EVOLUTION AND CREATION.

Evening Star, Issue 21717, 11 May 1934, Page 11

EVOLUTION AND CREATION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —“ Esoteric ” says: “ I believe the Bible to be absolutely true. I believe it to be the greatest book or collection of books ever written. But there are two sides to the Bible —viz., the exoteric and the esoteric.” He relegates the outer to the church and the inner to those initiated into the secrets of science. Here is a sample of how he treats the Bible, which, he says is absolutely true. “ 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 is One More River to Cross.’ ’’ If that is the kind of mentality his scientific chrysalis has produced, I prefer remaining a crustacean. Then ho goes on to criticise the dimensions’ of the Ark, and proves to his own scientific delusion that the Ark was altogether inadequate to its requirements. If he studied his Bible as much as he does scientific literature; he would not rush in where angels fear to tread. I cannot quote my authority, but 1 remember reading an article by an expert designer of modern ships in which he said the dimensions of the Ark were a perfect model for modern shipbuilding. He goes on to criticise the meagre facilities of and ventilation, and asks the question: “ Does not this sound like piffle? For a church to ask any sane person to accept such a statement passeth the comprehension of man.” The church does not ask him to accept the statement; it is the Book he says is absolutely true. . I don’t know much about the “ principle of life,” but 1 know Him Who said “ I am the Life.” I honestly and humbly admit I have not given much ‘‘first-hand” thought to the infallible theory of evolution; not because I was adverse to it, but because I have made different attempts and was always confronted at the outset with so many “ifs,” “probabilities,” “possibilities,” “ perhapses,” and “ maybes ” that I considered it was mere “ piffle.” Of course, the conclusions were “ If this is so, that must be so, so that there can be no doubt about it.” as the other scientific parrot said when asked if it was worth £2O. 1 have read and reread the sermon responsible for this correspondence, and have come to the conclusion it is a piece of verbal contradiction from beginning to end. Mr Mead says the extremes and extravagances of science need not alarm or worry us. The theory simply suggests something akin to what our Lord suggested in His words illustrating the growth of the Kingdom—“ first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.” That suggests evolution, a conversion, a change, a transformation. It may to a first-hand scientific thinker; but as 1 am only a “ second-hand thinker ” it only suggests a growth, as it only grew from a corn to a corn. If the corn had grown to an elephant I would

have thought it was_ a scientific transformation of evolution. If evolution and conversion are one and the same thing, I have no quarrel wtfh Mr Mead. But he says: “It was a common thing for many centuries to regard the created world as a static thing, as though the world was made in sections day by day, culminating in mankind, everything entire and complete. . . . For me evolution makes the fact of creation more wonderful and beautiful than the old static view. It I am right, that means he prefers the speculative theory of scientists to the inspired declaration of the Bible that God made and declared “ all very good.” Will Mr Mead kindly point out where the two Bible narratives dealing with the subject of the creation of the world and all that therein is differ in many details”? Another thing my second-hand thinking cannot understand is: “ If the narratives differ in many details and were set down as an attempt to present the religious conception of the Hebrew mind,” where do revelation and inspiration come in? And was “the great drama ” or the Hebrew mind in existence first! 1 will be much obliged if the reverend gentleman will condescend to answer these questions;—l am, etc., James Bbaid. May 10. _____