EVOLUTION AND CREATION.

Evening Star, Issue 21711, 4 May 1934, Page 3

EVOLUTION AND CREATION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Our good friend, the Rev. P. B. Fraser, is onco more on the warpath waging a futile struggle against the teaching of evolutionary doctrines. I say futile because as time goes on Evolution is approaching nearer and nearer the truth and must win the final victory. The church still lags behind; it allows science to clear the way and then conies in and endeavours to claim the honours. Besides the church general there are crustaceans attached to different religious bodies who remain stationary within their shells, holding the same worn-out doctrines generation after generation. On the broadest grounds science and religion ought to go hand in hand, and are able to do so. Science reveals the marvellous works of God, so if science and religion cannot agree something must be wrong. I believe the Bible to be absolutely true. I believe it to bo the greatest Book or collection of Books ever written. But there are two sides to the Bible—viz., the exoteric and the esoteric. The exoteric! deals with the outer meaning, and is the one which has been accepted and taught by the church. The esoteric deals with the inner meaning, or the truth as revealed to the ancients and inspired men who wrote the Bible. The exoteric, when used in place of the esoteric, is pure piffle. There have been several reasons why so much of the Bible is written in the esoteric style. One reason advanced is that the disciples and early Christians following them were persecuted and very often had to fly for their lives. They had to hold their meetings in secret places, and naturally had to be very careful that no written evidence fell into the hands of their enemies. Another reason is that the early custodians of the sacred writings were very jealous that they should retain their power. There are other reasons advanced, but whatever reason we accept we come to the conclusion that the Bible is written 1 in such a style as to appear normal when read by the uninitiated, but beneath the surface lies a deeper and truer meaning. Even Christ’s discourses were often couched in parables. Let us take the story of Noah and the Ark—the story we make so much fun of and set forth in the song, ‘ There’s One More River to Cross.’ This is a very good example of my statement. From the exoteric point of view does it not strike us as being strange why this story, which reads like one of destruction, should have found a place in a book called 1 Genesis,’ or “Creation”? But let ns examine it a little closer. We are told that the measurements of the Ark were; length, 300 cubits; breadth, 50 cubits; and depth, 30 cubits. The cubit which Jacob brought into Egypt was equal to 25.19 in, but at a later period, after the return of the Children of Israel from Babylon, another cubit was introduced, which perhaps, came originally from Asia Minor. This is known as the “common” or “vulgar” cubit, the legal cubit of the Talmudists, and is equal to 21.85 in. However, if we use the older measurement and make our Ark as large as possible we have an Ark 630 ft long, 105 ft broad, and 63ft deep. This Ark is divided into three stories, containing but one door and one window. Even this door and window are shut, for the Bible declares that the “ Lord shut him in,” and it also declares that in all this time the covering was not removed from the Ark. Now, when we remember that there are nearly 2,000 kinds of quadrupeds that have and do inhabit the earth, nearly the same number of crawling things, about the same number of fowl and flying things, and about a million and a-half of bugs and insects, and that all these numbers must be doubled, for male and female of each species entered the Ark, we find we have not standing room for our load, much less a place for a supply of provisions and fresh water, not to mention the meagre facilities for ventilation with the only, door and window closed. Does not all this sound like pifflle, and for a church to ask any sane person to accept such a statement passeth the comprehension of man. Mr Fraser quotes quite a number of prominent men and their works, but I would like to call his attention to a little book in the ‘ People’s _ Library.’ This book is called ‘ The Beginnings of Man,’ and is written by/Edwin Oliver James. At the beginning of the book is shown a genealogical tree, showing the ancestry of man. This tree has been pieced together on the evidence accumulated by geologists and other scientists. It has nothing whatever to do with the Bible. The scientists have simply taken things as they found them, and classified them without any reference to the Bible. My purpose in drawing attention to this tree is that all 'competent and impartial geologists

now agree that all vertebrates are descended from a single system. Along the stem has come man ; all other vertebrates have branched from the tree at different geological ages. You can imagine a tree growing somewhere with a long stem arising from the ground before any branches appear on the stem. Below the lowest branch physical science does not go. It makes no attempt to retrace the ascent from the root to the first branch. But if we take the embryos of different mammals at corresponding stages of development, in the very early stages it is difficult to pick out man from the cow, hog, rabbit, gibbon, etc. Now, what happens from the last branches as they join the stem and proceed downwards to the root? For explanatory purposes it is perhaps easier to start at the root and proceed upwards. All life starts from the “ life principle,” which may be considered the root. What this “ life principle, ” is we do not know, and possibly will not know until we reach the final incarnation, like the Great Master, and are able to gather together the different fruits of all our previous incarnations and stand out perfected as the perfect man. But 1 am not discussing that phase of the subject just now. From the principle of life, which is a common factor to all life, springy all living creatures as we know them. They are assembled in a single collection of masses, alike in substance, character, and essence, which eventually result in a form that is visible to the eye. As the form increases the life principle that animates the form also increases proportionately. Stage by stage this compound form begins a journey occupying many thousands of years until it finally reaches a place on the stein where the branches begin to shoot off. Man,.however, has kept along the main stem, or, in other words, God gave man dominion or right of way oyer the beasts of the field, fowls of the air, etc. On studying the tree it will be seen that man is not descended from the monkey, or from any other animal, but all have a common ancestor in the “ principle of life.” Now, the true or esoteric interpretation of the story of the Ark is the same as the genealogical tree referred to. The story refers to the creation of life, from the time of conception until the time of delivery. But 1 am afraid I am not allowed to discuss that matter here. But into the creation of the child has gone a common factor, as it came across the realm of form from the principle of life. So you see that it is impossible to escape Irom what is known (for want of a_ better word) as evolution. If this principle is understood it will be seen that science and religion are one and the same thing, and must go forward together • until they are merged in the perfect truth, which is God.—l am, etc., Esoteric. May 3.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —“ Profanum Yulgus ” presumably is a disciple of Huxley, Haeckel', and Spencer. Where will “Profanum Yulgus ” derive his support from Huxley or Haeckel or Spencer for the statement that Professors Eddington and Jeans should be considered authorities on astronomy only? Did Huxley and Haeckel consider themselves authorities on biology only? Notoriously, it was not so. Did Spencer consider himself an authority on only one subject? It is a long time since I read Haeckel, but I seem to recall him dealing with this very point. He protested against the man of science confining himself to his particular science. It was his opinion that the man of science, from his vantage ground, should be competent to dea 1 with any subject whatever.—l am, etc., 4 Pm. May 3.