TV&f'W.'i v-,, rmw ,
The Commoner
FEBRUARY, 1922
5
,
:r
The Real Issue in
Darwinism
Editor, Chicago Evening Post,
Chicago, Illinois.
My dear Mr. Editor:
Your editorial on "Defenders of the Faith"
a very happy designation, by the way Is
written in such a spirit of fairness that I feel
imre that you will give me space enough to set
forth the real issue so that your readers can
the more intelligently take sides. Observation
extending over a third of a century leads me to
believe that much difference of opinion arises
from a misunderstanding of the real issue. Def
inition is often all that is necessary; in fact,
truth is usually self evident when jt is plainly
stated. Politically, the drawing of a line so that
the two sides can be separated the one from the
other is often the end of the conflict. It is with
a view to setting forth as clearly as possible
the difference between the two schools that I
venture to address you.
The Bible account of man's creation was once
accepted as authoritative by all Christians.
Those of us who still hold to the Bible account
are, therefore, in'possession until we can be dis
lodged by those who dissent from the Bible ac
count. According to the Bible mati was created
by SPECIAL ACT OP GOD created for a pur
pose and as a part of the Heavenly Father's
plan.
The hypothesis advanced by Darwin is in di
rect conflict with the Bible account. His guess
for the word "hypothesis" is merely a scien
tific synonym for guess makes man a lineal
descendent of lower forms of life. Darwin him
self in his "Descent of Man" outlined a family
tree which ho thought was about two hundred
millions of years old. It began with marine
animals and extended up through the fish, the
reptile, the birds and the beasts and ended with
monkeys, apes, chimpanzees, baboons, etc. Af
ter locating "the first man" in, Africa, he says,
"But why speculate?" This admission covers
all of his guesses; he simply speculated. WITH
MILLIONS OF SPECIES QF LIFE THEY HAVE
NEVER YET FOUND A SINGLE INSTANCE IN
WHICH IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT . ONE
SPECIES CHANGED INTO ANOTHER.
Last December Professor Bateson, of London,
speaking at Toronto (see January issue of
"Science") told the members of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science that
the origin of species is still a mystery. He said
that scientists had FAITH in evolution but
DOUBTS about the origin of species. This is
the latest word from the scientists.
Our contention Is that an unsupported guess
ought not to be taught to the children of the
public schools when it directly attacks the Bible.
We have no objection to the teaching of any
TRUTH. No truth disturbs Christianity, but
we do object to guesses as put forth in the name
of science before those guesses are confirmed
or established by facts. Notwithstanding the
failure to And even a single link to connect one
species with another Darwinism is taught in
the schools as if it were an established fact.
Books on biology and zoology purport to give a
family tree connecting man with animals and
these imaginary trees cannot but make an im
pression upon the minds of the young people.
We contend that teachers paid by taxation
should not substitute guesses for the Word of
God when these guesses seriously -affect the
Philosophy of life. When Christians want to
teach religion they establish and support schools
tor that purpose. They contribute the money
necessary and employ the teachers, Why should
not atheists and agnostics do the same?
According to Professor James H. Leuba, of
Sffi Mawr Pennsylvania, MORE THAN HALF
TTS?mPR0MINENT SCIENTISTS OF THE
SH,ED STATES DO' NOT BELIEVE IN A
af tt?JAL G0D 0R A PERSONAL IMMOR
TALITY. They have a perfect right to renounce
oa and to reject the doctrine of -immortality;
more than that, they have a right to open
scnools for the teaching of agnosticism and
n,i but wny suould they desire to under
mine the faith of students and why should they
"e permitted to do so even if they do desire it?
