Ellis Yochelson sent in the abstract for this talk to GSA in June 2006. Shortly thereafter,
Janice Goldblum (National Academy of Sciences archivist) and he discovered an
evolution statement of the NAS from the 1920s. When I saw Ellis in July 2006, I told him
about a resolution on evolution by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science also from the early 20s. He and I discussed the paper at length, and he gave
me copies of the documents and notes he had made. After Ellis died on August 30, I
asked his daughter, Abby Yochelson (Library of Congress) if she wanted me to write up
and present his paper. She agreed and provided additional notes he had made before
his death. The paper is based on Ellis’s research with a few gaps filled by me. Any
errors are mine.
Michele Aldrich
November 2006
Ellis’s story is set in the United States in the 1920s, a period of a rise in Christian
fundamentalism and Biblical literalism. The story locale is the Smithsonian Castle (see
slide), home of Smithsonian secretaries (CEOs) and assistants from 1853 to date, the
National Academy of Sciences 1875-1930, and the AAAS, 1907-1946. These three DC
scientific organizations created resolutions and statements about evolution in the early
1920s (see slide).
The AAAS resolution was provoked by a paper given by William Bateson (see slide), an
English geneticist, at the December 1921 AAAS meeting in Toronto, and published in
SCIENCE (the AAAS’s official journal) shortly thereafter. Bateson questioned the exact
mechanism of evolution, still uncertain to many scientists, but did not discredit the broad
concept per se. Anti evolutionists used it that way despite his caveats. The AAAS
Council undertook damage control, appointing a three man committee (see slide), all
within easy train ride of each other. They were in related fields, two neontologists
(Conklin and Davenport) and Henry Fairfield Osborn (see slide), of most interest to
geologists. Osborn was a vertebrate paleontologist and President of the American
Museum of Natural History. He had his own view of evolution, that it was guided,
gradual, and continuous, all sharp differences from Bateson.
In December 1922, the AAAS Council passed a resolution (see slide), which was
published in SCIENCE in early 1923 (see slide). This document had an extended life:
in May 1925, it was dusted off for the Scopes trial and release by Science News
Service. The release was also published in SCIENCE but not the NY Times or the
Washington Post.
What did the AAAS resolution say? Because it was a resolution not a statement, it was
brief and no evidence was presented in support of claims. There was no philosophical
preamble about scientific truth or method and no mention of Darwin or Darwinism. The
theory of evolution was endorsed as correct for the history of plants, animals, and man
– the latter most troubling to Biblical literalists. It mentioned state restrictions on
teaching of evolution and the Toronto meeting. The resolution stated that the general
concept of evolution was thoroughly tested. The resolution closed with a declaration that
attempts to stifle teaching of ANY scientific theory as well supported at this threatened
progress of human welfare
The NAS statement grew out of member discussions at the annual meetings in 1921.
The Academy Council asked its President, Charles Doolittle Walcott, to appoint a
Committee with representation from each NAS discipline section. Walcott (see slide)
was President from 1917 to 1923. A paleontologist and Secretary of the Smithsonian at
the time, he worked on the evolution of trilobites. Walcott believed that good Christians
made good scientists because both sought the truth.
The NAS Committee he appointed was nearly unworkable because of the section
requirement - too big, too geographically spread out, and too disciplinarily diverse.
Initially, the Committee said the NAS should not take a stand on the issue because the
Academy existed foremost to support research, not education. However, the chairman
John Mason Clarke (see slide), persuaded them otherwise. Clarke was state
paleontologist of NY and faced a politically conservative legislature. As director of the
state museum, he was concerned about the educational role of science, including that
of the Academy. The Committee compromised, formulating a statement but declaring it
should be held confidential until needed. In 1923, this action passed the membership
(see slide). The Academy had no journal like SCIENCE; its PROCEEDINGS published
scientific papers but not news. Furthermore, the AAAS’s public actions made NAS
publicity on behalf of the American scientific community less necessary. The statement
on evolution stayed unpublished and unknown until it was discovered by Janice
Goldblum on a question from Ellis Yochelson.
What did the NAS document say? Again, there was no mention of Darwin or natural
selection. It had a long preamble about truth: knowledge of natural law THAT derived
from investigation, not inspiration as did religious truth. There was a long history of
opposition to the findings of investigation, such as the discovery of the roundness of
earth and the fact that the sun, moon, and stars do not go around earth (but since the
moon does go around the earth, perhaps it was just as well the Academy’s statement
was not publicly circulated). The doctrine of organic evolution was known to the same
degree of certainty as demonstrated by the continuity of life and development of
organisms. Those who oppose it are ignorant, it concluded, and stifling research and
education of scientific work retards the progress of civilization
The Smithsonian statement grew out the need to respond to the Scopes trial in the
summer of 1925 and was crafted by two assistant secretaries. Charles G. Abbot (see
slide) was assistant secretary for the Astrophysical Observatory and acting director in
Walcott’s absence. Walcott was in the field that summer; he commonly delegated
duties to reliable staff and did not micromanage the results. Abbot was an astronomer
who worried about “six days” of creation because he worked on variable stars and the
long life of the universe. Alexander Wetmore (see slide) was assistant secretary in
charge of the zoo in March 1925 and shortly thereafter in charge of the US National
Museum. He was an ornithologist and avian paleontologist.
Their statement survives as a poorcopy (see slide), mimeographed on three
pages and attached to a cover letter (see slide) from Abbot to E. A. Blythe (about whom
nothing further is known but Ellis probably would have tried to find research him). We
don’t know how often it was used, and again, Ellis would have checked that. It was not
published, even in the Smithsonian ANNUAL REPORT (see slide) for 1925 or 1926.
These volumes were widely circulated and contained administrative reports as well as
original scientific papers.
What did this statement and cover letter say? That no scientific theory is conclusively
proven, but that scientists disagree about details of all of them, including evolution.
However, the broad concept of evolution sums up an array of otherwise isolated facts
and stimulates further investigation. As with the earlier documents, there is no mention
of Darwin. The Smithsonian claimed to present facts and offer the best explanation of
them through its exhibits and correspondence. It did not take sides in rival theories
(such as those of Bateson and Osborn). It offered facts supporting evolution, eleven in
all. Several were geological (see slide) and others came from other sciences (see slide).
It closed by saying that many Smithsonian scientists were also religiously devout. .
These three statements contrast to more recent resolutions by scientific societies,
including those by the AAAS and NAS, which are posted on the National Center for
Science Education website (see slide) in the “Voices for Evolution” section. The
argument for progress in fossils is seen by scientists as a value judgment rather than
scientific fact. Many details of evolution contested in the 1920s have since been settled,
and while arguments remain, they are not as great as between Osborn and Bateson
because the “Modern Synthesis” brought those two sides together. The nature of
evolution’s opponents has changed too. Creationists claim their theory as a science
that belongs in science classrooms; it was this argument that the courts rejected, ruling
that creationism is a religious theory that comes under the rules of church and state
separation in public schools.
Several people helped Ellis and me in the preparation of this paper. They are thanked in
the last slide.