The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1922-03-12

Il, fns New York Times.
'"..l..s rasT uupliion IL Did God Use Ev1-
,.u'. az. Ii. PLAN ?" n Il could De shown
ibat mau lustead Of being made IN The
inure ~ God, IL development OF behhi.
we would have TO ACCEPT Il. regardless Of
ne Effect for truth 10 truth and must pre-
van Byt when there Is no proof We have
A rirht 10 cansider Ihe effect ot the &C
tsr'aur. 0f an unsupported hypothesls' -
william Jennings Bryan
appreciate the invitation OF the
Times 10 present the state Of our
knowledge today regarding Darwin
lem and the evolution OF man, cs-
pocl9lly In relation to religion, the
pibIp. and the all-important ques-
tion of the moral education of our
youth. Thousands of good people
throughout this country who love
the Bible OF their fathers and are
flIl Of religious faith have been
deeply affected by the eloquent and
sincere addresses which the great
commoncr 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 very narrow vote
missed the exclusion of evolutionary
teaching in all the schools Of the
state.
As evidence OF Mr.. Bryan's sin
cerity, have purposely quoted
above the sentence which | consider
the crux OF his whole address. name
IS. The real question is, did God
use evolution as his plan? IL IL
could be shown that man, instead Of
being made In the image of God, Is
a Development OF beasts We would
have TO accept II. regardless Of its
effect, Tor truth Is truth and must
prevail | interpret this sentence
as meaning that he IL open to con-
YCton. even IL convinced against
his will. am deeply impressed
with the fact that he has familiar
ICED himself with many of the de-
lalable points in Darwin's opinions,
such as the theory OF sexual selec-
ton, and 1t Is not at all surprising,
not being specialist in biology,
that he Is extremely confused-as,
in fact many evolutionists are--by
the radical differences of opinion
as TO ta- power of natural selection
itself. expressed by recent writers
such as John Burroughs and Profes-
Sor Batesou. II 1t ~ difficult for
biologists to think straight on this
Very Intricate subject of evolution,
how much more difficult must 1t he
Tor the l4yman? | have elsewhere
shown IN a recent number Of Sci
e1ce that BIteson is living the life
OF scientific specialist, out of the
mn current OF biological discovery,
and that his opinion that we have
failed 10 discover the origin Of spe-
eies Is valueless and directly con
uary To the truth.
have not yet had time 20 answer
John Burroughs wholly misleading
article on natural selection I'm the
atlantic Monthly, but l would like
10 state positively, as result Of -
years OF a single research for the
United States geological survey,
mat In my opinion natural selection
The only cause of evolution which
his thus far been discovered and
demonstrated. | believe there are
many other causes which remain to
DC discovered. Mr. Bryan, who is
an experienced politician and who
ass known politicians to disagree,
should not be surprised or mis!ed
Shen naluralists disagree in matters
o' opinion. No living naturalist,
however, so far as know, differs as
70 the lmmutable truth Of evolution
" the sense OF the continuous fit
ness OF plants and animals to their
environment and the ascent OF all
i,e extinct and existing forms OF
"e' including man, from an orig
"s. ana single cellular state.
iheIe are two aspects Of MIR. Bry-
asn sS address: One. religious and
pnHosophical on which | may first
,o"nenl, The other natural, or com
s Nlhin the field OF direct obser-
auon' namely, the origin OF spe-
~ ana the origin of man. The
y, 'n'r aitects our religious beliefs
ueas OF God and his relation 10
l,e the latter IL simply mat
~. VI airect observation OF the tes-
aouS OF the earth; the former will
,a'7 ne dehatahle and largely a
,,..'I OF personal faith or Of sllcp-
Mui The latter IL a matter OF the
goIaloTy, OF the field naturalist, OF
,Iu'l'usable digging in all parts OF
Ky Ky Nofll among the ancient ar
Er,a OF mo earths history II Mr.
nil win an open heart and
All "u. would drop all his books and
T vi lhe disputatlOns among the
s.U's ana study flrst-hand the
danpp,e archives of nature. all his
rni ~ would disappear: he would
r,r, 'ose nus religion, he would he
,.T.e ,,ne an eFolutionist.
Ts'h l. Truth und Must Prevail"
s,ct tANse words constitute tho solid
ina on which enduring religion and
tIr. o,'y enduring knowledge of ma
NJ b,,sr while The shifting sands
arJ human ,Hl..ttn opinion are swept hlther
El l""htg both IN theology and
s1'ri, wrecked In these sands of
h. .f,E''n are many great names. both
.tgr.',,,,, ,,'orF and In Science hut for
lpnnts mere have lived some wise
kent ~ nature who would have
hsS our thinking straight IL we
gSo. Aept their counsel / h,d the
tnes -, ,uhe TO fall under the .nflu-
ibsonbt 'ames McCosh. natural phi-
mrsss 81 and divine, who In his lee
sn On Christianity and posItlv-
., ~, ,s',tpyed evolution. with most
lSis. "'p'Neauons. In the year
Cbsrs'tn years earlier, I'm 1sG3
ahs bs b. kingsley, whose religion no
note 80 "t ever challenged, struck the
Darw,', UatA only four years after
ptaTed or'gin OF species' APP
NsurIr. NnVn ne wrote to Frederick
tCllsinnL one Of the most profoundIy
"VA 'hat England has pro-