EVOLUTION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIII, Issue 265, 6 October 1933, Page 2

EVOLUTION.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —May I further trespass on your valuable space in registering my displeasure at the manner in which Pastor Richards deals with my letter of October 1. If he is able to deliver the “goods,” why must he mislead your readers to certain statements made by myself ? Firstly, I am not disputing Mr Herbert Spencer’s definition of evolution —I am disputing your correspondent’s statement that it is “ . . . transition from the sublime to the ridiculous. . . ” and in my first letter I made this perfectly clear. Secondly, the montrosity attributed to my “fertile imagination” is of his own making. I said that I “read” that man was created both before and after the animals, and as this is an absolute contradiction i don’t believe it. Sjisaking of “fertile imagination,” one wonders what kind of imagination one must possess to be able to explain away an obvious contradiction such as exists between Gen. 1: 20-2(1 at.d Gen. 2: 19, with the ease that seems so natural to your correspondent.

As to “unrolling” bringing about, diminution, I think that the sense in which the term is used as applied to evolution should be clear enough to the average person. I fail to see where the authority conies from to place man as a dead stop in this unrolling, and quote that eminent historian, Mr H. G. Wells, from “The Science of Life.” This work appeared under the triple authorship of H. G. Wells, Julian Huxley and C. P. Wells —Mr H. G. Weils undertaking the literary duties. In concluding this work with Vol. 3 p. 976, lie writes: “ . . . the conscious growth of liie, for which no man can certainly foretell either a limit or an end.” Now, sir, as the Lambeth Conference, the Rev. Mr Davies and thousands of Christians ■ throughout the world find themselves, if not accepting, at least not seriously objecting to evolution, I think that Pastor Richards might explain why it is that he is so far behind the times, and, for the guidance of your readers and myself, where his fellow Christians are wrong; giving valid reasons. Up to the present he has passed a number of silly remarks, misrepresented my statements, and shown himself to be ignorant of evolution. He has proved nothing, and one looks to one of his standing for something better. As your correspondent finds himself unable to accept the theory, of evolution and holds it up to ridicule, it is surely not unreasonable to require him to furnish an alternative theory to account for the observed “facts.” This I expect him to do. In concluding I must repeat: To hold a valid belief to the effect that man and protoplasmic jelly came into existence about the same time and only six thousand years ago, is utterly impossible ! —I am, etc.,

AV. E. H. CREAMER. Atkinson Street, AVoodville, 5/10/33

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Having read the letters in the “Standard” on “evolution” permit me to make a few remarks. AVhy this controversy ? It will serve no good purpose. Such subjects are unprofitable, and lead us nowhere. AVe all believe God made man, and looking upon His handiwork, “saw that it was good.’ - The main and most .important thing of all is that we are to meet face to face the Holy God AVho made man. Are we prepared to do that? There is only one way, and that is through Jesus Christ our Saviour.—l am, etc., C.L.B.