THE ORIGIN OF MAN.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18420, 29 June 1925, Page 9

THE ORIGIN OF MAN.

' TO THE IDXTOB OT "TITE PR*BB." Sir,—So Mr Peter Trolove, in his billet-doux to-day as an exponent of ; and an authority upon a certain cult, ] seeks to lend his genial patronage to "Anglican'' iu his onslaught on the story of tho Garden of Eden, as told us in the Book of Geuesis. It will not surprise me iu tho least if the representatives of some other queer cults in Christchurch do not also claim kinship with our friend "Anglican," seeing he has had the boldness to attack the Christian faith. As regards "Anglican's'' last letter, I would candidly advise the author to revise, his knowledge of science (as I i think there is ample ecopo for re- \ vision), and if ho does this carefully, I he will probably find it necessary to revise also, his" theology, if ho really j has any. At present, lie seems to J think that only a certain class of modernists has the right to determine what parts of the Scriptures are to be ac- j cepted, and what parts are to ho rejected. This is, no doubt, the aim of all those who have set thoir faces against the authority of Scripture, but it is one which will never reach more than partial realisation. In the meantime, I would like to reply to his request that I should consult somo vol l nines on the Antiquity of Man, and the information lately supplied to the newspapers about the discovery in Africa of a skull alleged to be> the missing link so long and anxiously looked for by evolutionists. I have been quite familiar with this evolution theory for over 40 years, and since then the missing link has been eagerly looked for; but no skull has yet turned up in any part of tho world; no, not even tho one found in Taungs, Bechuanaland, not long ago, has proved to be tho thing wanted. Reports appeared in the London newspapers at tho time of the discovery, and one paper printed what was supposed to be the face of tho ape-man, and another gave a picture of tho possible appearance of tho sub-man. This, of course, was very impressive, but next day a further report came, stating that "close examination had revealed that it was not the skull of a man at all. but only that of a young child, or, as ono writer said, a young animal." The newspapers, however, treated this as a "mere detail!" and, remarkable to relate, ono article stated that "even if most of th© elaborate conclusions drawn from the discovery have to be amended by the fact that it is only a young child's skull, the fascination of the subject remains!" A London weeklv, 'dated February 19th last, makes somo scathing remarks on the extraordinary i'usa made over the finding of this skull. It 6ays: "The important thing is to grasp ecstatically at something which seems to show that the Bible story of creation is discordant with up-to-date science, and to buttress up something in tho naturo of Darwinian evolution!" f This paper concludes: "At present, at any rate, there is no missing link, and the evolutionists may therefore be left guessing and supposing and theorising, while the rest of us calmly go our way, confident that the Divine record of man's origin still remains as part of what Mr Gladstone called the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture. And yet there are preachers who still clingto -the gospel of dirt,' as Carlyle" aptly styled it. and this crude theory of evolution, which, after the lanse of half a century lacks a single known fart to support it. is largely accountable for the anti-'Christian teaching of modern thouclit." As to Charles Darwin himself, I have before me a few facts concerning his attitude towards tho of his life, which were known years aeo. Tn an interview with him; Lady Hope made some allusion to the strong opinions expressed by many persons on the history of creation, its grandeur, etc.. when Darwin seemed greatly distressed and said: <; I was «* young man with

(Continued at foot of next column.)

unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering at the tune over everything, and to my astonuutment the ideas took like wildfire. I'eoplo made a religion of them." Does it not seem strange that neither scientists nor modernists ever suggest for useful consideration the question of man's destiny? TSs i> surely of far greater importance than man's origin, about which wo hare heard so much, and with so little result. —Yours, etc., WATCHMAN. Juno 27th.