EVOLUTION.

Evening Star, Issue 4156, 22 June 1876, Page 2

EVOLUTION.

To the Editor.

Sir,—-Now that Professor Salmond has apparently fired his last shot at the enemy, it might not be out of place to glance at the battle-field through the medium' of your columns. The professor delivered a public lecture some time since, in which he enumerated several systems that were antagonistic to religion, and among these named Evolution as being against the very idea of religion, because the materialistic doctrine which it involved did not admit the existence of God, and of soul and body as distinct things; at the same time stating that he did not mean for a moment to affirm that all Evolutionists were necessarily materialists. Thereupon ensued a correspondence between Professor Salmond, Capt. Hutton, and Mr Stout, in which a food deal of misunderstanding was exhiited, and in which the Professor was sup ported by Mr Stout so far that the latter maintained that the Darwinian theory and Christianity were incompatible. Assuming Mr Stout to ha v e been right, it was evident that Evolution and Materialism might be regarded practically as synonymous terms; and as those who attended Professor Salmond's lecture knew that it was not evolution per «c, but evolution only in so far as it might be considered the synonym of materialism that he condemned, it was apparent to them that the bicker between the Professor and Captain Hutton amounted simply to a misunderstanding—to a great extent at any rate. In the meantime an armistice was declared pending the next issue of the 'New Zealand: Magazine.' But the 'Times' seemed to deem it inconsistent with the fitness of things that there should be any further argument about a thing whioh was staring us in the face as a proved fact, and grandly informed all those who did not believe in Evolution that they were a set of pig-headed fools. In other words, it, or let us say he, took dogmatism into his head, and thrust it in the faoe of the community with a temerity whioh was quite wonderful'to behold j ana no doubt he felt very much astonished when somebody turned to and crammed the obi jeotiouaole weapon down the dogmatic throat. Vexed and enraged by suefc 6on«

duet, the 'Timei * thspitiahls speotacle of a wounded seorplon writhing in its agony and biting itself fatally. "W&en I say the 'Times' I mean the writer of the articles of the 16th and 20th inst The latter, especially, is too plainly stamped with individuality to be regarded by the public as an utterance of the Press. The article of the 16th smote unbelievers with dogmatism, and the subsequent article com* mitted suicide with, "context." The 'Times began by declaring that Evolution was absolutely proved, omitting to mention that the masters of the theory admitted that able and learned men did not accept it as proved. Professor Salmond supplied this omission. The ' Times' then got shockingly abusive, and accused Professor Salmond of deliberately garbling .and misrepresenting his authors; and, by way of fixing the guilt, the ' Times' quoted context to show "What everybody knew that Darwin believed in the theory of Evolution. ,Ndw, if the article of the 16th wasfoundM solely upon passages such tt those which, in that, of the 20th, would fain wipe out Salmond • and if the 'Times' pretends*obe well read on the subject, the inference is suggested that in that first article the modifying passages in Darwin, etc.* were deliberately ignored. : This writer in the ' Times' kindly warm Professor _ Salmond's audiences and the public against the too implicit confidence in what the Professor may say in the future, but seems to forget that when the warning comes from one who first makes a brazenfaced assertion, and follows it up with unmitigated and impertinent abuse of those who question his position, the value of the warning is likely to be of a negative kind,— I am, &c, A Private Onvas. Dunedin, June 21.