uarwinito in Boston contended that a teach
K,oi , a right t0 teacl1 whatever he pleased,
tn 'piSTxrqueQr doctrine. Any man has a rrght
pm NK as he Pleased, but, when he asks
hint la,tic,n from others ho must expect that
1 m n m g win be controlled by those who pay
airo'nf ;C erw,se a comparatively small percent
i th country would assume control of the
Sl fundamental things in our lives and assert
SjJ11 not only to teach but to demand pay
a cmn eSieonVhibJnefCt t0 theIr tcachIng s
boS Jif i8' , course' ab8url. School
rTVLTT0 and th0 I,eop, dI-
n?eirff,nt agitation is merely an awakening of
w5hr,8t,on peopl t0 a knowledge of what
MAMvg ,on,r-not ft aU of our 8chools but in
Y?fih0m' Not a11 of our teachers but
many of them are undermining tho faith of
ci,Uoneilts 5n? th,ey aro not willIng that the Bible
snail be defended in the presence of their stu
dents. For instance, the President of one groat
university became very angry because I pre
sented tho Bible side of Darwinism to the stu
dents of that university. In a public interview,
given but next day, ho declared that I was do
ing the students great harm when I tried to
link their faith with what he called "discarded
scientific theories." Ho said that my speech was
of the kind that the parents and grand parents
of the students used to listen to. Can Chris
tians feel unconcerned when tho president of a
unversity ridicules the religious beliefs of tho
parents and grand parents of his students? An
other university president in a speech on ro
ligion told his students that they should throw
away, their religion if they could not reconcile
it with tho teaching of biology, psychology, etc.
What right has a professor, paid by the people,
to advise his students to accept tho guesses of
biologists and physicologists in preference to
Word of God?
Evolution, so far as it is applied to man, is
nothing more than a GUESS and ought not to be
taught as if it were a fact. It ought not to bo
taught even a's a guess unless the teacher ex
plains to his pupils that it is an unsupported
guess. But why should a mere guess, without
a fact in the universe to support it, be taught
at. all, when tho effect of that teaching is to
weaken faith in God and to undermine faith
in the Bible as the Word of God?
Darwin brought an unanswerable Indictment
against his own hypothesis when, at tho close
of his life, he declared himself an AGNOSTIC.
When he was a young man ho believed In God;
at the end of life he declared the beginning ot
all things to be a mystery Insoluble by us. When
he was a young man he believed in a future
life; at the close of his life he said that the
question must be decided by each individual
for himself on uncertain vague probabilities.
When he was a young man he believed tliat the
Bible was the Word of God. He says that ho
was called orthodox and laughed at by some of
the officers of the Beadle for quoting the Bible
as an unanswerable authority on a point of
morals. At the end of his life he said that ho
did not believe THERE HAD EVER BEEN ANY
REVELATIONS, which of course, excludes
Christ as well as the Bible. He even aaked
whether a mind developed, as he believed man's
mind was, from the mind of tho lowest animal,
could be trusted when it dealt with God and
immortality. He brought man down to the level
of tho brute and then judged him by brute
standards.
Do we deserve to be called fanatic when we
insist that a teacher in the public schools should
not impair faith in God? We have "In God We
Trust" on our coins. Why should a teacher
lead a child to laugh at such an inscription?
When the witness takes an oath in court he ap
peals to God to help him to be truthful. Why
should teachers be permitted to weaken faith
in the oaths, that we administer? The President
takes his oath before an open Bible why should
a teacher, paid by taxation, bo permitted to
make fun of the Bible?
Let your people understand tho real issue, Mr.
Editor, and there will be only one side to this
question. The intolerance is not on the side
of the more than ninety per cent of the people
who are still Defenders of tho Faith; the intol
erance is on the side of a small Percentage who
exaggerate the mind's part and belittle the
heart, out of which "are the Issues of life."
It was necessary to take the management of
political parties out of the hands of the bosses
and put the authority in the hands of the vot
eis If that was wise, why not take public in
struction out of the hands of the athe sts and
eVAntipq and nut it into the hands of the tax
payers' The Chrstians are not asking that re
Sn be taught in our public schoos; they
oi nrntPHtinir against -he teaching of IRRE
LIGION m the public schools. They are not
Mne that any man shall surrender his opin
ion or folate his conscience; they are only
of Christians and turns education over to tho
members of tho "Ancient and Honorablo Order
of Apes." Those who look to tho jungles for
thoir ancestry can teach this doctrine to their
own children it- they wish but they ought not
to bo allowed to mako monkeys out ot all the
childron. Very truly yours,
W. J. BRYAN.
MR. BRYAN IN KENTUCKY
Following Is a nows report of Mr. Brycu'g
speech before the Kentucky legislature Jan. 19,
19.22. Senator Frank E. Daugherty introduced
him as follows :
"Every liberty loving nation of tho earth,'
must, to mako itself safo and prosorvo its high
est ideals, havo among its citizenship, men who .
