MAN'S ANCESTRY.

Evening Star, Issue 19723, 25 November 1927, Page 2

MAN'S ANCESTRY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—One cannot help wondering at tho mentality of a writer who can pen t,ho following lines to your paper “1 consider ... as things stand the story of the origin of man, told by Moses, is at least ns acceptable as tho story preferred by the loyally Darwinian Sir Arthur Keith.” 1 go further, and say that the disquisition by “R. 8.” carries more conviction than all tho disquisitions of Darwinian dogmatists, which of lato have only tended to bamboozle ordinary thinking people. In tli© whole letter there are, of- course, innumerable gross errors and fallacious statements, but tho above extract is a fair sample, and demonstrates the terrible intellectual plight of a portion of our fellow-humans in ibis and other civilised countries. To know thatsuch bigoted and misguided persons exist is bad enough, hut it is a little too strong for one of them to come out in print offensively deriding Darwin’s great discovery and dogmatically assorting that an anonymous collection of ancient, contradictory, and often brutal, immoral books written it is alleged by liman who, besides being a mythical character according to the world’s lending divines, very obviously was not tho author of all the books which are credited to him, is a superior authority. Wo arc almost daily receiving fresh proof that Darwin’s theory was the correct one. Countless fossilised remains of almost incredible antiquity, besides thousands of facts of anatomy, testify that tho origin of man was very similar to that of the anthropoid apes. Hardly a scientist in tho civilised world to-day denies the theory of evolution, atlhough many different versions of its precise methods and graduation are favored. On tho other hand, the story as “ told by Moses ” is every day losing its force, is fiercely questioned as to Its truth, and is derided by even divines themselves. Yet wc have some who would have us believe that the latter discredited and wholly incredible version of man’s origin is to bo preferred to-day, when only bigoted religious fanatics cling to it as either symbolically or literally true. Could arrogant dogmatism go further? Viewed Hi a calm light, tho very idea of disputing Darwin’s theory of evolution seems incredible and fantastic. Tho position in a nutshell is simply this: Tho story -as “told by Moses” is buried under ages of obscurity and doubt, delving into which brings to light evidence of its untrustworthy character, while the theory of Darwin and evolution generally was arrived at in an age of education and enlightenment (in marked contrast to Moses’s story, which arose in an age of credulity and ignorance, when miracles and the miraculous were believed in and expected) by men of marked outstanding ability, who in their lives and methods showed a. painstaking devotion to truth and fact, with a corresponding readiness to change in any particular when facts proved them in error or unjustified in their theories or conclusions. I am of opinion that the_ respective merits and credentials of ‘heso two versions of man’s origin have only to bo so stated for the theory of evolution to gain adherence by any person whoso whole mentality is not wrapped up in theology and the “story as told by Moses.”-—! am, etc., J E.W.F., Jyovembcr 23*