EVOLUTION AND PHILOSOPHY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20191, 31 August 1927, Page 3

EVOLUTION AND PHILOSOPHY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib,— Much has appeared in your columns recently under the above heading, the most recent being your report of the address delivered by Archdeacon Whitehead. I consider myself ih some measure a philosopher, and in consequence perhaps should remain quiet, but, to be quite frank, I feel goaded into saying something. As fat as I can judge the word “evolution” seems to confuse everyone, and i ndidly I do not wonder, as so many theories have been propounded from time to time concerning it. As a result most people are under the impression that an acceptance of evolution necessitates acceptance of the theory that man has evolved up through the animal kingdom. I am one who does not accept this theory. As the same time I do accept evolution in the sense in which the dictionary puts it—that we arc “ unrolling or unfolding. This is all one need accept in accepting evolution. Then what about involution? My study of the subject has caused me to observe that the greatest scientists dealing with evolution admit the weakness of their case in that one cannot get something out of nothing. This presupposes involution out of which we have evolved. “E” out of and “Volere yoluturn”—to roll: how can we possib.y have “rolled out” of nothing? Darwin knew this. In his “Origin of Species,, page 205, he wrote, “I may here premise that I have nothing to do with the ongm ot the mental powers any move than 1 haye to de with that of life itself. Darwin dealt only with the human side of evolution, and I accept his findings as fur as I understand him to go. But what of these “ mental powers ” —what of the mind. is it not the everything in man? And is it not this mind that involves into matter, and working upon that matter, evolves a greater body, soul, and mind. Declare this to be theory if you will, but do not turn the thought lightly aside, for following along this line of thought will clear the dust of ages from your path. , Involution is only another name for incarnation 1 —spirit descending into matter—and this is the electric light as compared with the light of the candle to the' miner who would delve to find the truth. And do not forget that the truth is more precious than “ much fine gold, and takes a lot of delving for. I maintain that this thought more than pre-supposes a Creator. Rather does it declare Him to be “ the Spirit of Life.” This we see demorotrated before our eyes. There is nothing dead in the universe. .All is teeming vibrant life. At most, it only differs in manifestation. The beauty ot the poppy flower does hot lie in the seed but in the involving life which takes the seed at germination. The three white feathers that come, true to type, on the tui's breast .are not in the egg» but in the involving life that takes the ogß* « what one might term the tendency lies within the egg itself. It is all the one life! Even a body discarded does not decay; .it turns into other manifestations of life. . , ' , , . * , Again I have a friend —a close friend —and all he finds good, in me or I m mm is mind. One day we are working together in the fullness of life, and the next he is dead, a« we term it. His body, as he has “ evolved ” it, is just the same as it was yesterday, but it is not theory to say that something has gone out of him! Where did this something come from, if not by way of involution? It certainly never came out of evolution, and no true scientist would ever be so illogical as to suggest any such thing. But, note! Accepting God as the Spirit of Life—"above all, through all, and in you all" —accepts Him as being in the earth also. Beloved Mother Earth, how kind she is to her human children! Do we ever think of this and respect her accordingly? She is alive, and has a “ min-’.” as we have, and some day—far hence —will pass on into gome other form of m-nifestation. Why do I say this? Because accepting God as the Spirit of Life declares there to be nothing but this one life throughout the universe, though differing in its form of manifestation without limit; evolving on and ever on also without limit to heights which probably we cannot yet dream of. And finally, in the case of Jesus the Christ, we have an accepted instance of involution or incarnation. And logically how can one account for Him otherwise? I do not desire by anything I say in this connection to touch the belief of anyone, to say nothing of raising any controversy concerning tbe manifestation of this Di ine Being. I have found Him to be all 1 could ever have hoped for, and yet my acceptance of God or the Creator is as set out in the foregoing. Nor does this outlook interfere with an acceptance of the Trinity. Call it belief if you will. It is mv belief, and more. It is my hope and my all, if you prefer. I perceive the Trinity to be perfect manifestation of this same One Life, ruling, administrating, tending, and loving us all into greater Life as we travel the difficult path on this the material plane. And what of the children born hourly? Surely no one suggests the parents create the child! They only create the vehicle. Therefore, when one’s child is born all that is beautiful in him is incarnate for a purpose—to fight through the battles of life and become a greater soldier in the cause of truth, just as our boys went to France as soldiers in the cause of right. And they never could have been made soldiers without the contending forces being arrayed against them, could they? No more then could your child. All the truth is mirrored out on this the material plane of life, if we would but look for and perceive it. . Is not the Trinity in measure mirrored out in human form in our King end Queen and Prince? Human life is hopeless without a head round which man can rally, and which inspires and encourages him to do greater things. And does this not apply spiritually also. I maintain it docs, because everything here is but a very crude replica of what is "there.” But in looking for truth being mirrored out on this plane, do not look with your eyes open, for then you but fill the mind with bodily sight which only stimulates the intellect or brain. Look rather with your eyes and the mind or spirit within—that which has involved —will rise and cause you to perceive the truth, and you will as a consequence of this developed perceptive faculty ultimately become “ free.” —I am, etc., W. E. R.

Sin, —Wisdom placed Archdeacon Whitehead's subject last in the scries of lectures on evolution. His address was pitched on a high key and serves to swoop all the others into the category ot “themes” and is a silencer to the dogmatic, materialistic evolutionists, whose letters have appeared recently. Ordinary folk can still rest satisfied with the Genesis account of the preparation of the earth for the habitation of man and leave, the theorists to worry over tho question whether any others inhabited it before and, if so, for how long. Those who would turn the Creator out will sooner or later have to go out, whether they like it or not.—l am, etc., Bereax.