EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 86, 11 April 1922, Page 8

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

(To the Editor.'i Sir,—Referring to criticism in recent letters in your paper of Darwin's origin of species and theory of evolution, it docs not seem to be generally known that there were three generations of Barwins, all doctors and free-thinkers, evolving the evolution theory aud thereby proving it. On the other hand where faith takes the place of free thought, we have the two largest brunches ot the Christian faith, producing a world's war and such things a* are happening in Ireland. By reversing Christ teaching of peace and goodwill, and trying to-stand still the consequence is evolution backwards.—l am, etc.. JOHN A. MUNRO. (To the Editor.) Sir—Mr. Wesley Richards and inanv other recent correspondents seem unaware of the vital distinction between "evolution"' and that particular theory known as '"Darwinism." The truth of the former is recognised now to have been established beyond the shadow of a. doubt, and, moreover, has been held by philosophers as far back as Heraelettus and Buddha. "Darwinism," howpver. is but one particular theory of "how"' evolution has been brought about nut "from whence we came." as \l r Richards suggests in his letter. It is laughable to anyone conversant with Professor Bateson's works to note the way Mr. Richards seeks lo infer that that ardent materialist, in denying the validity of ''Darwinism.** subscribes to Mr. Richards own belief in special creation as revealed in the Book of Genesis Professor Bateson, while led by this investigation into the phenomena of Mendelism to reject Darwinism, is none ihe less a. believer in evolution, though holding an open mind upon the way in which it has been brought about. It is evident that Mr. Wesley Richards is ignorant of the fact that there are various other evolutionary theories be >ides the one put forward by Darwin and "Wallace. One such is that held by the T-amarckian school, and accepted overwhelmingly in Fran*, and almoet as completely in America, and Germany. This is undoubtedly the explanation of ihe American opinions on the question -,f Darwinism as quoted by Mr. Richards. in conclusion, it might "be worth mentioning that both Spencer and Haeckel, whom even Mr. Richards would hardly claim as supporters of his views, were less supporters of Darwinism than of the theories of Lamarck.—l a m. etc., F.W.C. "D Beadle ako -tvrites in support of the evolutionary theory. rr [This correspondence is closed.—EdJ