were only proved. 'However dangerous the state of things might be,
let the confederates be as mischievous as they might, still I do not
hesitate to say that from the moment when we had become convinced that
the evolution theory was a perfectly established doctrine--so certain
that we could pledge our oath to it, so sure that we could say, "Thus
it is"--from that moment we could not dare to feel any scruple about
introducing it into our actual life, so as not only to communicate it
to every educated man, but to impart it to every child, to make it the
foundation of our whole ideas of the world, of society, and the State,
and to base upon it our whole system of education. This I hold to be
a necessity.'

It would be interesting to know the persons designated by the pronoun
'we' in the first sentence of the foregoing quotation. No doubt
Professor Haeckel would accept this canon in all its fulness, and
found on it his justification. He would say without hesitation: 'I am
convinced that the theory of evolution is a perfectly established
doctrine, and hence on your own showing I am justified in urging its
introduction into our schools.' It is plain, however, that Professor
Virchow would not accept this retort as valid. His 'we' must cover
something more than Professor Haeckel. It would probably cover more
even than the audience he addressed; for he would hardly affirm, even
if every one of his hearers accepted the theory of evolution, that
that would be a sufficient warrant for forcing it upon the public at
large. His 'we,' I submit, needs definition. If he means that the
theory of evolution ought to be introduced into our schools, not when
experts are agreed as to its truth, but when the community is prepared
for its introduction, then, I think, he is right, and that, as a
matter of social policy, Dr. Haeckel would be wrong in seeking to
antedate the period of its introduction. In dealing with the
community great changes must have timeliness as well as truth upon
their side. But if the mouths of thinkers be stopped, the necessary
social preparation will be impossible; an unwholesome divorce will be
established between the expert and the public, and the slow and
natural process of leavening the social lump by discovery and
discussion will be displaced by something far less safe and salutary.

The burthen, however, of this celebrated lecture is a warning that a
marked distinction ought to be made between that which