T HE K I N G ' S B U S I N E S S
318
nists are represented by the so-called ‘liberal’ sectarian press and pulpit, who have not yet heard from the really pro gressive scientists th a t Darwinism is dead. A few scholars— or, rath er, pro fessors—-have contended rig h t rhetoric ally for th e liberty to teach th e ‘assured resu lts of science’ in the classes, but they need to be told, as kindly as pos sible, to get revised editions of the tex t books from which they prepare lectures. There would be no controversy today between Mr. Bryan and his critics if the destructive aspects of scientists’ (not scientific) speculation were not so allu r ing to a certain sensation-loving section of the country. “ It is quite noticeable th a t in the con troversy which Mr. Bryan has caused, scientists are silent. They cannot talk half so confidently as can the Commoner and the ‘evolutionists.’ ” THE AVERAGE MAN’S OPINION The following is p art of an address by Grove Patterson, managing editor of The Toledo Blade, delivered a t th e De tro it Area Methodist Conference held at Pontiac, Michigan, recently, and re ported t6 The Daily Press of th a t city. We add our word of perfect agreement: “Speaking as a business man and not as a Churchman, I express the opinion and the fear th a t the church is going too far as an efficient social service in sti tution and not far enough as a church in its original, fundam ental, spiritual significance. “Notw ithstanding the opinion of many, if not most clergymen today, the average man in the street, the average citizen does not want entertainm en t in and from his church. He doesn’t go to church prim arily fo r motion pictures or for th e sensational discussion of topics of the day or for book reviews and mu sical concerts. He can get all those things and usually better ones six days and nights in the week.
HENRY FORD’S PAPER ON BRYAN
Y FORD’S paper, “The •born Independent,” has having some discussions of ___ B ryan’s stand on the evolu
tion question. The editor does not take up his pen in defense of th e Faith, yet his editorial is in marked con trast with those of some of the religious papers in which the real issue has been begged and sarcasm has been used against Mr. B ryan’s position. The Independent says: “Mr. Bryan once annoyed them be cause he was too forward, now he makes them w rithe because, they say, he is too backward. He is against the teach ing of ‘evolution’ in th e schools; by ‘evolution’ he means, of course, the doc trine th a t mankind represents an ascent from th e brute order; th a t is practically what everybody means by ‘evolution.’ “Of course, no one who has kept step w ith science teaches th a t w ith confidence any more. No good scientist could teach it, because no one knows th a t it is true. . No one ever did know it to be true. The idea of development was a g reat idea, a very g reat idea, but, as applied to the development of m an’s body and m ind from a lower bestial body and mind, it has never been even a full- fledged hypothesis. Its statu s has been th a t of a very exciting piece of im agina tion. And presently it became a m atter of temper; if you were against the more sober forces of life, you were for ‘evolu tio n :’. if you were a conservative, you were against it. Of late, however, when you touch ‘evolution,’ you ja r the most conservative and reactionary circles. This tem per had nothing whatever to do w ith science, and it has precious little even yet. It is very significant th a t the most virulent of .Mr. B ryan’s antago
Made with FlippingBook Online document