are willing to sacrifice all in order io' prosorvo
and hold sacred these God glvon rights to his
fellow-cltizona, Ho must bo ablo to forseo and
bdldly proclaim that which is host, and give
warning of those things that aro hurtful and
cause a nation's downfall and decay. He must
havo courage, and with it an honest heart that
goes out, feels and acts for humanity.
It is that typo of a man of which I have just
spoken that I have tho honor to present to my
fellow Kentuckians, to whom ho is no stranger,
and whom wo lovo to honor: Honorable WIK
Ham Jennings Bryan an ideal American Citizen."
BRYAN GIVEN APPLAUSE
(By Robert E. Dundon, In Loxington Herald.)
Frankfort, Ky., Jan. 19. William Jennings
Bryan addressee! tho general assembly In joint
session today, taking occasion to deliver an at
tack on any state-supported university which
sanctions or approves the teaching of tho Dar
winian theory of the origin of species. Mr.
Bryan, who was introduced by Senator Frank E,
Daughtery of Bardstown, said that his subject
would bo divided into two topics, the first on
state trade commissions, which ho is advocating
in every state, tho other, what ho called the
"teaching of irreligion in our public schools and
universities."
Starting with tho former, ho said, that the
farming class oi the entire country has been,
suffering from acute defiation, and that' tho con
sumers also havo been hard hit by Industrial
depression. He said that the farmers were de
manding relief, and that the so-called "agricul
tural bloc" at Washington was only a condrete
expression of their efforts to get clear of disas
ter. "They have found it necessary to employ
coercion on congress," he added. "Those bills
havo been passed, two through both housqs, to
become laws, and another now awaiting action
of one house after passing the other, all de
signed to relieve tho condition of the farming
class."
Mr. Bryan said that he Is advocating State
Trade Commissions, on the same plan as the
Federal Trade Commission, and with power
from the state to inquire into the action of
merchants in holding up prices. Ho said that
the commissions should have tho power to goin
to ofilces and look at the books, and. see that tho
percentage on turn-over is not too great. It
was his hope that the present legislature should
enact some such law at the 1922 session of the
general assembly.
In speaking on the orthodoxy of the univers
ities, Mr. Bryan was very emphatic in his
denunciation of the teaching of Darwinism.
Ho was flanked by a number of books,
one of which he said was a text book on zo
ology, from which he read the theory as to tha
primates indicating that man Is descended from
apes.
Attacking the textbook, Mr. Bryan omleavored
to show that there is no real proof for the evolu
tion hypothesis, and claimed that the. teaching '
of such ideas would result in an undermining of
tho belief of youth in the Christian religion.
He cited a number of instances to prove his
contention. His remarks were enlivened by sev
eral humorous references.
Speaking of his own ancestors, Mr. Brj'an
said that he didn't know anything about them
further back than his great-grandparents, but
that as one of his great-grandparents was from
Kentucky, he was sure that they were all right.
Jn conclusion, Mr. Bryan declared that he
wants a state law passed to bar the teaching: of
Darwinism in any institution supported by state
funds. He said that if agnostics or atheists
or unbelievers of any sort wish to teach their be
lief, they should have tho right to es
tablish their own schools as Christians do, but
should not be permitted to teach them in an
institution maintained by public taxation.
Mr. Bryan's remarks were frequenHy ap
plauded by a considerable portion ofboth the.
senators and representatives.
m
hf
.'
. .
4
A,
U
t
i
' t
' f
'.
.rife
1L- l
-i
4 n
V'U
W
VJ
.
,v
- J.
V.
-fl
" -A.
- ..-,
"'
v
1 .'i
f t .
"fJ
V .' '
H
r kMi
a
AS?
.