EVOLUTION IN SCHOOLS.

Evening Star, Issue 20128, 19 March 1929, Page 6

EVOLUTION IN SCHOOLS.

TO TEE EDITOR. Sir.—l notice Hint a controversy on the abovc subject lias engaging the attention of some correspondents. As one interested in scion title investigation 1 have followed the eorrespondeuce with keen interest. All down tho ages man lias sought to explain the why and tho wherei'or ot life. Many giant intellects have sought to explain the mysteries ot time and space by promulgating many and varied cosmogonies. The nebular hypothesis propounded hy Laplace in 1/9(5 was once accepted to a degree,, hut modern astronomical research lias broken it down. Many other theories have sprung up since Laplace's day. and when minute investigation is brought to bear on them they break' down. From the evolution of the stellar systems to that of man was but a step, hcncc the theories propounded by .Darwin, Haeckel, 'Wallace, and others captivating the minds of men in their desire to secdv a possible explanation of the origin of life. These accepted “ proofs ” of evolutionists when carefully examined are found io _be ‘‘ theories ” of geologists, zoologists, and biologists, and when it comes down to absolute fact much is wanting. Those so-called “ facts ” melt into scientific hypotheses which arc quoted as “ proofs,” and it is noticeable that in the heat of tho controversy the supporters of evolution forget that evolution is but a theory supported by livpothcses which arc defined as lollows:—(a) A theory is confined to speculative thought as distinguished from those of certainty—the very antithesis of fact; (b) a hypothesis is a proposition assumed to account for certain phenomena, and has no other evidence of its truth than that it affords a satisfactory explanation of these phenomena. As evolution is based on purely theoretical grounds it remains a controversial subject, which your evolutionary correspondents fail to recognise in their dogmatic' assertions. — I am, etc., Alutheia. March 13,

TO THE EDTTOBSir,—As one who is stiil a learner in the vast field of knowledge I have ret io learn that Mr Sibley has made out a, bad case, because on such a matter no one dare be dogmatic. Ihe theory of evolution (not science) is really not proven; because your correspondents have quoted several scientists supporting the theory, that does not make it scientifically true. Haying read the correspondence 1 am inclined fo think that the correspondents have treated I\fr Sdiley s letters without serious and intelligent rellcctiom Ibe person writing above the initials of “G.S.” frankly admits there is a split amongst the scientists regarding the facts "of evolution, therefore we have a vast field for controversy and no evidence of scientific fact. This is the point. Evolutionists must prove their ease. Despite all the controversy rangina- around tins vast subject no 3uau having any claim to scholarship can dare evolution is a science until this is accomplished; it is still open to criticism, and the well-known Scotch verdict. “ not proven,” must bo applied.—l am. etc., OrTSiin:. , March 10. ■ TO THE EDITOR. dir —Your paper of last evening gives us "a iresh display of the strange aidlies of “F.W.F.” .Hero is a man who has long been trumpeting his arrogant claims in the patient cars ol a istoning public, quailing before the cold steel ■it unimpeachable I acts, and olleinig in whining tones as Ids cldci excuse tin: fact that he has an unspeakable reverence for the evolutionary meed, and cannot bear to see it degraded. The gentleman seems to have, entirely iorgotten the flippant maimer in winch he has chattered about the faith of < hristians. I notice, too, that, “K.W.K has a deep sympathiserm one who signs himself “ G. 5.,” who snatches up the oniptv pen of the iallcn champion, and does ‘him a last service in a desperate attempt to defend the faith. Unaware of the fact that I have used_ nothing hut the quotations of evolutionists, tins gentleman imagines me 11 slavishly snatching arguments 1 rom the antievolutionists.” What these men Inn e written could well ho called ’ijMionlboy stuff ” were it .not for the miserable policy actuating it all. . . Noiv that “ F.\\ .F.” has indicated liis intention to quit tho held, I. am wondering if he will go abroad and inim in a crusade for the “missing link,” Unit recalcitrant that will insist on hiding hiinselt when Ids pro sence is so much desired. I’erhapi he will gu prospecting, and will eventually explain why, contraiy to all evolutionary expectations, there bursts on the scene in the lowest ot the earths strata a complex assemblage of animals having well-developed representations of many of the chief groups ol tho animal kingdom. Maybe he will produce ibo important link needed to join the organic with the great inorganic world, or poradventure ho will give us all the links between land and water animals, between backboned and backboneless creatures. Finally he may produce all the links from the lowliest of organisms up to that creature “ fearfully and wonderfully made.” In any case let me say that I wish your correspondent well, and I hope that onr discussion has helped someone to see there arc at least two sides even to the question of evolution.—l am. etc., D. Siblev. March 19.'