THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18322, 12 February 1923, Page 9

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Sir,—Mr. N. E. Burton's letter, appearing _ in the - Herald of January 31, is - disappointing to' me. I had asked him to indicate his method of harmonising the theory of evolution and soma of the doctrines "which follow . from its acceptance, ■ with certain fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith to - which they , appear to be diametrically/ opposed. Prolossing it impossible in a newspaper, letter to discuss such points, he refers me to the works of certain distinguished scholars v (of, *>e higher critical and modernist schools); arid with a soothing admonition ~not to be alarmed, intimates that if I be a reasonable man I shall, ; under their tuition, be able to discard any . old-fashioned belief in the scientific and ' historical accuracy of Genesis that might be lingering in my brain. As the works of these great scholars are not accessible to me, situated as I am at present, I am unable to test the efficacy of the course proposed and the reconciliation of the two systems* in their resulting doctrines remains for me as i far off as ever. Mr. . Burton does, however, take me to task for ! my,definition bf a "whole-hearted evolutionist"— which was his own expression and asserts that there is ho rational justification for the assertion that evolution denies a Creator. To be as brief as possible, Mr. Burton will admit Professor Haeckel and Professor Huxley to be "whole-hearted exponents of the theory of evolution." Huxley ; said he had no hesitation in affirming that the story of the creation was a pare fiction. Haeckel says: "Every supernatural creation is completely excluded." Is this or is this not denying a Creator? However, there appear to be various versions of this theory, and Mr. Burton's own particular version allows of a Creator, -who expresses his creative activity in the evolutionary process, but not v in special creation. Inconsistent and selfcontradictory as: this modification of the theory 'seems to me, I must understand from Mr. Burton that it is accepted not • only by 1 ; the leaders of Christian thought, but generally believed by modern scientists to be the most rational explanation of. the fatts tak6n , as a whole. v.; On this point, . however, I will again quote Professor Haeckel. He says: ."Most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly Darwinism,: is an error, and cannot be maintained." Which bf the statements ,of these two - evolutionists am I to accept—Mr. Burton's or Professor Haeckel' ? • However that may be, I must confess that I am not one of those who think that the general prevalence of. an opinion or belief is' necessarily a proof of its truth. And I am one of those who, while fully conceding to experts their - special competence in investigating, clarifying, and setting forth the ; facts maintain that, in the all-important mat- | ter of drawing conclusions from these j facts, the expert has.no greater ability than the ordinary persons of whom juries — common law cases, the sole judges of the facts— composed. ; The question is not whether it is possible for God to work as > supposed by these evolutionists, but simply as .to where are the facts that supply the proof, or even' evidence, that such a process as . evolution has ever taken: 'place. I do not fear contradiction when I say that with hardly an exception all evolutionist writers admit that tjieir theory is unproven. It would seem strange that a confessedly unproved theory should be made the basis of modern thiuking, the foundation of a , universal philosophy, the cause of a revolution in theology, and the reasons for rejecting the narratives of the Bible. ' Yet such apparently is the case. There 'is an - explanation of this strange phenomenon, but ( will not lengthen this letter ;by : sug- ; gesting it here. ' b^vuusa.