Evolution Again! by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jul 27, 1882

Evolution Again!

By Editor

O, ho! here is Monsieur Tonson come again,— turned up like a bad penny. This time it is Professor John Fiske of Harvard who introduces him through the medium of an article on "The Arrival of Man in Europe," printed in the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly. We pass by what the writer tells us about the Neolithic Civilization, the River-drift men, the orbital changes in the earth's course, and the glacial periods of from 700,000 to 880,000 and 2,450,000 to 2,650,000 years ago respectively. We pass these by because Prof. Fiske is not able to establish the theories put forth by Mr Croll as facts, and time and space devoted to the matter would be time and space wasted. But one thing we cannot quite pass by, and that is the Professor's attempt to cover the whole country with the mantle of Evolution, and that special phase of the theory—for there are evolutionists and revolutionists—as evolves reasoning man from the irrational animals. Says Professor Fiske:—

"It only remains to add that the enormous length of time during which the human race has existed is of itself a powerful argument in favor of the opinion—now generally accepted—that the human race was originated, by a slow process of development, from a race of non-human primates, similar to the anthropoid apes."

We fear Prof. Fiske has underrated the intelligence of his readers—either that or he has so persuaded himself of the truth of that which certainly is not true at all, that he comes to the front, makes his bow and holding out a huge guess in his hands, says, Dear friends, this is "now generally accepted" as fact. But on such a matter Prof. Fiske ought not to be mistaken. He may look to the chimpanzee and say, Thou art my father, and to the gorilla and say, Thou art my mother, but he certainly has no right to say that a like paternity "is now generally accepted"—it simply is not true. That certain phases of evolution hypotheses are entertained by many who are scientists, as well as by those who are not, is certainly true; but by whom, let us ask, is man's evolution from brutes so generally accepted? By the scientists? But neither Virchow, Mivart, Wallace, Dawkins, Hughes, nor in our own country, Gray, Dana, or Le Conte, hold to that view, while so great a scientist as Prof. Tyndall has said, "inasmuch as it is still in its hypothetical stage, the bar of exclusion ought to fall upon the theory of evolution. . . . I hold with Virchow that "the failures have been lamentable, and the doctrine is utterly discredited." Then take our best schools—do they teach evolution? Yale does not, neither does Princeton, Williams, Brown, Rutgers, Amherst, Hamilton, Union, Dartmouth, Lafayette, Rochester, Bowdoin—a dozen of the best colleges in the country. The popular sentiment—that entertained by the intelligent, thinking public—who can draw conclusions from definite data as well as the scientists themselves—is overwhelmingly against the theory of man's evolution from brutes. But Prof. Fiske says it is "now generally accepted." Again we ask, where? In England, by the British Convocation? Not at all. In the United States, by the American Association for the Advancement of Science? Only a short time ago its President distinctly repudiated the theory. Where is that happy land under whose smiling skies man's evolution from animals "is now generally accepted?" Mr. Fiske ought to tell us; he ought to substantiate what he affirms by direct proof. To state a fact that cannot be substantiated is not scientific—and it is not becoming a Harvard professor.—Christian at Work.