EVOLUTION A PROCESS OF NATURE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19432, 17 October 1925, Page 5

EVOLUTION A PROCESS OF NATURE

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In your Wednesday’s issue appears a contributed -report of Mr. R. A. Anderson’s address on evolution. That great authority on science aims to discredit the doctrine of evolution by airily asserting that it is mere theory and not science. He evidently does not know that all the sciences necessarily involve hypotheses or theories; without such there could not possibly be any scientific reasoning or generalisation. Karl Pearson in his “Grammar of Science” emphasises this truth. And the quotation from Le Conte not only verifies what Pearson says on this point but directly contradicts what Mr. Anderson affirms, for Le Conte says that ‘ ‘ the process of evolution pervades the whole universe, concerning every department of science, every department of human thought. It is literally one-half of all science.” The quotation contradicts Mr. Anderson’s thesis, and it is strange that he does not perceive his' lack of logical thinking iu citing it. Mr. Anderson says how essential it is to understand aright this great subject, but gives in his own illogicality a glaring instance of his own failure to grasp the subject. It therefore is not surprising to find that gentleman, in his attempt to expound to his hearers the doctrine of evolution, blundering into the most, stupid fallacies and misconceptions of what is taught by qualified evolutionists. He says that the apostles of evolution recognise the impossibility of harmonising their theory of evolution with Christianity, a notion that is absolutely untrue. Why, Le Conte wrote a book on that very subject to prove that the two could be harmonised, and I could mention many more who maintain the same view. Let me mention a few:—Drummond, Gardner, Carpenter, Harnack in particular—all great Christian writers who accept evolution, in fact contending that it affords the key to a real understanding of what we mean by the term Christianity. Mr. Anderson wants to know what do the evolutionists know about the origin of the earth. In the nature of the inquiry the problem is one of hypothesis and inference—the nebular theory is the one most in accord with astronomicial data. If he can formulate a better theory or adduce any facts to disprove it he is the man science is waiting for; if he does not accept the scientific theory he necessarily must hold another theory of the earth’s origin. No getting away from theorv.

His next great crux is the origin of life. Now biology is. not attempting to solve the origin of life. What its savants really aim at is to solve the origin of the< physical basis of life, i.e., protoplasm. That problem involves the new science of bio-chemistry. That life is a phenomenon quite natural is a truth admitted by all biologists, and that its basis is a matter of chemical analysis or synthesis is also another unquestioned assumption. Mr. Anderson does not know that life ever had an origin. The great Swedish chemist and astronomer Svante Arrhenius in his “Life of the Universe” states his belief that life, like matter and energy, is eternal; that always somewhere in the universe there has been life where conditions 'wore favourable. He thinks that life germs may have come from other

spheres to the earth. One important conclusion is that all living beings of the universe must be related to one another and that when life begins on /the body of the cosmos it must commence with the lowest known forms, to rise in slow evolution to more highly organised types. The albumens must under all conditions form the material basis of life. If Mr. Anderson does not believe in the natural origin of life on the earth he must advance a thinkable proposition as to how it could arise otherwise. His last problem of the origin of species is met by an admittedly scienti- . lie theory—natural selection. It cor-' tainly covers most of the facts. Mr. | Anderson demands the fullest evidence ; for that theory, but did he over stop to think that ho can only reject that ! theory by affirming another, namely, the : old creation theory, for which it does ; not occur to him that there is no evj- • dencc at all to support it. Mr. And er- ■ son imagines that no now species arise, i but that is where he errs. Naturalists affirm that they do—vide the works of Dr. saleeby and Professor Goodrich. In summing up on Mr. Anderson’s notions on evolution one would point out that he offers no clear argument nor any provable facts against that theory. He certainly quotes a lot of opinions by various writers bearing on evoluTioiiary or biological matters, but such cannot be deemed a disproof of the doctrine, of organic descent or even of evolution in its wider or cosmic significance. Mr. Anderson before giving utterance to a lot of silly assertions to the effect that evolution was devoid of fact, bankrupt, etc., should first acquire the knowledge necessary to expound that theory correctly to his hearers. But that would not suit his book. If he could do that he would perhaps hold his tongue about evolution and the Bible.—l am. etc.. ARTHUR TALBOT. Vindclla, October 15, 1925.