THE SKIRMISH OVER EVOLUTION.

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

THE SKIRMISH OVER EVOLUTION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—"Rook," says he, "will not venture further on a journey across tho intellectual Sahara of Monism." I am not so suro about tlio Monistic Philosophy being a Sahara, and oven tho Sahara of reality has oases in plenty, and the possibility of a great and green future before it. The application of practical intelligence by our frionds of France is doing wonders in that "desert," and gradually transforming what was wasto from neglect into a smiling and prosperous region. So may it bo with tho philosophic monism of Ernst Haeckcl, which, at least, represents a briliant 'attempt to adopt religious ideas to changed environment duo to the progress of science in, as it were, naturalising our viows about the universe.

It by no means follows that bccauso a few eminent men here and there have reverted to dualism, monism does not remain moro or less tho only religious position heeded by men of science and thoughtful people generally. Ono thing is certain, and that is that within tho last few decades anthropomorphic representation of deity . have become modified to a degree that i 9 marvellous. Beliefs until quito recently implicity held have melted away until little or nothing of them is now left. That this procoss has been in operation, and actively so, I think only those holding tho* nar-' rowest views will deny. If necessary I can readily back my opinion by quoting from many leading theologians and church dignitaries as sharing it. That would be an easy matter, as I havo for many a long year applied "for theology to tho theologians," But the man who does so, hoping to find clear guidance, or even an approach to agreement upon important doctrines, in that quarter will bo woefully disillusioned. The theologians of the present aro liko a mob of shcphordless sheep wandering amid wido and broken-fenced pastures.

Tlio fact, at any rate, remains staring us in tlio face that a' vast, proportion of thoughtful minds of to-day are not in any sense committed to orthodox religious belief. Very many aro not religious at all, and, as for scientific men, it was the keenly critical W. li. Mullock who assorted that not thrco leading men of science could be pointed to as orthodox I mention this because of its tearing upon the testimony of those admittedly ominerit men quoted by " Rock " as having " gono back" upon monism. Emil du Bois Raymond, Virchow, Baer, Wandt, are, or wore, sceptics to a man. Wandt, a very able, probably the greatest living, physiologist and psychologist, has been cited in the Times more than once as a bulwark of belief. I looked his record up, and found that ho was commonly denounced as "an Atheist" by Continental clericals. Moreover, in a noto in tho Ilibbert Journal for January upon Wandt's latest book, tlio editor says: —" In this volume of his great work Wandt treats the imagination (pbanfasie) as the source of all religious foeiing and presentations." (page 479, Biblogranhy), Virchow was a Freethinker, and so of Du Bois Raymond. Sir Oliver Lodge is a Spiritualist and a. believer in "reincarnation," and his views as to life anjl consciousness being separable from protoplasm and norve-sub-stance are not regarded seriously by one biologist in a thousand. Tho voice ot Haeckel, as I pretty well demonstrated in my last letter, is listened to respectfully by tens of thousands of hearers, and his influence in biology is probably greater than that of any living or recent naturalist. And it is tho reformation of natural history duo to Darwin that has bo profoundly altered human conceptions of the univprse. The fact is patent that a reasonable philosophy of life and nature is far more likely to emanate from a level-headed thinker like Haeckel than from a fanciful baiiover in "spooks" like Sir Oliver Lodge. Lodge, with his plea for the "reinterpret&tion of Christianity" on a "reincarnation" basis ia truly far more of a voicc crying in the wilderness, "the valorous shont," etc., than is that of the ' Jcnp savan, who li.iis tho ear of a large audi-

once, and whoso life-work has been distinctly approved by scientific contemporaries in a degree exceeding that of any living scientist.

I am by no means suro that "Rock" understands the Monism of Hacckel, and cerlainlt lie has not defined it. Nor has ho defined tho philosophical attitude of Sir Oliver Lodgo or any other of his champions. Much space and much leisuro would bo needed to do justice to the whole subject, and I for one do not see that any solitl profit can accrue front these intermittent skirmishings over mutter* either ill-defined or not. defined at all. But to those interested I would . strongly recommend a perusal of " Tho Confession of Faith of & Man. of .Science?" hy Ernst .Haeckel, and published by A. and. C. Black as on© of their ■ neat booklets at sixpence, For a criticism of Sir Oliver Lodge's recent book on Monism Mr Joseph. M'Cabe's reply, "Tho Origin of Life," . should. also be* read. It also is published at sixpence by© Watts and Co. , _ I am very far from belittling tho bearings of any ono branch of natural science upon others. All aTo important, chemistry, in relation to biology especially so. It ig not. so very long since that the reactionaries of the time were " (leaving" us with 1 tho assuranco that tho chomist never conld produce synthetically any organio substance. Now wo see almost every organic product turned out from the chemioal laboratory, wliilo the chemist of to-day is' getting very closo to the creation of living substance. Every such achievement is a. fresh foundation stor.e for Monism. Tho unity o£ Nature a-nd the essential - identity of substance and spirit are becoming moro clearly ■ visible with every step forward in knowledge. For Monism, as Haeckel pays: "An immaterial living spirit is just as nnthink- ■ able dead, spiritless material; tho two . are inseparably combined in every atom. The. opposed conception of dualism .

regards spirit and material, energy and matter, as two'essentially different substances ; but not a single 'empirical proof can lie adduced to show that either of these can exist or become perceptiblfe to us by itself alone." Neither as a physicist nor as a biologist does Sir Oliver Lodgo attempt to prove the contrary of the Monistic position. His objections, liberally interspersed with "perhaps's" and " may-it-not-be's," are merely metaphysical and dialectical' ephemera of no substantal importance,-* I am, etc., ■ A. M.