DOCTRINE OF DESCENT

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 2, 2 July 1929, Page 10

DOCTRINE OF DESCENT

(To tho Editor.) Sir,—lt is natural that controversy should arise out of the visit of Dr ing attended his lecture, I beg to make * T^Tr, ? rvations as h« remarks. I he Doctor commences by stating that it is impossible to be at once a Christian ana a believer in the doctrine of descent. "If you accept it, it will rob you of your divine hope." As a student of biology,.l am compelled by weight of evidence to adopt this doctrine, but I still remain a Christian. Did not Christ say, "Know the truth, ana the truth shall make you free." While insisting that this doctrine is £&£- ---cilablp with the Biblical narrative of Creation, Dr Pettit does not pause to substantiate his view, although he pronounces it with all the dogmatism of which he accuses our university professors He accuses them of stating that evolution is a known fact, wherets the truth is that a professor of biology lays the evidence for, and against, before his students, and points out that this theory is the only explanation of the observed phenomena. The Doctor dogmatically asserts that evolution did not take place, and brings forth "an appeal to reason and common-sense" in his published pamphlet: "I suppose the rata and the mistletoe, having scarlet flowers, must have evolved from scarlet feycr germs!" He seeks to force his point by ridiculing tho conclusions of eminent biologists. The subject is treated unfairly and inaccurately by him. Firstly, then, it is grossly unfair to state, after discussing our descent from ape-like ancestors, that "this is the evidence on which the evolution theory is proved." Any biologist knows that the strongest evidence is afforded before reaching the ape stage. It is unfair to quote from the unscientific imagination of Van Loon. It is also unfair to accuse tho investigator who found Pithecanthropus in Java of deliberate misrepresentation; the Doctor thus casts a slur on the honesty of scientific investigation. Secondly, he is inaccurate. He told his audience that the gill-slits appearing in the human embryo are merely superficial. However, we had the pleasure of hearing Professor Kirk correct him from the stage, and the professor further corrected an erroneous statement concerning the origin of feathers, politely passing over other inaccuracies. The Doctor told us of a tree standing upright with its fruit in the carboniferous strata, which pointed to rapid deposition of sediment, and therefore proved the occurrence of the Flood. In other words, Noah lived over 100 milJion years ago according to his reasoning! Dr. Pettit ridicules the idea that earlier plants "had to seach for a new dwelling place." Has he never seen through a microscope the tiny plant Haematocoeeus swimming by its flagella? Not content with this, he has the audicity to say: "There is not one shred of evidence to show that one form evolved out of a lower form." Evidence there is, and in abundance and can easily be found by search and patient study.—l am, etc., G.H.K. Wellington, 2nd Jnrj?. '