ANTI-EVOLUTIONISTS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 20 January 1926, Page 5

ANTI-EVOLUTIONISTS

THE AMERICAN MOVEM ENT

(By Telegraph.—Special to The Mail.)

CHRISTCHURCH, Jan. 19.

A New York message published today stating that bureaux will be established in England, Canada and Australia by an international organisation to combat the teaching of the theory •f, evolution in schools does not seem to effect New Zealand. No etfort apparently has been made to raise the anti-evolutionary banner in Christchurch at least, if the views of a prominent Christchurch clergyman are held generally. The movement if started will not be warmly supported he said. It would be bettei* if the Americans restricted their agaitation to America. "We have sufficient controversy in New Zealand at present without being led into more."

Rev, S. Lawry a veteran of the New Zealand Methodist Church said, discussing the same subject: '"My opinion is that we must hold ourselves free, accepting whatever light may some along. It is not the Darwinian theory that is the trouble. The Darwinian theory has been modified by later investigators than Darwin. The official bodies of the Methodist Church as far as I know have taken a fairly advanced views on the question. It was discussed at the ecumenical conference in 1911 and the conclusion was—let ns have liberty; we do not wish to com.pel the people to think as we think. Our church advises us to consult the Hastings Bible Dictionary, which certainly takes a liberal view. I have recently read 'A modern views of the Bible' by Dr. Henry Emerson Fosdick, nn eminent American Baptist and a Professor of Practical Theology. He also deals with the question liberally. I suppose there is not an English college of any standing that takes up the old theory, but there are some easy going people* who*; like to take everything as it stands and dislike any effort to unravel the mysteries. There are no mysteries for them, in fact." A scientific man in Christchurch said that he felt .those who were behind the American agitation were ill advised. The aggressive tone and attitude they Were taking up would force scientific men to enter the controversy with less restraint than they had shown up to the present, and some of them would take up the discussion whole-heartedly. The present attitude of scientific men was to allow anti-evolutionists to express their views in the churches or in"'other places while the investigators said nothing in reply, but simply went on with their studies and They felt that at present evolution was the only feasible explanation of scientific facts. There was evidence of evolution in every branch of science.