The Clutha Leader. BALCLUTHA FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 1877.

Clutha Leader, Volume IV, Issue 162, 17 August 1877, Page 4

The Clutha Leader. BALCLUTHA FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 1877.

Oun corrpjpondent IC Reason" is not l" convinced fby the review of Britain's • progress we gave last, week 'in reply to •-« him, that jfhat progress is due to its I purer Christianity, which just menns 'I tho presence of Bible teaching 1 and in- \: fluonce. 'He admits* however, that - ]3ri tain's Protestantism has riono it ;) some g*oooi. His admission of this is -/< only half ithe truth, wlmn he limits that i '.good to it's people's " ei'cnpo from the 1 idominanen of the clergy." This they :•) have had indeed ; but What followed"? \ Did not the authority of the Bible take '* the place of the dominance of the i clergy, and did not its teaching 1 take i the place of that of the Romish priest- ' hood? This is the othex half of tho "' truth, and this, the whole truth of what '■ Britain's Protestantism has-tione, but '■ confirms the position we bave assig-ned to the P>ible in the sphere) of Britain's • education and progress. We regret ; that our correspondent ! hould have fallen into the common oirror of some votaries of science, of charging the Church and clergy with be ing- obstruc- ) tives to scientific research and conclu- i sions. That the Church or Rome acted ; foolishly, to say the leash of it, in the : matter of G;ilileo, ever} r on o admits, ex- ~\ c( ; jir, of course, the infallihl a Romanists. * Rut to lay th-.it. foolish ne.'.f, or tho like I foolish conduct of individ ml members - of tho Church, or individ ti; d clergymen, ■? ;it the door of the who le Christian = Church, is rather unfair. We might i as well charge the attack made on 'i morals and religion by -such men as ; Mill and Spencer, upon all scientific ■ men, and say that they, as a body, stand opposed alike to morality and religion. To do so would be as f'tii r us it is for our correspondent to r apresent the Church and the clergy a •$ he seems to do. The truth is, rhere if no necessity for any antagonism bet we ;n science and religion — between theolo <xy and physical science. Ench hue its own province, its own truths to d iscluse, and its . own method of disclosd rig them, and .;, for ourselves, we hail every fact Mtdk nature which physical s< :ience discloses^ as adding- confirmation, to, and as be- -j ing' in harmony with, ' what Scripture ' discloses of the perfection is and presence j of Him who in tho b(p inning 1 created the heavens and the ear r,h.

Our correspondent v holly mistakes the place we have ass igned to Scripture as the great factoi* in Britain's education and progress, and lie no less mistakes the characts' r and purpose of Scripture when he put s to us the ques' tions contained in h is to-day's communication. The Bib !e is not on encyclopedia of all knowle Ige. It is not a hook of science. Ifc is not given to teach us scientific km >wledge, or to tell us about belief in • witches, whatever that may moan. Tfa a hints, therefore, and the help to disc overifis in science which he asks if : t has given, are wholly out of placo, and fitted only to | mislead. But thoug h the Bihlo gives no knowledge in t.' le direction of bis queries, such is the ] lelp it gives by the very themes which i t deals with, to the enlightenment of t ie human mind, to the strengthening of its faculties and the elevation of man's n ioral nature, that by this — the influence it throws nround nil brought into cont ict with it — it v" 9 fitted men of sciei ice themsolvcs (consciously or uncons ci ouslv affecting them) all the more effect* ially"for engaging in the varied studios to which nature and nature's operation s have invited them. In this way it it ■. that the Bible has specially proved the potent factor in Britain's history that we claim it to have been. But though the Bible has a different objec „ to serve tlmn to convey scientific kn owlodge, it is true, a* the same time, that revealed truth touches on scif -ntific truth at many points. When it does so, while we are not to look for scientific treatment, we are warranted t< > look for strict accuracy in its statftmen ; and fully persuaded we are that nc > statement of Scripture can ever be a r variance with any ft ci disclosed by s dence. It is quite possible for us tf > misread the Bible, J« sC as it is possi hie for scientific men to misread natu: ,-c. Any one acquainted wiih the pre .gress of scientific knowledge is awa re how that progress has been marked by corrections ot hitherto

