DARWINISM, MATERIALISM, AND RELIGION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4446, 19 May 1876, Page 3

DARWINISM, MATERIALISM, AND RELIGION.

Tc THE JDITOK. •>ii — 1 \ '1 not \ t te t me in ii_u i \ netl r Ir X jr 1 mmtl Ins or h -> n dn d nd he po it i tJ in up i lis lecture; it is sufficient for me that ho ha. urn vl on u\ oil tion Wuioh h cmt m in w •> !id out It lo lit L\ luh i t t i list! hi\c \ery t-p ori 1 tin ml i 1 tt fhuitit Pi^sii^ mv 'r> i i i t tun ii sail imiity i \\t n to tli _ _ i il\ lut not 0,l \ s)l d 1 v o i ti it m> ma i wit' H \ v Tti t i-I i„ ull 1 l i in in i 1 J i n i' 10 i 1 o up ;/ n hi die [T i I 1 -i , i i tit nl t.i m i.t I'li ii ii t i 'it i Ilti\ i i 1 i ' i tl 1 i ( ' j 1u it \ i 1 1 I I 1 It! 1 1 ', I

1 necessary to support life. It does not follow . that either this theory or Evolution has any 1 special affinity with Materialism. ; Jiid. Materialists have naturally seized | with eagerness on Evolution, because it is the i "last thing out;" hub if this all they have to trust to, then Professor Salmond may rest , and be thankful, for it will very soon burn their lingers. I now come to the two central principles ! that, according to Professor Samioud, Evolui iiou and Materialism have in common. 1 1. " Bi.th alike maintain creation by law." J ft in true that a refutation of the theory of [ en a! ion by law would ba destructive both t:> Evolution and Materialism ; but the estai'liehnient of that law, although it would prove organic Evolution, would not by any incus prove Materialism. Consequently its proof is not of fundamental importance to Materialism. 2. ".Both alike exclude the idea of final causes." It is true that evolution excludes the idea of final eaiues as that was understood in Guvier'a day ; but L have yet to learn that this is the true view of the subject. In my opening address to tho Otago University, in 1874, I gave my reasons for thinking that " final ciuscs" were not excluded by Evolution. I allow that if natural selection was proved to be tho only cause of organic evolution, then final causes would be excluded. That it is not tho otdy cause is now admitted by Darwin himself. l7ofc3soi-S.dmoiulth.cn challenges me to show that Materialism has a clo.-ur affinity with any other branch of science than with Evolution. I take him up ; but I must first clear his ideas as to what Evolution is, for ho speaks of it as a branch of science, and considers it synonymous with .Darwinism. The theory of Evolution includes all HCience, organic and inorganic. Darwinism is simply the law of eoleetion by which organic evolution is brought about. I have, however, no objection to Darwinism being considered as synonymous with organic evolution, provided . this is distinguished from Evolution as a wholo, which aisn includes the sciences of Astronomy, Geology, &c. To come, now, to the main point. The true foundation of all religion is of course tiie existence of a Creator. The proof of this is destructive to Materialism or Atheism, aud it is here that tho law of evolution shows its real value. At the conimoncumcut ot the (.resent century it was open for anyone to say with the earlier geologists that there was no proof of a beginning, no prospect of au end. But the law of evolution has proved the falsity of this statement. It has shown that as the process of evolution is Btill going on in the universe there must have been a niomeut in time at which this progress commenced, aud consequently there will also be a moment iv time when it will cease. This necessarily implies a power over and above the Universe : A Creator of all things. It is absolutely destructive to Materialism. It can have no affinity with it. Before tbe law of Evolution wai known, the sciences of Astronomy and Geology had a strong Materialistic tendency. All discoveries wont to Bhow that the earih and the solar system were eternal. But further research brought to light tho beautiful law of Evolution, which completely reconstructed these sciences, and gave them a strong Theistie tendency. Theologiand may learn from this to tiust to science. It wdl not mislead them. However dangerous may seem the track it appears to be taking, it will not lead them astray, but will surely laud them at last at the foundation of all truth. The second point in Professor S-dmond's letter need not detain me, for he has misquoted me, and raised up a man of straw, which he is at liberty to pitch into as much as he likes. I did net ask him to substitute "for religion certain religious theories," but to substitute for religion "certain theological theories ;" an! I do not suppose that a Professor of Theology wants the difference between religicn and theology pointed out to him. But as he wants to know what theo logical theories I refer to, I will tell him that the verbal inspiration of the Bible is one of thorn. I must confess to having had considerable difficulty in answering Mr Stout's letter, but this was not owing to having any doubt as to the bearing of Evolution on Christianity. < On this point it was easy to decide, and I can assure Mr Strut that if, as his letter would imply, he is really aDxious to re-enter the orth.idox fold, his belief in the theory of Evolution need not hinder him for a moment from doing so, in spite of Professor Salmond's protest. My difficulty has been in trying to i ascertain what is considered "the tounda- : tion on which the Christian system is based " In my ignorance, 1 had thought that it was the teachings of Christ, but on consulting a friend, I. found that 1 was quite wrong, and learnt that this was an antiquated idea thit h<id beeu abandoned by most Christians ever since the days of the Apostles. Ou further inquiry, 1 found that various opiuions are • held as *o whai is the foundation of Christianity; some saying that it is "original sin," others, " the redemption of mankind." If original sin be the foundation, then Evolution supplies the very proof'hat has bsen wanting over since the discoveries of geologists destroyed the historical value of the first three chapters of Genesis, and consequently the Mosaic account of the fall of man. For original sin can be no other than the remains of ou? animal instincts. But if redemption be the foundation, then evolution has no bearing at all on the subject, and the two can exist side by side without aly danger of interference To show Mr Darwin's own views on this subject, I give the following quotation from the "Origin of Species " :— '"I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of anyone. It is satisfactory, as shoeing how transient such impiessions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, 'as subversive of natural and, inferentially, of revealed relioiou.' A celebrated author aud divine hai written to me (hat 'he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to b-Iteve that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into oth^r and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fr. sh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of his laws.'" 1 hope now that Mr Scout will allow the matter to drop. I have r.o idea how many " doctrines are taught in the Bible," and I have never asserted that any or all of them either can or cannot be reconciled with Evolution. lam no theologian, as may be seen by this letter, and I willingly concede to others the right of building up any supers'ructure they like on the suro foundation given them by the great law of Evolution.— 1 am, &c, F. W. Hctton. Dunedin, ISth May.