Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/263

Rh from reptiles, or the like; and (3) the causes of evolution or what made and makes it happen. These three aspects, like those in the voyage of a ship, are separate though related items. They must be constantly distinguished if there is to be any clear thinking on this matter by one who is not a scientist.

It is now possible to explain the misunderstanding above cited. The historical fact of evolution seems attested by overwhelming evidence. Science has nothing to conceal, it stands "strong in the strength of demonstrable facts," and invites you to view the evidence. The course pursued by evolution is known broadly in many instances, but in the nature of the case the evidence is limited and many of the steps will always remain uncertain, without, however, a calling in questonquestion [sic] of the historic fact. The causes of evolution present the most difficult problem of all and the one regarding which we know the least. The recent strictures of Prof. Bateson, which have been exploited by anti-evolutionists were directed wholly at current explanations of evolutionary causation and the course of evolution. He affirmed his belief in the historic fact when he said "our faith in evolution is unshaken"—meaning by "faith," of course, a reasonable belief resting upon evidence.

That such an interpretation of Prof. Bateson’s views is the correct one, appears from the following communication:

"11 December, 1922, "The Manor House, "Merton, "London, S. W. 20.

"Dear Prof. Curtis:

"The papers you have sent me relating to the case of Mr. give a curious picture of life under democracy. We may count ourselves happy if we are not all hanged like the Clerk of Chatham, with our pens and ink horns about our necks!

"I have looked through my Toronto address again, I see nothing in it which can be construed as expressing doubt as to the main fact of evolution. In the last paragraph (copy enclosed) you will find a statement in the most explicit words I could find giving the opinion which appears to me forced upon us by the facts—an opinion shared, I suppose, by every man of science in the world.

"At Toronto I was addressing an audience, mainly professional. I took occasion to call the attention of my colleagues to the loose thinking and unproven assumptions which pass current as to the actual processes of evolution. We do know that the plants and animals, including most certainly man, have been evolved from other and very different forms of life. As to the nature of this process of evolution, we have many conjectures, but little positive knowledge. That is as much of the matter as can be made clear without special study, as you and I very well know.

"The campaign against the teaching of evolution is a terrible example of the way in which truth can be perverted by the ignorant. You may use as much of this letter as you like and I hope it may be of service.

Yours truly, W. BATESON."

The paragraph to which Prof. Bateson refers above is the concluding one of his address and runs as follows:

"I have put before you very frankly the considerations which have made us agnostic as to the actual mode and processes of evolution. When such confessions are made the enemies of science see their chance. If we cannot declare here and now how species arose, they will obligingly offer us the solutions with which obscurantism is satisfied. Let us then proclaim in precise and unmistakable language that our faith in evolution is unshaken. Every available line of argument converges on this inevitable conclusion. The obscurantist has nothing to suggest which is worth a moment's attention. The difficulties which weigh upon the professional biologist need not trouble the layman. Our doubts are not as to the reality or truth of evolution, but as to the origin of species,