MR DENTON AND DARWINISM.

Auckland Star, Volume XV, Issue 3722, 15 July 1882, Page 3

MR DENTON AND DARWINISM.

(To the Editor.)

Sib,—Slnco my paper No. 2 on " Thp Doqtrino of Evolution," published in this weok's Saturday Supplement, had passed into print, I hare read Mr Denton's ■ letter contained in last night's Stab. Hi 3 phjeotion tq Professor Boyd Dawkina'a right to be heard upon the question ol tho Calavoras skull appears to me devoid ot force. Whether Professor Dawkins had visited the spot or not is wholly immaterial, slnco he accepted Professor Whitney's own description o£ the surrounding circumstances, »nd arguing from those promises dissents from the deductions which Professor Whitney had placed upon the facts. We must mako' some allowance for the bias that would inevitably be given to the mind of tho State Geologist of California by the hope of going down to posterity as tho discoverer and possessor of the only ploiooene skull in theworld. An objection raised against Professor Dawkins's skill as an expert is tho only one that would carry weight. But I scarcely think Mr Den ton will venture to place the experience of Professor Whitney in this special department of geological study in contrast with that of his critic. In tho samo lecture Professor Dawkins discussed the two otbor recent claims to tho discovery of pleiocene remains, namely, tho skull, alloged on doubtful testimony, to have been found at a depth of 15 metres in a railway cutting at Obno, near Arezzo, and tho remains found by Professor Cappellinl in Italy. Professor Dawkins had made a personal examination of these remains in the museum at Florence Tho former he contended were not in pleiocene strata at all, and the latter, though found in pleiocene deposits, were associated^with a fragment of pottery, which effectually dispelled the idea that they were in situ. Until better testimony than the Colaveras skull is offered, Mr Denton really must not expect any general acceptance of Profeß'Or Whitney's unsupported opinion—ln the face of tho adverse judgment of first-olass geologists—that California has yielded what the pleiocene deposits of Europe have, by universal testimony, yet failed to produce. Mr Denton's disclaimer of Darwinism scarcely makes it clear to me what position he actually occupies with referenoo to tho dootrlno of ovolution. His work entitled "Is Darwin Right." has not, unfortunately.been among thoso of his publications that have come under my notice. I shall,: however, take an oarly opportunity of perusing it. Of his lecture on tho "Origin of Man "I can, however, speak from personal attendance. And thbso wno were present on that occasion'wilU thlnk.concur with me in Baying that there was absent from the lecture tho empnatio protest expressed is last'night's letter a.ainst the wide inilueiiao attributed to Natural Solco tion by tho Darwinists. Darwin himself, how ever, beoame conscious of something of the weakness of the theory, and modified the original assertion ot its potency in his subaoqueiit book on tho " D/tscent of Man.'' Still I confess that I find no easier escapo from the overwhelming difficulties sartoundißg this pro blsm through Mr Denton;« theory or a " Spiritual tendency in Natur*." We are very apt to deoeiye ourselves with high-sounding phrases.. What is this " tendency, and how does it operate! To produce the marvellous results in vegetable and animal lifs visible everywhere around v*, it must either be something transmittablo physically in matter, or else a constantly-operating miracle. Has Mr Donton a lingering belief in the fairies after all? It is hardly worth his while to follow Zollner, Haeckel. Schmidt, and that school in pleading for an explodod fallacy like spontaneous generation, as an escape from the miraculous if he is afterwards going to let in " spiritual tendency" as an operative cause in the evolution of species. Darwin's theory that life, with its several powers, was originally ' breathed by the Creator into a few forms or Into one," is not more obnoxious to ultra Darwinists than the recognition of " spiritual tendency." Mr Donton has made no attempt at a practioal exposition of a force or law upon which ho places so much stress, Tho definition given by Professor Schmidt of every theory of the kind has already been quoted. In his opinion it is simply " trimming." i i fuel bound to saj that were the evidence sufiloient to establish that purely materlalistlo view of the origin ot life, for which, to my mind, Mr Denton contends, I should feol ooonoel'sd by every rule ot logio to go with Schmidt and hla co-thlnkers unflinchingly to the end. Ho pretty conceit lika "tendenoy" or Mr Denton'a imiierfeet analogy ot the ripe apole reproducing while the green apple dies could satiety my mind ot the power of cold;' uoud, senseless matter to develop a spiritual essence distinct from itself. With the return of the original elements to tbe dust moat go {or ever the influence of heredity, natural " seleotioh, tendency, and all tba laws or processes whioh originally fashioned and developed the perfect being. There Is no logical escape from this petition exoept by the' admlssipt of miracle at some stage, and yat Mr Dsnton, while propounding thoorlea Involving a perpetual snooession of miracles that stagger all human credulity, hesitates to admit the creation of a molecule. I had hoped that the omission of anything approaching a definition of "spiritual tendenoj from the lecture on the " Origin of Man" would hive been repaired In another of the course which Mr Denton has delivered elsewhere. Wh» was'the leoture on "The Solentlflo Evl(ienoes of a Future Life" omitted from the A uokland aeries ? Burely the ridicule provoked in some Southern jourca's by Mr Denton's repudiation of the doctrine of a physloal resurrootlon, followed by his positive assertion that he had himself taken cants in clay ot the hinds and facea of Bplrit?, would not deter him fiom proolaimi-g the tr-atb, as he apprehondslt. That leotura may perhaps supply a key to his views of spiritual agonoy. ana, therefore, I trust he Will be lnduoed to deliver Übsforoleaving this city. To reply to tha last general sentences of Mr Denton's letter, would render it neosssary to traverse the whole of what has already been written, and anticipate what may yet be to Come in the future arcioles on "lhe Doctrine of fcvolntion," I[may aay, however, that in enterIng npon a discussion ot this question, my objeot was not to bolster up any particular theory of the oriftin of life, but simply to state the r xaot position ot the solentiflo evidence bearing on lbs subject, and show npon what a slender t-iiiaUMk'.: "£" ilJi'i''^.Wi«-/;i '■-'.•■■'V ■■

thread revolutionary conclusions of vast slgalfloanoahftVD boon hur,g by the Darwinists. I am content, while 1-dloating my own opinion of tho Inference? from the facts adrtuoed, to leavs the case with the thoughtful reudar. It Is, howover, an additional satisfaction to learn that tho positions advanced are not only unoontoßted by Mr Denton—but, to employ bis own words— that "Many of the very objections to Darwinism advanced by Mr Leys, ho may flod in my wora: entitled, 'Ib Darwin Right J' a theory that I regard as radically defective. —lam, &0.,

T. W. lares. P.9.—Sinoa tho above was written, I have learned, with pleasure, that Mr Denton has been Induced to re-dallver hit leoturo on " Tho Origin of Man " naxt Saturday, and to Rive on tbo following; Dlerht (Sunday) theomitted Ipatore oh •■ThoßciontUlo Evldonoa of Man's Future Existence." I»rnst ho will take the opportunity of defining ruoro txplloltly hla theory of. "Bpmtutil tondenoy.' The points that specially call for a fuller exposition are thece :—ln what way may " tendenoy "be conceived as working In the production of physical results? and, vice versa; how oan material prooeußoa evolve a spiritual existence 1-T.W.ii.