EVOLUTION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1760, 7 February 1888, Page 3

EVOLUTION.

TO THR EDITOR.

Sih,— lo a recent iuae of your paper appeared ad artiole entitled "Darwinism," reviewing a lecture on evolution by Pro* feMor Hattoo, io which the leoturer appear* to have represented the position of the evolutiaoht m impregnable and not likely to be affected by anything brought •gainst it. The writer of tbls review (k, Ireland; after pointing ont that Haeckel praotloally denial what Darwin affirms, proceeds to ■how that the theory of development of j higher forms of Hfe from the monera Is i not without Its difficultly. Ho; however, contents himself with merely observing that the weak points to which he has oalled attention show that the evolutiontheory Is not to strong and oomplete, tor bi annullable as Professor Hatton would have as believe. I think that the very admissions and self-contradictions of leadirg evolutionist! of the atheistic and agnostic schools justify ihQ use of much stronger term* than " weak," " incomplete," or " assailable " la regard to the theories they propound. Jast examine Haeokel's foundation hypothecs of tbe moners. He begins by assuming tbe very thing be wan 1 * to prove. He tells us that ' the monera, our earliest ancestors, originated «b< ut the beginning of tbe Laurentian period by spontaneous geaeration from inorganio coaapoands of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogon/ and his theory Is • that they bridge over the deep chasm betweed organic and inorganic nature an i show ob how the simplest and oldest organising must haw originated from iuorg.nlo carbon coropauuds " (see his Munfoh ad. dress), be coolly stales this at though it were a fact of blstoty. But con any s^ienufa'a proof be adduced m support of this startling theory ? Apparently Heeckel himself knows of none. Hedonnotattemp; to bdug any intelligible proof, nor even assign any valid reason foe his belkf H» merely thinks that • it doei not require at) unreasonable amount of imagination to oooceive that all forms of life cjra-nenced as moners, which originated from non-

living matter, and gradually acquired tendencies.' But how ? His only answer la pfaotically ' t&at this roust have been «o, for other»iio there would not have beea animal tnooora spontaneously generated, without whloh hit tluory woa'd break dowD.' Toeu the existence of toe animal *orld could only be accounted fcr by the dootrlne of special cwatlon. To meet the exigencies of hia theory, theso simple {.articles "originated," "aoquired," " w*re developed," aod ••produced »U forms of lift)." H*i such orifcl'iat.on or evolution ever boen witnessed ? Flave *uch results ever been produced / JVo ! But the theory requires ibom, and so they axUt,-— ln iiaeckle's imagination, Ai a matter of fact nionera 'bridge over nothing whatever,' and they do not show ij aDy conceivable way how life origiuated from inorganic compounds By no combination 0 >uld theee substances be made to represent the composition of protoplasm The equation cauld not even be stated on: paper, maoh lesß ould it be tffeoted m practice. In one of his addraiees MrHux'ey tells us that Professor Haeokel admits that, there is no txvertmenial evidence m favor of epomaoeous generation, but denies the possibility of disproving It, and points out that It's astamption U necessary to 'the doctrine of evolution,' Here lire two interesting admissions from one of the greatest of athelatio evolutionists. « Spontaneous generation, of which >here is no experimental evidence is necessary to the dootrlne/ Then so much the worse for the dcotrine. It atumb es at the start, And now notice the anom&toua pcaltlon of Mr Hoxley himself In reference to this matter Iv his presidential address to the Brltiah Association foe the Advancement •if Boience (1870) he discusses the oonflioting claims of 'Biogenesis' 'Abiogenesis.' First, he admits that the former Is victorious all along the line t afterwards he would not suggest that no suoh thing as ablogenesia bad not taken place In the p»s*, or would not agala m the future, and then affirms that he sees no reason for believing that iha feat (ablogeneiii>) has been performed yet, What is to b« understood by such etrange oontradlotioDs? But this Is not all , •If• he says later on, lit were given me to look beyond the abyss of geologcilly rep;.rded lime. . . J should ejpeat to be a witness of the evolution of living protcpla»m from noq-livlng matter. What a very instructive speotaot'e. Professor Huxley would expect to witness m that remote period the performance of a feat which he eaes no reason for believing has ever yet been perform d. And if the assertions of Profeesora Tyndall and other leading lights of the sgooito ichaol are o«refully complied similar ineaanoes of self-contradiction will not be found wanting. And on this eipsrinoon tally unproved theory of »pontaneous generation what a flimsy framework of hypothesis bus been constructed. The ftuperatrocture is as unstable as the foundation. Nowhere do we get the assertions, "I have found, I have proved." All Is based on supposition Imagination, conception. In Bsnkels Natural History cf Creation we have the complete history of our raoe In twenty-two a/agea from the unicellular nionera op to the peif ot man. Here the theory ot roan's apedeioent Is perfeotly constructed, lacking nphlng but a single evidence of its reality. Jt» reading Ha^kel's " Natural History of Creation " or Vatwin's li Oiigin of Species," one In at times I inclined to ask "Je he serlou |" Read these boobs, and then put them dv a ihAt lo your library |lon«aide of "Gulliver's Travels'- or .Jules Y orQei workv Let any one, who has been so far carried away ly the 000 l dogmatic assumptions of at|>alatip or agnostic evolutionists as to feel doubts about the truth i.f the famllar story m the "Good Old Book" that " Man was oreated m hfi Maker's Image," obtain a work, reoently issued by one Seitufel Wainwrlght, D.D., entitled " Solenliiio Br>pbisms," from which many of the foregoing quotations have been taken. A perusal of this book will doubt, lees prove beneficial to aoy one feeling an Interest In this snbj <ot. The faots set forth go fsr to prove that not only Is the evolutionist theory weak and incomplete, but that l< Is » puerile hypothesis, «f mtre bowpe cf curds, wjih

no a ability m the foundation and z.o continuity m tho ouporstruo'ure. In one incitive eentenoe does do less •n authority than Professor Dawson torn on his opinion of this theory, whloh sorao teßterlaminarlesiellußisunaßtaiUble."The simplicity an I cornplc'* iets of the crolu'iouist theory entirely <3 it appear when we oons'dor th» onprovtd atsnmp'ir>na on 1 which it is ba*ed, and its failure to con- 1 oeot with eaah othnr some of tho mon 1 mportank fao^<i m N^tnro ; In s v ort, it is not m at y true sense a philosophy, but merely an abitrary arrangement, of facts In : auordanoe with a number of unproved hypotheses. — I am e'e, 11 J."