MR WALKER'S SCIENCE.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 3, 14 December 1910, Page 9

MR WALKER'S SCIENCE.

(To the Editor.) Sir. - I regret that 1 did not quote Mr Walker's sentence correctly. I left out the ’’etc.” This is a verv serious omission, for "The bearing of the observation lies in the application of it. and "It is” just one of those things that no fellah can find out." Mr Walker studiously refrains from quoting the passage from Darwin's works as requested, and from replying to my question as to whether’ *he seriously suggests that study of the Bible precludes the investigation of the facts of nature, and following where truth leads. 1 still consider that slavery is the greatest crime that was ev -r committed by man against man. but as it seems that Mr M alker and I are not likely to agree on the point, we may agree to differ. Mr Walker concludes with: —

"Any man who by theory or any other means causes men to lose faith in God’s teachings or in God, and thereby causes them to lose salvation, is a greater criminal than those who make slaves of men.” If Mr Walker’s theory of the plan of salvation is correct, then the crime of slavery is accentuated, for slave holders, including those religious bodies who owned slaves, denied the teachings of Christianity to their bondsmen and bondswomen, and so enslaved their souls as well as their bodies.

If Mr Walker intended the sentence above quoted as a hit at the teachings of Mr Darwin, he is barking up the wrong tree. All eminent divines have accepted evolution, and preach that appreciation of the facts enables us to obtain a better grip of Holy M nt. and a clearer insight into its teachings.--! am. etc.. SANS SOUCI. (To the Editor.) Sir.-- Mr Walker has come to the conclusion that I am a very wise man. that I possess a vast store of learning. All their greatneis lias been thrust upon me. because I have been enabled to judge the extent of Mr Walker s s'-ientifie accomplishments by Lis "one" allusion to science. The

"one" happened to be an illusion, and Mr Walker was tripped up and found to be imbued with the "common vulgar idea” (Professor J. A. Thomson’s words) concerning Darwin's tetching. Mr A) alker. however, pulls himself together and endeavours to show that his scientific education lias not been altogether neglected. He shows the vast difference in the estimation of the sun's distance from the time of Capernicus to our own day. But how dear are some of the names he mentioned, for. had -t not been for them. the world would still hate believed that the sun revolved round the earth . Proctor, whom Mr AA alker quotes, speaks of the determination of Hie sun’s distance as a "problem, and astronomers are candid enough to admit that the distance is not known with, to borrow from Mr Walker. scientific exactitude. But is Mr AA'alker because of this endeavouring to show that there .s no •’exactitude” possible in matters astronomical ’ Surely there are few who failed to be impressed with the wonderful accuracy in the calculations re Halley’s comet and

how the observations on its recent visit will enable its return to be foretold with even greater certainty. The discovery of the planet Neptune was a wonderful tribute to the "scientific- exactitude ’ of gravitational astronomy. Very shortly an expedition will set sail to an island in the blue seas for the purpose of observing an eclipse of the sun. The very moment of totality has been determined. Mr Walker might, if he chose, join the party, and verify all this, but this, of course, would require that he had faith in "scientific exactitude.” Then Mr AA alker asKs some questions which - I cannot answer. Isn’t that candid ’ And one is: "How is it possible to get two parallel plumb lines if the earth is a globe f” Surely we are not to infer from this that Mr AValker is a “fiat-eartner'’ ? If t e is. I take no further part in this discussion. Then he switches on to Darwin anil says I never quoted him fully, and I am further charged with distorting his meaning by squeezing in an "etc. lam sorry for that "etc."..l almost feel inclined to blame the printer s devil for it ' But "etc.” or no "etc..” the meaning Mr AA'alker ,n--tended to convey —and I challenge him to deny it —was that Darwin taught that man originated from monkeys.” The reason evolutionists resent this statement is not only because it is untrue, but on account of the derisive spirit which generally prompts it. and often with the deliberate object of throwing dust in the eyes. and creating contempt in the minds of the unthinking at the idea of monkey ancestry. Then Air I) alker simply repeats his former statement in a slightly different form, and asks, "Is it not true Darwin certainly did teach that man had evolved, but not "exactly” along the lines Air AA alker would have us believe. Read up. Air Walker, but better that you never started than that your mind should not lie open to receive "facts — these alone will keep you busy b>r a long while ; never mind the theories in the meantime.- I am. etc.. EVOLUTIONIST. P.S. -I prefer my full title, as earlier in the discussion someone, quite unknown to me. wrote under the pseudonym "Evolution.”