Three, Recent Letters on the Evolution of Man

Southland Times, Issue 19133, 25 August 1903, Page 4

Three, Recent Letters on the Evolution of Man

. ■» — — - — ■ ■ To the. Editor. Sir,— ln his letter, which L appeared in the Times of. 10th August,; Mr A. Hendry commences by saying that nothing could' have been "more unfortunate than Dr Benham's reference to the theory of special creation, and that " the curt and almost contemptuous way in which:, he dismissed that venerable and in many quarters still venerated doctrine did not, tond to enlist, the. sympathies of^ its adherents on behalf of ©volution," and that i his dogmatic manner -may in soma minds give point to Dr Hodgkihson's philippic a/jainst the doctrine bldevelopmet. He objects to my assertion that the doctor's theory of " spontaneous " generation of an ancestral organism from which man was evolved is Atheistical, bu't^instead of-attempting to refute it he quite need-.-—^lessly takes up a considerable space in arguing that it is assumed that the organisrn owed its existence t ■>. some intelligence—to ft God, then the theory would | not be Atheistical, for t_».,l have not disputed. He also objects to my saying that all forms of the evolution doctrine tend to Atheism. This is the. opinion of Professor Dawson, and is quite warrantable because in -every Way M .which evolution ia held its supporters get as far away v from God as they can and as- .* sign too much, to the operation of Smaterial, chemical, and unintelligent forces, instead of to an Almighty and all wi c e" Creator in whom all living creatures lhe and move and have their being Mr Hendry then attempts to refute any assertion that ;the: doctrine of evolution of ■ man through the brute creation in whatever form at is held is incompat*_>le / with Christianity, and quotes from Mr Alfred Holborn, M,A„, who, I think, is _ Church of . England clergyman, as follows :— " Nor are these suggestions incompatible with 'the theory of evolution as held to-day by many Christian men According to that theory . man has developed from the lower- animals, and at his .nnst appearance was not ..very- widely differentiated from them, ' a- simple childlike creature with' _ rudimentary moral sense enabling him to recognise a difference between tho higher and lower motives that determined his choice. ; But from the very first there was that in his environments which appealed strongly to his lower impulses, and these gaining a victory over the higher he became subject to evil. His development ever since has been not smooth oven, -continually upwards, but marred, intermittent, achieved through painful struggle, a process of redemptK-tn. Now, -this is in complete'accord with the suggestions, of the.' - story in Genesis, if the tree and the serpent in conjunction, be taken to represent that side of' man's < environments which appeals to his lower impulses." But this is mere invention- and a complete parody of the Book O TE* Genesis and of all other portions of _oth Old and New Testaments - which' ■'-' relate to the creation of man and- to'"- ids nature and character when he first appeared on the earth. So far from "b'eing but little differentiated fawn t_e lower animals he "was created in the umage and glory of ', _ God, & perfect and sinless man, made a little lower than the angels, an J- clowned with glory and .honour, all earthly things being put in subjection under his feet. Instead of having to struggle upwards under unfavourable conditions, he was placed in. an earthly paradise of peace, happiness and delights, an which, but ' for his disobedience to his _I_ker he' would have been immortal- So far from having by his own efforts " wonked out a process of redemption " be was. utter- „ ly usable to- redeem liißisoli, arid was only saved from eternal death by the incarnation and atonement of -the ■ Son of God, his redeemer and saviour. lam aware, that in these daiys professing Christians and even some ministers in all the churches, whilst endeavouring to hold both Christianity amd evolution would fain salve their consciences by. assuming that the narrative . of the creation of man in the Book of Genesis is an allegory, instead of sayinfc plainly itba-t they do not believe it. -But not to believe it is to disbelieve- and nejoct the Divine founder of Christianity himself, for he has set his seal to its literal truthfulness. How- can people have faith in the Lrord Jesus Christ vvhen they regard him as fallible and . untruthful. In the' Times of 12th'' August there is a letter signed " (ißl_f_," which*, so far as I can understand, -.it. seems to be a strange mixture of Theosopby, . -Pantheism. Materialism, Buddhism, arid Brahihinism, with a dash of _>arwini&nisin" thrown in. Without* wishing to be "disrespectful to the author, I ihinlc it scarcely requires criticism, becuuse as it does not argue that the evolution of •aiaii is consistent with Christianity, and as \'cry few aro in danger of being converted to the writer's creed, it "is comparatively harmless. I must, however, notice Ms assertion that tho Books of Genegis is consistent with -the theory of the evolution of mail. That such is not the case I have already _->*vri, though' it is consistent with tho geological the--ories of great and- successive changes or evolution of the primeval mm,<mno chaos which rendered it fife, for the abode of "man. in the Times of lTtb August is a letsigned " Sene_." and in the first Part of it he argues well a»d forcibly against those theories ot the eYQjutxow -«f man ■

I which as -he says,- "want to turn tho Creator-, .out of his own universe," but in the latter part of it, after stating that all animal life, including . _n, proceeds from... a germ or egg, which is a truth lone since 'recognised 'in - the old fortoula onine animal ex ovo," he at--tempts to draw a false inference from it. Ho says that all life, including man, coinmeiiceu from a germ by some process of evolution, but what .that process was is purely a matter of conjecture. j But man did not owe his origin to a germ or egg when he first appeared on j Earth, but to on Almighty, Creator; as I havo shown above. -" Senex " asserts that the Bibl§ does-, x-ofc. say that man ! was " created all at; once full gro\vn," but this la precisely* what *t---e ;1V Die" does say. After yhis , creation the Bible dpes recbghise ~&. realC process of evolution, going: on for about three-quarters of a yeari before he is "broagh.t -forth by his . raother : •' see Ecclesiastes xi, 5 ; Psalm cjbiklx, 4-lB. ; Evolution of :x similar kind takes place in the production of the lower animajs, 1-r o.\ainple frog spawn or eggs aevelopes or evolves first into a tadpole with tail but no legs, then into a perfect - frog with no tbdl. but with four legs, but it never developes into a toad or lizard. This is true of all animals, for all develop or evolve ." after their kind" as the Bible says, and become the same kind of animals as those J>y whom the germ or egg was produced. This attempt to reconcile the evolution , of ma<n from a primeval germ has quite spoiled the value of the letter and may be likened to the dead Hies in the' apothecary's ointment. To conclude my plea for writing at such length jnust be, that whilst there is•comparatively little danger in the evblu{tion of man theory as- plainly stated and exposed in its true colours by agnostics or ? Dcists, because everyone then knows what it really means, it-is"- exceedingly dangerous when _ts -_.tr_e character is concealed under _e, cloak of Christianity, iind when it insinuates-' itself into the Christian churches.— l am, &c., , ; . " .'•■• /; ; ,;. :^ ;;: SAMUEL., HODGKINSON. • TiWerclarjgill, 19th >(Vug;; / , ' .