MR M'CABE’S LECTURES.

Evening Star, Issue 18336, 25 July 1923, Page 4

MR M'CABE’S LECTURES.

10 Tim EDITOR, rir,—ln 3uy letter on Mr M'Oabe’s lectures I said that science cannot be popularised. I ha.vo therefore to thank your two correspondents, “Sense” and “Agnostic,” for providing in their letters of last evening specific Instances to bear out my contention. “Sense” in particular makes it plain that ho is blind to tho necessity of verifying his information before lushing into print. He tells us that Joseph M'Cabo was known as Father Antony, S.J. S.J, stands for Society of Jesus (Jesuit Order). Now, if “Sense” had any idea of scientific procedure, which ho has not, ho would have been at pains to discover that if Mr M'Cabo had been a Jesuit ho would not have been known as Father Antony, S.J., but as Father M‘Cabo, S.J. The Jesuits retain their own names when they enter the order. As a matter of fact, Mr M'Cabo was not a Jesuit, but a Franciscan. I mention this merely to show tliy loose, slipshod manner in which these pseudo scientists approach subjects wbHi demand scrupulous exactitude in every detail.

The other correspondent takes mo to task for saying that Mr M'Cabo is not a scientist, and ho reasons from this that my “ logic, is that a scientific truth cannot bo Mvon other than by tho scientist himself.’ My logic is that the scientist can give his truths only to those who have been trained to understand them. Hear Sir Bertram Windls on this point: “Most renders of popular works, having novor learned tho alphabet of science, in which they resemble more than one of the writers of the same works, wholly confuse tho essential difference between facts and hypotheses, and Ijence fall into utter confusion as to the whole of the controversy which rages, or has raged, around certain biological ideas and theories. ... A recent writer has very pertinently observed: ‘Laymen in science who wish to follow iho trend of modern discovery aro limited for the most part to one of two things—-cither they mast read tho pseudo-science of the magazines, which is arranged chiefly for dramatic effect rather than for accurate exposition, or they must turn to specialised and technical works written by discoverers themselves for their followworkers, boojes in which technical training is taken for granted, and the lay reader, however cultured and thoughtful ho may be, becomes utterly and hopelessly lost. Tho world is, then, divided between men who know and cannot toll and men who tell and cannot know.’” Windle hero indicates the difficulty which hampered M'Cabo when the latter tried to translate Haeckel. It is quite beside the point for your correspondent to say that Haeckel is difficult to translate. To say this docs not make Mr M'Cabo a scientist or shake the testimony of the reviewer in ‘Nature’ that the translator was hampered by not having any idea of what his author was talking about. Missing links., however, arc really becoming tilings of tho past in the world of science. Mongo, a famous American biologist (still living), says that the theory now favored by modern biologists is the Do Vries theory of mutations, which, since it supposes that progress is made by leaps and bounds, does away with the hypothesis of missing links and Java men. In any case, the plain citizen cannot be expected to form an opinion upon such matters when the specialists are not agreed. It is men like Mr M'Cabo and your correspondents who assume tho right to decide these questions for themselves and everybody else. Mr M'Cabo, indeed, would have us believe that science is capable of deciding questions whicly can be decided only by philosophy. Science cannot explain the origin of life. As Professor Tait writes; “To say that even tho very lowest form of life can be fully explained on physical principles :s simply unscientific. There is absolutely nothing known in physical science which can lend tho slightest support to such an idea.” Or, as another biologist puts it; “Hens doubtless cornu from eggs, and likewise eggs from hens. Bat what of tho beginning? Hid tho first hen come out of an that never was laid? Or was the first eng laid by a hen that never was batched ? Ono or tho other wc must ray ; and not till we have, adequately accounted tor the existence of the primordial germ, endowed with the mysterious potencies of life, have we done anything to elucidate the £rreat problem of the origin of all tilings. ’ Many things aro no doubt bidden 'from these dry-as-dust scientists who fcoulcl never become popular lecturers, and who never, unlike _Mr M'Cabo, travelled in tramcars which were not guided.—l am, etc., J. Robinson. July 24.

