Into the welter of sensationalism aroused about a scientist who is reported to believe in "special creation". Professor Mather strikes a calm and refreshing note in his article in today's CRIMSON. His careful study of the paper which gave rise to the exciting story shows it to be little more than a reformulation of the mutation theory of evolution. It is not Man who is the "special creation" but the whole vertebrate kingdom. Mr. Clark's unorthodoxy, evidently, is merely that he cannot trace any evolutionary relationship between the lowest from of fish and the invertebrate kingdom. And so the whole discussion was caused merely by a zealous newspaper man who saw a headline in a few of Mr. Clark's inaptly chosen phrases.

Coming directly on top of the controversy raised by Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes' discussion of a "new religion" the general reaction on the layman of this sensationalism cannot fall to be unfortunate. Censorship and the passage of anti-evolution laws is enough evidence of the prejudice existing against anything which might disturb traditional opinions. Probably the only way to improve such a condition is by gradual education, and the press can do its share by being as informative as possible. To be sure, there is no particular sensation in the fact that a scientific man believes in evolution, but just because newspapers want exciting headlines is no excuse for misconstruing what a scientist really does say. The press can do its best for the progress of science by emphasizing the dominant truth of its facts rather than making use of spectacular but misleading flourishes.