EVOLUTION IN SCHOOLS

Evening Star, Issue 20129, 20 March 1929, Page 2

EVOLUTION IN SCHOOLS

TO THE EOITOK. Sir. —.If your correspondent, Mr D. Sibley, has a case against evolution he should coherently state it instead of giving us mere excerpts from the utterances and writings of biologists who have no really new or demolishing criticism of evolution to offer. Many socalled Darwinian pegs which some researchers knock flying are entirely of their own making and erection. For instance, a few years ago at a meeting of the British Association the president of the botanical section, Dr Scott, inter alia told Ills hearers that “ the omnipotence of natural selection is now gravely impugned,” and that “ the, continuous selection of small variations ” is an assumption that may no longer be entertained. Anyone who lias carefully studied the works of Darwin, and does not have liis thinking done for him by proxy, knows very well that far from claiming “ omnipotence ” for natural selection Darwin presented this theory with characteristic circumspection. Facile prim.ops of observers, he was Loo strongly imbued with a sense of that warrant, which objective verification alone can give to belief to allow of his being carried away by mere theorising of any kind. The great Bateson himself has said that Darwin seldom “ endangers the mechanism lie devised by putting on strains much greater than it can bear.” Bateson, among others, has also strongly emphasised that Darwin did not postulate natural selection as the exclusive modus operand!.of evolution. \\ Idle Professor Bateson lias in more recent years been animadverting upon the deficiencies of Darwinism, Sir Arthur Keith, who is equally eminent in a different branch of science, has been busy championing Darwin's views. Clearly, however, difference of opinion as to how species have been derived from species can and does exist side Inside with a uniformity of conviction flint species have by natural causes in sonic way been transmuted into species. Among oilier facts those of artificial selection constitute strong presumptive evidence in favour of natural seleiKliii. and Huxley's dictum that “if certain breeds of dogs, or of pigeons, or of horses were known only in a fossil date, mi naturalist would hesitate in regarding them ns distinct species,” has with the lapse of lime lost none of its significance. These fads tend strongly in show that natural selection is a competent cause of the production of species, although they do not conclusively prove that 'it was the actual cause.

As has repeatedly been s 1 res.-ed bv ovolntionisls during ihe last forty years or >'i, ihe general doctrine of evolution is not so vdaily related to that of natural select ion as to cause thenvo I" stand or fall together. The doctrine of organic evolution is built on an nnshakeahle foundation of general evidence whose validity is unite separable from that of any given theory of the mode hy which species are evolved irom species. Nor would a disproof, d such were possible, of the evolution hypothesis constitute, as the finulninciitahsls lalnonsK- imagine, a vindication of that of the special creation ot species: for the latter theory may he successfully impugned on quite other than evolutionary grounds. II may he qnilc 1 me. a< vmir eorre<pondenl. by means of quotations, has songlil 10 emphasise, that we pos-c-s no direct

evidence of the transmutation of one speeies. bn!, as (be wise Herbert Rpencer pointed mil so ! ’ar back: as JSo'J. if I hat be urged a- a reason for rejecting evolution the fact that no one has ever witnessed a speci?« being created must, on the creationists’ own showing. constitute -'qimlly cogent, grounds lor rejecting the hypothesis of special cron t ion

Voiir rnrresjioii lent as'-nbes a “ bai - ve-t of iniquity ” to ‘’the coming 01 evolution hut a- all toe evil-, wln.ii bo enumerates existed beiore that 1 ■ sin-engendering; ’’ advent ii would lie entertaining lo learn to vvliai he considers: they were ascribahbj in pre-eve-luticnarv lungs, lie Hu’s utterly. and ;ii fact make- no logical al loin pi I" e-l abli-li a casual oonaecl ion between tin; given cviL. on the mic hand, and (In. general acceptance of evolutionary leaching on the ol her. Sweeping assertion L not ai ginned. and assuming ulial requires to he proved will not meet die si'C. Sciem ein general • ins to bo more or !e-s anathema to Air Sibk-’V, but -1 ich evils as have niisr-n Irom scienlilie pi ogress consist in the main, I 1 lin.lv. oi tlie economic ml- a npl leal ion of scientific di-covcries. jn which m r-a! iplica I ion. by the wav, materialistic ('brislian-' have talien a very prominent part. The principle of Iren competition among opinions and iaci' which science has done so much ii, make a living fore'-, ha-, undoubtedly. in diver- ways, proved one of the nm-i potent of civilising agencies. In blackguarding evolution a« he has dona voiir 'correspondent invites (he drawing' of comparison - which are very unfavourable' to Christian religionists, whose doctrinal di-sen-ious are written in human blood and --ufleriug. and whose scriptural dogmatisms have 100 often b,.c 11 thrown into ihe scale on the side of tvrainiv. cruelly, and wrong.-—I ;:l „, etc., ' John Haumavk. (f reyiiioul b. .March Hi.