion, Bishop Will
berforce, who delivered himself into
the hands of Huxley. the successful
defender of Darwin fifty years ago,
are better informed and more skill
full and plausible in their arguments
than he was.
Mr.. Bryan. who essays the role of
Bishop Wilberforce fifty years after.
brings nothing really new or that
has not been answered often be-
fore. except perhaps one thing. and
of that he makes his misconstruc-
tion. He points out that the scien-
tific men differ among themselves
about the explaining causes or fac
tors of evolution. 1t is true, they
do. but they do not differ about the
reality of evolution itself. About
that they are agreed. But Mr..
Bryan manages to suggest that
their disagreement is about the
fact of evolution. This is not true.
When one reads or hears a biolo-
gist's doubts about Darwinism, one
Is learning of his doubts about the
validity OF natural selection as the
only. or the principal. or even an
at all acceptable explanation of spe-
cies-forming; for Darwinism is not
used by biologists anonymously
with evolution, as 1t is by Mr..
Bryan and other critics of evolu-
tion. 1t Is used by biologists with
the definite intention of referring to
Darwin's explanation of the origin
of species which is the explanation
by natural and sexual. selection.
That natural selection is an i'm
portant arbiter in determining what
evolutionary lines of animals and
plants can successfully persist,
practically all biologists agree; but
that 1t is a. sufficient casual ex-
PLANTATION of the formation of new
species very few biologists now
maintain. Our new knowledge of
heredity and variation and muta-
tions, almost ali OF 1t gained sincs
Darwin's time, have revealed the
weakness of natural selection as, a
species-forming agent, and have
suggested the greater validity of
other agents. But there is no gen.
eral acceptance or agreement now
on just how new species arise. 1t
I. lzL IL,
criticism by scientific men of vari-
Gus evolutionary factors that en-
courages the modern Bishop Will
berforceS. lacking equally with
their predecessors. accurate infOrE
nation of the subject they are dis
cussing, to enter the lists again
with the declaration that biologists
are themselves divided and doubt
full with regard to evolution.
We know now many more evil
dences of the reality of evolution;
we know much more about the ef-
fects or results of evolution; we
know much more about the methods
and mechanism and power of
heredity and more about the rela-
tion of varying environment to the
Individual and the species: so much
indeed about all these things that
we are less inclined than in earlier
days to- accept Darwin's apparently
simple and all-sufficlent single ex-.
PLANTATION of species-forming and
evolution. There is much more In
the explanation of new species and
evolutionary change and progress
than Darwinian natural selection
alone. II this is comfort to Mr..
Bryan, he may make the most OF
It.
As to the origin and evolution of
man., which, of course. Is the real
bette noire in evolution to Mr.. Bryan
and his followers. there was enough
known to Darwin and Huxley nifty
years ago to make unanswerable
their arguments for mans relation
to the other animals and to reveal
clearly his steady evolutionary prog
ress from the days of his first ap-
pearance on earth to historic times.
But we know now immensely more
about this prehistoric story of men,
and all of II, but confirms ana
makes more certain this relation
ship and this evolutionary progress.
The history of human evolution
since early Glacial time until now
is so full and detailed that the
gaps In It are no longer disturb
ing as to its general course. They
leave enough still to be found out
to make It an attractive field of
search and discovery by profess
sionaI anthropologists and paleon-
tologists. but to the laymans who
wants chiefly to know whether man
really has an evolutionary prehis-