SCIENCE AND MIRACLES.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 306, 26 December 1924, Page 3

SCIENCE AND MIRACLES.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I have read with interest several letters under the above heading. One correspondent says: "The theory of evolution is now accepted by "every scientist of note in the world to-day.'" I may not be a scientist of note, but what I want to know is: Did force and energy evolve or have they always existed? Did the laws of gravitation evolve, or have they always been as they are to-day? Have they ever been stronger or weaker or completely nonexistent? Did light evolve or tlie rate at which it travels? Did light travel slow at first and get faster and faster with practice. Did the same proportions of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen always go to make a drop of water or an j ocean, or have water and its constituents evolved ? Has the unseen I power I call mind, that pives atoms the power to change or evolve in accordance withchangingenvironment. always existed, or has the power we call consciousness, mind, or life evolved; that is to say, was it non-existent a»es ago; if so whence came the power of created life to evolve at all, for it is j certain that things which are devoid of I life of any kind cannot evolve? It seems | to mc that these and other fundamental forces of nature are eternal, have always been, and will always be—they are j attributes to God, and are behind all

evolution. As Darwin said, the mind refuses to believe that there is not a. God or unseen mind behind all evolution. Evolution is therefore only predestined growth or development. -Lite and creation are the greatest of all miracles.—l am, etc., C. P. W. LONG DILL. (To the Editor.) Sir. —To fully traverse all the points raised by J. Liddell. Kelly in his letter on the.above subjects, appearing in your issue of the 9th inst., is impossible within the bounds of a letter. I would beg space, however, to make a few comments. A tnie miracle (which apparently can scarce be differentiated from a false one! your correspondent states, is au event that baffles the power of our intellect to explain. The human mind, of course, cannot, in its present stata of development, really explain anything, it can only describe sequences of cause and effect, and'l take it that the word is used in thi-s sense. Granted such art event, how can we be sure that it is not mere ignorance that prevents us from indicating the causes? In times past comets were looked upon by Christians and pagans alike as miraculous portents, but now that science has (described their cause and motions, no educated person places them in that category. Superstition, according to your correspondent, is a degraded form of faith. More correctly it can bo described as faith in any form of supernatural phenomena. I quite concur i that irrational belief in lucky charms, omens, etc., is found to a deplorable though decreasing extent amongst us, but bow can we differentiate between this and the so-called "higher" superstitions of say, belief in the efficacy of prayers for rain, or that the profession of certain dogmas will secure for the believer eternal bliss. The dillerenee is in degree but not in kind. The thinking man docs not absorb everything put forward by scientists in the "sponge-like manner so stressed by Mr. Liddell Kelly. Scientists, unlike the propagators of "higher truths" do not put forward propositions, as a rule, without detailing the data on which they are founded, and intelligent folk sift that data before giving or withholding assent. Mr. Liddell Kelly states that all or nearly all scientists of note are agreed that species did not originate in the Darwinian way. In refutation of that statement, allow mc to quote from a recent article entitled "Why I am a Darwinist." by Professor Sir Arthur Keith, whose qualifications to make a pronouncement will not be disputed. H» states "I may speak of the smaller hand of searchers who are busily engaged in tracing man's pedigreee. "This band, alniost without exception, are Darwinists to a man . . . These are our reasons: When we watch the development of the body before birth we see it pa? 3 through a. series of stages which we can ■ explain only by supposing that matt has had the lowliest of origins; he passes through the same phases as apes do—all save the final ones, where man and ape differ. We see his master organ, the brain, begin in the same way as in lowly animals, and then rapidly assume its dominant size and power. When we examine and compare the architecture of the body and brain of apes with that of the human body we find so many features in common that we are driven to suppose that we are dealing with a modification of a type which prevailed in a common ancestor. When we wish to study the nature of infectious diseases peculiar to man we have to resort to anthropoid apes, so human-like arc their susceptibilities. When we stand in need of help in mapping out the functional areas of the human brain the anthropoid ape again comes to our aid. How does the antiDarwinist explain all these facts?"—l am, etc., A.E.C. (To the Editor.) Sir, —It. is somewhat curious to Hnd your correspondent C. Arleton eulogising the sentiments expressed on science, and religion by J. Liddell Kelly in your columns. Their opinions on this subject, judging by the respective letters, are so diametrically opposed. Mr. J. Liddell Kelly certainly belabours the false scientists, that is to say, those that do not see eye to eye witli him, but he stoutly maintains that there ia no rift between science proper and revealed religion and exultantly points to the modern churchmen's recent conference, at which real scientists attended, in support of this. The fact that only a few scientists and philosophers accepted the invitations, and that many opinions expressed by attending clerics were such as would make the hair of the orthodox stand upright in horror, need not detain us. Now, on the other hand, Mr. C. Arleton maintains uncompromisingly that science is eternally opposed to religion, and that no cvi- ■ dence is sufficient to justify a scientific finding that is not in harmony with the cosmic speculations of the early Semites and Babylonians. That many Bible ' myths were the "scientific hypothesis" current amongst early mankind would, ■ I suppose, be characterised by him as little short of blaspherhous. Miracles, if we extend the application of that contentious word, certainly ■ exist in profusion around us. and we are indebted to scientists of all generations for revealing them to mankind. 11 To the modern mind enlightened by I science there is more, marvel in the . | veriest grain of sand than in all the mass of miracles with which every religion is garnished. What then is the i difference between these two classes of , miracles? It is that, the miracles re- , vealed by science follow well ordered . sequences, for convenience called tb« '. laws of nature, and all who desire may , j witness them firsthand. Religious miracles, on the other hand, follow no orderly lines, but profess as their speciality to negate established sequences. We arc denied the possibility of witnessing these marvels, but must content ourselves with the authority af documents, extant copies of which were I made from a few of the hundreds of ' : versions obtaining several hundred years after the alleged events. Tbe»e \ ! versions purport to be recorded by 1111- ----' I known writers who in some eases did ■ | not claim even to be eye-witnesses. ' Small wonder that increasing numbers > j find it impossible to believe compila--1 | tions that run counter to human ox- ' perience and knowledge, on such flimsy i| grounds, and that silent seceders frotii - I tbe churches are ever on tbe increase 'j despite the Eliminations of the pulpit Hand the ahsence of organised opposition to their tenets.—l am, etc., A.E.C.