TO THE EDIXOB. Sir,—Your correspondent “Agnostic” makes reference to the fact that the doubt existing in tlto minds of the museum authorities was responsible for their once ticketing (ho Java man as the skull of a gibbon. Now we arc told it is ticketed as “ an ancient man of some 400.000 years ago.” I, who was present at Mr M'Cabek; lectures, noticed the same uncertainty about tho reconstruction of the piltdov/n skull. Mr M'Cabe threw three different pictures on the screen representing three different theories as to hoy/ the skull should be reconstructed. These varying theories showed element of doubt not only among scientists, but among his hearers. Tim jaw found at Heidelberg (Germany), also the subject of much controversy, was exhibited on the screen. Upon material such as this, where there is a conflict of opinion on what shape tho skulls should lake, “Agnost.c” and “Common Sense” would have 115 accept these doubtful theories ns forming evidence that wc evolved from the ape. In Haeckel’s book, ‘Last Words in Evolution,’ published by the Eational'st Tress Association, on page 65 is a picture of tivo skeletons in a row —gibbon, ornng, chimpanzee, gorilla, and man. The plate is headed ‘ Skeletons of Five Anthropoid Apes,’ thus embodying Haeckel’s contention that man is a true ape. _;Mr M’Cabc, who was tho translator, said in tho ‘Literary Guido,’ Marc'n 1, 1911, that “ this was a mistake due to his own inadvertence.” But tho same mistake occurs again on pago 60 of ‘Last Works on Evolution,’ also translated by Mr M‘Cabe. “Agnostic ” wants something modern, but extols Haeckel. In 1858 Haeckel published tho first edition of ‘The Natural History of Creation.’ On page 243 ho inserted side by side three pictures of ova labelled as those of man, monkey, and dog; and of) pago 218 three pictures of embryos labelled as those of dog, fowl, and tortoise; and on page 249 he said there was in neither case any difference to be discovered between the three. But L. Itulimeyer,.professor of zoology and anatomy at Basle University, proved that in cad; case the same identical wood'eut was thrice repeated side by side, the title alone being changed. Later on Haeckel (in ‘ Anthropogeny,’ 1891) acknowledged the facts and confessed them as “ a piece of extraordinary folly,” In 1375 IV. His, professor or anatomy at Leipzig University, in a book called ‘ Our Bodily Frame,’ pointed out the falsifications of tho plates in Haeckel’s ‘Evolution of Mam’ Two figures of human embryos on page 272 and tho primitive human genu are inventions, and tho majority of illustrations on plates 4 and 6 are inventions. “It cannot 00 argued,” concludes Professor His, “that wo ought to be indulgent on the plea that these are intended to bo hypothetical or schematic figures. Twentyfour of them are placed side by side with tho intention clearly explained to prove their similarity as a fact.” And 0. Semper, professor of zoology and anatomy at Wurzburg University, shows in his * Open Letter ’ (1877) that Haeckel in his ‘Anthropogeny’ (evolution of man), third edition, inserts a number of pictures of tilings which no man has ever seen, and gave full references to them. In ISCB F. Yeibcl, professor of anatomy at Frieburg- (Baden) University, wrote: “Let ns look at the illustrations in Haeckel’s pamphlet on ‘The Problem of Man.’ The second and third stages of the embryo of man aro product of tho imagination, for which two monkey embryos have been made use of to a fairly large ■extent* 'The

embryos of man at this stage, such as havo been observed, havo a totally different appearance.” Other glaring falsifications are pointed out by Professor Noibel in detail. Haeckel made an open confession in tho ‘ Berlin Volkszcitung 1 of December 28, 1908, as follows“ To cut short this unsavory dispute, I begin at once with the contrite confession that a, small fraction of my numerous drawings of embryos, perhaps 6 or 8 per cent, are really falsified where wo are compelled to fill up the gaps by hypotheses and to reconstruct tho missing "link.” No wonder that forty-six professors, directors of laboratories, in 1908 declare “ that they do not approve of the method of schematising which Haeckel has in some instances made use _ of.” I could fjo on quoting authorities in condemnation of Haeckel's methods, and yet wo have men in our midst who accept as correct conclusions based upon such falsified premises. People must bo indeed gullible to swallow as true science the translation of works long since exposed.—l am, C J, E. MacManus. July 23.