Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-02-05

Laymen await the mature reactions
of the scientific world to the new theory
of evolution announced by DR.. Austin
Hobart Clark, noted biologist OF the
Smithsonian Institution. In the mean
time caution marks most of the comment
on DR.. Clarks explanation of the origin
of man, which he states concisely in
these words:
There is not the slightest evidence
that any of the major groups (of
animal life) arose from any other.
Each is a special animal complex, re-
lated more or less closely to all the rest,
and appearing, therefore, as a special
and distinct creation"
OF this departure from Darwinian
beliefs, the Boston Evening Transcript
observes: "Dr. Clark'S theory takes It's
place under the microscope of scrutiny
and that is about all that can be safely
said about it, In the meantime
the men of science will probably con-
tinue to stand with the cautious Huxley,
who said to Darwin. I will stop at no
point so long as clear reasoning Will
carry me further
The Montgomery Advertiser says:
CDR Clark'S hypothesis" (that man was
suddenly" created in his present form)
'yet remains to stand the acid test of
controversy with contemporary biolo-
gists, not one of whoS1, except DR.. Clark,
believes that man, to say nothing OF
other forms, was suddenly created"
The Hartford Daily Times closes its
long editorial ON this subject with the
words, I'VE should conjecture that
what is now heralded as new theory
is rather a better understanding of
natural proceedings not much, If any,
different in the principle revealed
through them from what is reflected In
the narrative, And God said let there
be light; and there was light illum1-
mating creation, which never ceases"
AS a result of DR.. Clark's announce
ment, biology and the related sciences
will have the opportunity OF staging
many Of DR.. Clark's fellow scientists
take to the new conception of how man
reached his present stage of being" re-
marks the Charlotte News. as it ex-
plains that "this new theory differs
vitality from that of Darwin and ex-
plains the ascent of man from a lower
form of animal life by a series of jumps
from one major form of life to another
rather than as gradual development as
Is set forth in the DarWinian theories"
"Oh, we'll, it's a reasonably free coun-
try!" the Arkansas Democrat exclaims,
land the learned gentleman has a
right to his opinion. But when he gets
on the fence with the evolutionistS on
one side and the creationists on the
other, he can bet his last book on
biology that he isn't going to get much
support"
One evidence that imam did walk on
all fours or at least in a stopped or
bent position" the Sioux City journal
finds in the fact that down through
thousands of years the crown has been
far back on the skull" whereas DR..
Clark contends that man has always
walked upright" This paper thinks
that zone after another the scientists
who come along with new theories are
doing what was done by those who
preceded them-gueSsing at 1t"
Keeping up with popular science is
about as futile as keeping up with the
Joneses,'" says the Louisville Courier
Journal, as 1t recognizes that "Dr.
Clarks theory would invalidate most of
the modern fiction and philosophy. "
The Newark Evening News notes that
with one stroke, Dr. Clark's exposition
dispcses of all missing links, tangible
and theoretical" and 1t ventures to say
that his statement may lead to a con-
troversy comparable to that following
parwin's publishing of his ideas. From
its revolutionary character, challenging
to the extremists on both sides, it seems
reasonable to fear it may" concludes
| this paper.
X X y
Although it praises DR.. Clark as af-
| fording IAN example of the open
mindedness of the true scientist by
which both specialist and popular