REVIEW.

Evening Star, Issue 4277, 10 November 1876, Page 4

REVIEW.

ZeaTani Magazine. “October, 1876. “Evolution ” is the Alpha and the Omega of the present number of the * Hew Zealand Magazine.’ It begins with a article upon “The Doctrine of Evolution,” by Captain Hatton, and ends with a piece of an essay : upon “ Evolution and Christianity,” by the ;Bov. Charles Fraser. We really think the readers of this periodical must have had a surfeit of ’‘Evolution” by this time. It bus formed the leading topic of every number of the ‘Magazine’ yet published. The general public, too,; is tired ©f the discussion. Let us have “a spell.” No doubt it is interesting:to know whether man’s primary ancestor was a monad, or an ape, or something betwixt and between ; but still the inquiry can stand over for a season until people have recovered from the copious doses of scientific and pseudo-scientific lore which have already been administered to them. Captain Button’s paper does not throw much fresh light on the question. It is a brief summary of the principal arguments used by : the Evolutionists, and they are fairly stated. The article, however, is weakened by a tone of dogmatism which is likely to repel the candid reader. Captain Hutton is much too fond of asserting that “this conclusion has been established beyond dispute, ” Wild that that fact has been “distinctly proved,” and there leaving the matter. People want to know the how and why, so that they may be in a position to judge for themselves of the value of the reasoning. Once Captain Hutton gets so far as to declare that “the doctrine of descent is as ■ much a proved law of nature as the undula,tory doctrine of light.” Surely this is a strange remark to make in a paper written for the express purpose of converting unbelievers. Doubtless, the doctrine of descent " da “ proved ” "to Captain Hnttoli’s" mind, but other.; persons feel dubious about it ; while another ctass, again, refuse to accept it at all;and it is useless telling sueh that- the doctrine is “proved,” ./.Resides, it might , be objected that “ the undulatory doctrine of light” is not “a proved law of nature,” but a mere hypothesis, generally accepted as the best explanation which has yet been offered to account for certain phenomena. Most physicists, however, would readily rcknowledge that the undulatory theory is unsatisfactory in many respects, and may hereafter be supple mental by fresh discoveries. Loose reasoning abounds in the article. It is asked, “If the human eye was specially created, why was it created imperfect, so that a human optician can point out how it might be improved?” (Helmholtz’ “Lectures on Scientific Subjects,” p. 215, et seq.) It is true that Helmholtz does point out an apparent defect in the structure of the eye, but seeing that it has taken thousands of years and a vast amount of scientific research ' to discover this supposed defect—seeing, also, that thousands of millions of human beings have lived under the innocent delusion that their eyesight was in perfect order—- •- seeing, further, that the human eye is so , admirably suited to accomplish its purposes that it has been constantly quoted by able men as an irrefragable proof of “design” —it is surely not an unreasonable inference to- draw that further examination may show the supposed “defect” . to be no defect at all, but,- on the contraiy, an intentional differentiation of structure for a, particular end. Certainly it is a rotten support for “Evolution.” The advocate of special creation is not called upon to explain all the apparent anomalies in Nature. He frankly admits there are many things' inexplicable to him, for if he knew everything, be would be omniscient like the Creator! And when to such a question as “ Why were the sea-cows created with only six-neck vertebrae, and the three-toed sloth with nine?” he answers, “I don’t know,” his position is not. thereby shaken ; he simply falls back upon the imperfection of human intelligence. People would, doubtless, attach more value to the Evolutionists’ arguments if it could be shown without doubt that Christianity and Evolution were reconcilable. Captain Hutton, with ourselves, thinks they are. His strong point is his knowledge of natural history, which enables him to place the doctrines of Evolution in the most conspicuous light; but when he discusses the bearings of those doctrines upon religion, he is not at home. The style of reasoning -which he adopts on this behalf is in flat contradiction to that upon which Evolution is baaed. On the phenomena of beauty, he discusses thus

“Thebeauty of animals cannot be altogether intended for themselves, as many most beautiful creatures have no eyes. On the other hand, we know that a large number of beautiful plants and animals lived and died long before man inhabited ; the earth. But a more important point is • that we cannot detecct any law of progress in beauty, and therefore the law of Evolution _ cannot be applied to it. Is it not Sossible that all this beauty has Im'n ormant through long ages for the express purpose of at last exciting the admiration of man, and lifting his thoughts to the Eternal ? The admiration excited by contemplating beauty develops in us an "altogether new set of feelings which, in the absence of beauty, we could never have possessed. It is a true revelation; for as Victor. Cousin says “The philosophy which deduces all our ideas from the senses falls to the ground before the idea of the beautiful.”

We shall examine with interest any arguments which Mr Eraser may adduce to show bow Christianity and Evolution can be reconciled. Too little of his article is published in the present number of the ‘ Magazine’ to enable us to judge of the weight of his reasoning. As to the other articles, Mr Pepys finishes his “ Visit to the King of Burmah,” but hav-ing-got hold of a good subject, he has not known how to make the best of it. “On the Way Home : extracts from a Lady’s Journal” is a light article, in a similar strain, written without pretence, and pleasant reading enough in its way. Mr W. W. Carlile’s article on “ The Kise of Religious Toleration ” is not a literary success. The subject is trite, the composition bald, and there is not an original idea in the essay. Under the heading of “ Primary Education in New Zealand,” the Eev. J. Upton Davis has collected a number of facts relating to the past and present condition of primary education in the Colony, which will be highly useful hereafter, when the subject fairly comes before the public for discussion, A cognate paper is contributed by the Rev. T. Flavell, who writes on “ The Discipline of the Intellect ” in a pleasant style, and throws out many • practical suggestions for mental training “B. M. 0.,” in less than half-a-dozen pages, sketches the leading features of the political r state: of Italy, Without professing to do so, hd effectually demolishes, ; by a statement of. facts, the nonsense' which is So constantly uttered and -written about the Pope l “being a prisoner in the Vatican.” “A *laW,” ‘he says; ' “ has been —passed —reflating the mutual relations between the Papal See and the Italian authorities,. and nothing can be more'delicate and liberal. .The Pope’s person is sacred and inviolable ah the Kings. Every offence against it is regarded and punished as high treason. The Pope.ia evdiywhOre in Italy .entitled; to the 4

- marks of cHsttcctloarar the King, .-.JEfe himself and his Court nre free from all rates and taxes ; his mailsand telegrams are forwarded without postage or control over the "'whole kingdom; his palaces and summer residences are free from all intrusion by the Civil authorities ; and a Civil list of about L 130,000 is granted to him. The Pope is absolute in the exercise of his spiritual power ; he can fix his publications on the church gates, just as before, and appoints the dignitaries of the Church. The only limit to his right in this last capacity is that the State does not acknowledge holders of bishoprics who are not Italian subjects. An exception to this is made with regard to the so-called ‘ ‘ suburban bishops ” of Rome, whose offices are of perfectly cosmopolitan characters. The ambassadors from other Catholic Powers accredited to the Holy See are treated in exactly the same way as diplomatists generally ; in fact nothing has been omitted on the part of Italy to keep up the spiritual supremacy of the Papal See and surround its occupants with veneration and respect,”