conclusions, and how the supposed discoverer of what he regarded : as a fact in nature's operations, has been •compelled to own himself mistaken. All, therefore, that may pretend to be scientific conclusions are not necessarily to be accepted as such, and in this category we place the much admired theory of Evolution, as accounting for life and the organisms in which life is manifested. Of the truth of this theory our correspondent seems to have no doubt, and compared with Limself he counts us rather behind in our information regarding it, because we stated that its chief supporters regard it a.- 1 no more than a theory — a theory destitute of the necessary demonstration that science demands to make it anything else than a theory — a mere hypothesis- — a mere may-be. To prove the defectiveness of our knowledge, he quotes a statement from Huxley's " American Lectures, " and he has "quoted it correctly. But if — bearing in mind that physical science can only base what it may maintain as a fact or "phenomenon of nature, as embodying a law of nature's procedure, on observation df What really is, or on actual experiment, — he had studied these same 'lectures, he would have found enough admitted by Huxley himself not only to tame down the bold assertion -made in the quotation given by " Reason," but to convince him that, "with Huxley himself, Evolution is not the certain but only the possible and ■probable mode of organic production. A careful reading of those lectures reveals the fact that Huxley knows that Evolution lacks the necessary proof which science demands, that it may become the acknowledged law of nature's operation, and that he cannot base it on the demonstration of one organism actually passing into another of a higher order and of a different species, as either witnessed or effected by actual experiment. Yea, this, the only proof that science can admit to establish anything as embodying a law of nature, "he is compelled to acknowledge to be wanting, and to confess, as he does in these lectures, that he has only " circumstantial evidence" on which to 'rely for the theory of Evolution. At page 16 he says : " I need not say "that'it is quite* hopeless to look for testimonial evidence of Evolution. "Our important inquiry is, What foundation circumstantial evidence lends to "that hypothesis." Not, therefore, on " testimonial" evidence — i.e., on any actual proof of an inferior organism producing by generation a higher and different organism — does he rest the truth of Evolution. He admits that ia the very nature of the case precludes the possibility of such evidence." But why so 1 Is it to be allowed for a raomenttobe supposed thatif thelaw of Evolution has been the law of nature's procedure in the production of living organisms through the long, long ages of their existence recognised by Evolutionists, that amid the endless varieties of organic remains, and the innumerable quantity of the remains found to 'exist, as relics of by -past ages, or among the vast number of living organisms now on the face of the earth, not one instance can be laid hand upon that can be appealed to as a proof testimony -of the truth of Evolution. So far from the nature of the case leading us to regard such a proof as impossible, we regard it as the most possible thing* that such proofs should abundantly •exist. For is it not strange that a universal law, a law in operation from the long, long past age, when there 'existed the first protoplasm — the father of all endless varieties and numbers of past and present organisms — not one proof of its operation can be "'traced and held up to view. This admission, on the part of the' greatest ad"vocate of Evolution, of the impossibility of finding — of even expecting to iind — testimonial proof of any instance of evolution taking place, is the admission that Evolution rests not on actual "proof—lies not within the range of observation or "experiment, — the only : source of evidence on which science can warrantably baseits conclusions. Evolution, according to Huxley, ceases to be other than a mere theory, if in regard to it pure scientific principle is to be maintained. No amount of " circumstantial evidence" can affect its •character, for such evidence can land Us no further than the possible and the : probable — in other words, what may be"; and all the array of what we may •call improving- organisms in the onward march of time commented on by Huxley, are not proofs in favour of Evolution — z\e,of higher and new organisms being the product of inferior •and previously existing ones, — but only ' •of the "fact that there has been an advance in the character and in the structure ot living existences. How that advance took place, the organisms give 'no information. At the best it is only a "supposition—^a may-be — that the higher "were developed from the lower by ordinary generation, according to the prin"ciple of natural selection. And this is all the ba3is on which Evolution can claim to rest upon. It is an unscientific basis, very different to that on which the law of gravity rests. Let ■' Reason" compare the palpable facts on which the -law of gravity rests, or the "unnumbered experiments by which it may be established, with the kind of '"basis on which Huxley, in his "American Lectures," rests his law of Evolution, and he will see at once how presumptuously bold is the assertion made.

by Eluxley, that Evolution rests upon a similar foundation to that of the Copernican system. The latter rests upon a basis of ascertained and proven facts, open to the observation and experiment of ail. Evolution rests upon an uncertified supposition. Evolution is thus an unscientific theory; and this our correspondent will discover if he will but attempt to express the theory of Evolution as supported by Huxley in these lectures, in '.he form of a syllogism, taking heed to have his middle term what it must be according to the requirements of logic — a branch of knowledge in the application of which Darwin, Huxley, Tyndal, and other scientists prove themselves very defective. We think when he has done this, he will withdraw his attempted predictioß, satisfied that the British people will not be likely to cast aside the " sure word of prophecy," which tells how God made man of the dust of the ground, and fashioned him after his own image, for the baseless theory of a Huxley, that man— with his high intelligence, his thought of God, his conscience and his consciousness, his hopes of immortality — is the immediate offspring* of a monkey or any like organism.

