EVOLUTION.

Evening Star, Issue 4192, 3 August 1876, Page 2

EVOLUTION.

To the Editor. Sir,—La referring to the letter of "One Who Favors Evolution," which appeared in your issue of the 26th inst., I mußt, in the first place, repudiate any intention of abuse, which his letter insinuates. While I have ne faith in Evolution and no sympathy with, its advocates in their efforts to maintain this strange doctrine, abuse of any kind ia altogether foreign to my purpose. With regard to the ancient Jews, the question is not what was precisely their social condition, but were they so degraded and barbarous as not to be able to understand a literal and straightforward account of the creation? And are we—when we are told in Genesis that God made man in His own image, and in Isaiah that He made the earth, and created man upon it, and again in Matthew that He made them, male and female—justified in supEosing the meaning t • be that man sprang rst from some lower animal, and finally from an ape. To pay this iB what I still call an unwarrantable assumption. Your correspondent, in speaking of the prießts, says that some of them could not write, and so they could interpolate. I suppose those who could not write could not interpolate much into to the Bib!©. He Bays again that printing came upon them so suddenly ifoat they had no time to alter the absurdittesthey put into the Bible. Judging from the character he has given them I should not think that they would be very much concerned about errors. What a pity for evolutionists that some old priest did not put a chapter or two in favor of evolution in it. This idea about the priests is of course another mere assumption, quite as unwarrantable, though perhaps more convenient for evolutionists than Mr Fitchett's explanations. Blessed be God, these vain and pernicious conjectures cannot alter his tru'h nor shake the foundation on which the saints have built their hopes. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure- 2 Tim., 11, 12. I have no doubt that by wresting some portions of the scripture -and rejecting others evolutionist*, may eventually get a bible to suit their advanced views. With regard to advanced thinking it would be out of place to say much here. It ia, however, a notorious fact that very many of the philosophers and so-called advanced thinkers of the present day are practically atheists and blasphemers of the worst type, whose ideas of nature and natural phenomena are worthy of benighted heathens, and who ridicule prayer, try to banish God from the universe and pour contempt on all who worship Him in truth and love. It would appear ftat to some minds every doetrine that is against Scripture and common sense aeenis advanced. I confess that I fail to see anything noble or advanced in the conception that man has spruag from a * ipnkey, Kvolutionsts seem to see Evolution in ivery -change they behold. Your correspondent says that the

repenting of evil is the evolving of the better intention of doing good. J3oes ho mean that the good intention is evolved from the bad one ? Jtfe again appeals to the law of grovth or development in support of Evolution. He might as well tell us that th«j production of gas from coal, or the generating of steam from water, favors it. ISo sane man denies that an acorn produces -»n oak, or that an egg produces a chicken. This is one of the strongest arguments against Evolution. Are we to believe that, because- salmon ova produces salmon and tho seed produces the plant after its kind, man, alter passing through mauy stages, has spmng from an ape? I would ask your correspondent if he ever knew a frog to produce a puppy, or a snake's egg a gosling. The mental eyesight of evolutionists must, I confess, be very strong. I covet not their keen perception. I prefer to believe that God created man : that he created him upright, though he has sought out many inventions. Evolution is one of these, and the attempt to reconcile it with Scripture is, in my judgment, another.—l am, &c, An ti-E volutio just. Roslyn, Attgust 2.