EVOLUTION OR CREATION?

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18019, 18 February 1922, Page 12

EVOLUTION OR CREATION?

Sir,—A correspondent contrasts these two words., but win ? Evolution is a theory of die method of past of Creation if not most or all of it. A Japanese chrysanthemum is evolved from a yellowcentred daisy-like flower, a cauliflower is evolved from a cabbage, plums from sloes, Apples from crabs, a shorthorn from weird wi.d C3ttle, an Englishman from 4 Sajon piralo. It is not Creation according to the true meaning and teaching of Genesis that evolution controverts, but the Xldtoiuan exegesis of Genesis. Genesis does nut say man was created out of nothing; it says he was formed out of the dust of "the ground; the modern chemist says so too; he phrases it chemically, but' it is the same fact. Genesis says" nothing of steps and method or absence of method. It states one fact, which modern science corroborates. Then it cays "God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life' 1 ; hero again modern evolution theories (not perhaps Darwin and his godless ideas) teach that the process of evolution needs the supposition of several distinct impalses from without or from within to account for radical new departures in type and Genesis clearly states a most important new departure or step in creative order and development. If man bodily is an evolution from animal creation, man as complete man having a soul and body is as distinct a part of Creition as a quad-1 ruped s from a crystal. Genesis, properly j tmderstooJ, is not contrary to every theory ol evolution, but evolution is dead opposite to mechanical explanations of Genesis* W. Edwabd Lush.

Sir,—The Rev. A. A. Murray challenges the teaching of the Rev. Jasper CaJder on the abovo subject, not on scientific grounds, but on Biblical statements taken from Babylon, and long since exploded. If Mr." Murray's hypothesis is true, does he really believe that hi! the low, degraded races, such as t'i ■>. Australian natives, the Terra del Fdegans, and the nativo Africans, not to mention the yellow races, such as the Chinese aud Japanese, are all descendants of Adam in such a brief space of time? If so, credulity could scarcely go further. Also, if his statement is correct, the human race must have been

propagated by brothers and sisters intermarrying with brothers and sisters, a process which inevitably leads to physical and moral corruption. These are only specimens of the difficulties involved in Mr. jMniTay's antiquated adherence to teaching of a paiit age. Vebitab.

Sir,—l should have thought that the Rev. A. A- Murray would have been the last person in Auckland to criticise another minister for holding .views not strictly orthodox (in the narrow sense). I seem to remember that some time ago. .Mr. Murray held some views which were j not quite orthodox in the matter of baptism. The general public largely supported hira because he pleaded " liberty of conscience." Will Mr. Murray now deny to Mr. Calder the same liberty of confidence which he demanded for himself? Deiiteb.

Sir,—l was very interested to read the letter from the Rev. A. A. Murray in Thursday's Herald. I, too, should like to add a protest agninst Mr. Calder's lecture of last Sunday. Certainly the lecture was very ably delivered, and showed to what extent the speaker had studied the question, but it was to my •way of thinking an out and out denial of the teachings of Christ. What possible good could Sunday's address do anyone? We all need lifting, not lowering. How can former mission members attend the services in future and put faith in their missioner when they know only too well he is not sincere in his services to Christ ? A Foemeb Mission Membeb.