The Government has got in^o trouble at an earlier state of the business of the session than was generally expected. The difficulty has arisen in connection with the Native Lands Bill, which, after being- introduced, was found to meet with an alarming" amount of opposition both from the Government supporters and the members of the Opposition. Notwithstanding* the most active lobbying-, the Government found they could not carry the Bill, aud as it gradually merged :mto a party question, they resolved to withdraw it. This course was intimated by the Premier on Tuesday. It was expected this would bring the debate to a close, but it was found that the whole question of the Bill could be opened up, and spoken to upon the point of the discharge of the order of the day. Thus the Government had to take up the position of opponents to their own Bill, while the Opposition determined to prevent its discharge. Parties seem to have been very evenly balanced, but it was thought that the arrival of Messrs Pyke and Larnach would give the Government a majority. The debate was adjourned from Tuesday till last night, and we had not learned the result up to the hour of going* to press.

It will be seen from our report of the proceedings of the Town Council on Tuesday evening, that the Works Committee have now been instructed to carry out two works that have long been projected. The one is the sinking of ex well in the main street ; and the other, the planting of avenues of trees in Lanark and Charlotte-streets. The former was resolved upon by the Council twelve months ago, but its execution has been delayed for reasons already known to the ratepayers. We trust there will be no further delay in the matter as, we believe, the object has the hearty support of the entire community. As to the latter — the avenues — the mind of the public had previously been pretty clearly expressed upon the subjectj but the numerously and influentially signed petition laid before the Council at last meeting leaves no room for doubt that the inhabitants generally consider that the planting of trees in the manner asked would enhance the value of property, would be beneficial in a sanitary point of view, and would immensely improve the external appearance of the township. The Council has therefore complied with the wish of the ratepayers so clearly expressed, and have ordered that one street in North Ward and another in South Ward be plan ted as an experiment. We have no doubt that when the effect of the experimental avenues is seen and felt, the inhabitants will demand that the system be fully carried out. Tn the meantime it is unfortunate that one or two Councillors are opposed to the planting. The idea is a new one to them, and although the system has been carried out in the most crowded cities of the Continent, and its beneficial effect is hilly appreciated by all and sundry, still it is new here, and, therefore, like every other good and desirable measure that has ever been introduced, it has its opponents. Some, no doubt, oppose conscientiously, while others do so simply for the sake of opposition. This opposition on the. part of the Councillors has already led to a

portion' of the township being unfairly treated and neglected in the matter. Jf planting- is required in any ward it is in East Ward. Villas and other residences are now springing up on the eas 1 : side of the river, and but for the bleak aspect and exposure to the prevailing 1 winds there can be no doubt this would be the favourite spot for pi'ivate residences. Tree planting upon a liberal scale is the only cure, and it would prove an efficient one. It only required one of the Councillors for that Ward to ask on Tuesday night that it be included in the planting scheme, and we have no doubt the request would have been granted. The representatives of the Ward, however, regard trees only as an obstruction and a nuisance, and did not try to get anything in arboriculture done for the Ward. We presume they have thus now lost the opportunity for this season. That the owners of property and re-

sidents in East Ward will yet demand equitable attention in tree planting, we have no manner of doubt, but through the present neglect -the result will be that the very locality in the township where trees are most urgently required will be the latest in order in being attended to, and the avsnues will be the longer in affording the desired shelter and in inducing buildings. Were the ratepayeis even now to take up the matter at once, it is possible that the Council might take their case into consideration at next meeting. We merely make the suggestion, as we would like to see even-handed justice done to all in what we consider a very desirable object, and what we believe will shortl}* be so regarded by the entire community.

In another column we give copy of petition forwarded to both Houses of Assembly from Catlins River, regarding 1 the removal of obstructions to navigation at the .mouth of the river. The urgent necessity for this work being undertaken has long- ago been fully admitted by those in authority. Promises have been given that it would be carried out, and the necessary surveys and reports have been ordered and obtained with a view to the work being' commenced. The rocks, however, still remain in their old position, and while the progress of the district is very much retarded thereby, the present inhabitants are allowed to suffer very great inconvenience and injustice by the delay that has arisen. The petition speaks for itself, and we think gives conclusive reasons why its prayer should at once be granted. We have no doubt the members for the district will use all their exertions and influence in the matter, and we trust with the desired result.