A REPLY TO "CHRISTIAN."

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13586, 7 May 1906, Page 5

A REPLY TO "CHRISTIAN."

Sib,—l notice that our irrepressible friend " Christian" indulges in a further outpouring this morning in answer (?) to your able correspondent "A. M." The points ,in dispute between this Fountain orator aud "A.' M." do not concern mo, but I desiro to make a few remarks on somo of the incidental matters " Christian " introduces. * \yhen, for instance, your correspondent endeavours to mislead credulous . peoplo by referring 1 to Mr Gladstone as a man of " true science," it is legitimate to point out . that this is contrary to fact. Mr Gladstone's position in general literature is deservedly high, nnd I for one do not impugn it. His contributions to the solutions ot the Homeric _ problems arc a valuable addition to the literature on: that subject; but in sciencc, especially physical scicnoe, Mr Gladstone never was, and never has been, reoogßiscd as ail authority. Perhaps " Christian." whoso scicntifie knowledge docs, not appear to be remarkably extensive, is not aware that Colonel Ingersoll and Professor Huxley literally "flayed alive" the author of the "Impregnable IJock of Holy Scripture," and proved beyond refutation that the cosmic legends of Genesis were hopelessly opposed to the scientific explanation "(based 'on geology, physics, and paJieontolosy) of tho origin of. the earth and its inhabitants, and the subsequent development of both. Huxley's masterly articles on the subject, which were first published in the Nineteenth Century in 1885-86, have subsequently been included in vol. iv of the " Collected E?says," under the title of " Science and Hebrew Tradition "; and regarding this controversy, " if. was not," Sir Mountstuart Grant-Duff exclaimed, "so much a battle as a massacre." The sneer at German professors and German scionco is about as petty and stupid as it could well bo. Anyone at alt acquainted with the facts knows that Germany is preeminently tie land of /profound scientific

thought and study. Tile great names of von Baer, Johannes Muller, Carl Gceenliaur (the greatest comparative anatomist- tho world lias produced), Virohow, Weismann, von Zitiol, Dubois-Reymond, Helmholtz, Gcetbe. Kcllike.r, and Haeckel are only-, a few that I have picked at random. Scores of others can Ix\named almost equally .renowned, and the world would havo 'lieen the poorer today had not theso men lived in it.

This extremely sensitive " Christian " considers the theory of the descent (or ascent.) of man from the brutes a beastly idea," Tho following apt quotation from Professor HuxJey should lie amply sufficient to expose the sophistry of such puerile carpings:.— " We aTC indeed told," ho says, "by those who assume authority in these matters that tho two sots of opinions are incompatible, and that t!;o belief in tlio unity of origin of man and brutes involves the brutalisa.tion and degradation of the Tormer. But is this really so? Could not a sensible child confute by obvious arguments the shallow rlietoricans who would force this conclusion upon us? Is it, indeed, true that the poet or tho philosopher, or artist., whose genius is the glory of his ago, is degraded from his high estate by the undoubted historical probability, not to say certainty, that he is the direct descendant of somo naked and bestial savage, whose intelligence was just sufficient to make him a little more cunning than tho fox, and 1m so much more dangerous than tho tiger? Or is he hound to lvowl and grovel on all Touts because of the wholly unquestionable fact that he was once an e?g, which no ordinary power of discrimination could distinguish from that of a dog? Or is the philanthropist or the saint to give up his endeavours to lead a noble life because the simplest study of man's nature reveals, at its foundations, all tho selfish passions and fierce appetites of the merest quadruped? Is mother-love vile because a hen shows it, or fidelity base becatiso dogs possess it? The common sense of the mass of mankind trojwer theso questions without a moment's 'hesitation. Healthy humanity, finding itself hard pressed to escape from real sin and degradation, wi'l leave tho brooding over speculative pollution to tho cynics and the 'righteous overmuch,' who, disagreeing in everything else, unite in blind insensibility to the nobleness of the visiblo world, and in inability to apprcoiate tho grandeur of the place man occupies therein. Nay, moro, thoughtful men, onco cscaped from the blinding influences of traditional prejudice, will find in, tho lowly stock whence man has sprung tile best evidence of the splendour of his capacities, and will discern in his long propress through tho past a reasonable ground of faith in his attainment ot a nobler future."—(" Man's Placo in Nature," pp. 153-155.)

As for the question, did " it" (evolution, I presume) over make a man better, a drunkard sober, etc.?—l should be inclined to say in reply that science generally (evolution, of course, included), by teaching man the true basis of. morality and ethics, by' dispelling from his mind the gro=s fears and childish superstitions of his 6ivage ancestors, by demonstrating that reason is the criterion by which Val| his beliefs must be .measured, has 'most assuredly elevated and ennobled him. When man sees to what'a height lie has risen from the depths of the dim past, ho can look forward to the almost boundless possibilities before future humanity with perfect equanimity. It may not lie bis lot to enjoy what, ho can with some confidence predict, but ho can at least do his best in his own sphere of' life, working steadily towards the goal, and paving tho way for the generations that are to eome. Morality is not dependent 011 theology.' That, is an old fallacy that has boon exploded long ago, and the beautiful lives of many great and lioble "infidels" could hp, and havo often' been, quoted as a contradiction to such an erroneous idea. No: morality has a far firmer foundation in tho broad field of human experience, and human conduct is based solely upon experience, Seientifio methods of thought and observation are tho only safe guides to the man who would live in the present, and not in the crumbling ruins of a past system that is fast fading away before tho advance of tho age of Toason. "The safety of morality," says Huxley, "lies neither in the adoption of this or that philosophical speculation, or this or that theological creed, hut, in the real and living belief in that fixed order of Nature which sends social disorganisation upon the track of immorality, as surely as it sends physical disease after physical trespasses." (" Collected Essays," vol. ix: " Science and Morals.") Moreover, our friond's question is quite irrelevant to the main point at issue—viz., thf| truth .or falsity of the theory of. evolution. If. as mcst of "us firmly believe, it is true, then it? truth cannot possiblv be affected by any possible result it may have on our conduct or conceptions. To put it another' way, as tho oase stands at present, " Christian" on the 0110 hand .seoms to think' that such a theory is "'beastly": while I, on the other hand, consider that it is a. grand and beautiful conception; but surely it is self-evident that whatever our respective views on the subject may be, or • whatever effects such a. belief produoes on mankind, they cannot in any wav alter the ultimate verity or falsity of the theory. To introduce sentimentality and appeals to emotional prejudices is to bom tho question comoletoly. Leaving " Christian" to digest the above,— I am, etc., A Secularist. Dunedin, May 3.