‘CHRISTIANITY v. MODERN THOUGHT.’

Evening Star, Issue 19666, 20 September 1927, Page 3

‘CHRISTIANITY v. MODERN THOUGHT.’

TO THE KIHTOII, Sir, —A correspondent lias pointed out an inexcusable error made by me in my letter of criticism of Dr Pettit’s lecture. A hasty perusal of tho published report was responsible for the error. It is all tho more peculiar when there is in Dr Pettit’s lectures statement after statement to which strong exception can be taken without in any way distorting or mistaking his meaning. Your correspondent himself fell into error when he said that my denunciations were directed against some unnamed rationalist who had described Genesis as poetry. Viewed as poetry by a Christian, tho position is ridiculous in tho extreme: hut the same construction put on it by an unbeliever at least brings the first chapters down to an intelligible level. What is wholly incredible as fact or history is understandable when regarded as poetry. A rationalist can quite legitimately, ami properly take a poetic view of the first chapter of Genesis, hut* a. Christian ne’vr, or at least never safely.

The correspondent who pointed out my error was apparently not prepared to debate my statements regarding science and Hie Bible; nor has Dr Pettit himself come forward to debate the question or prove his declarations true. It is, T suppose, mv anonymous character which deters tho rev. doctor from replying, but the question rt issue is one which should ho thrashed out regardless of the character of the disputants. Dr Pettit is, in his lectures, very dogmatic and sure of himself. Could he not favor your readers who aro unable to attend them with, a few words when his views are criticised ?

Dr Pettit’s later lectures abound in statements which err aloud for proof. He would not, I am sure, receive much of a. hearing from a really scientific audience, assuming that such a one could he persuaded to go and hoar him. He said that evolution was not a scientific fact, but only a philosophical “speculation.” This is where the reader or listener loses his breath, and he is unable to regain it till the speaker is finished—that is, if he has oven a slight climrnering only of scientific knowledge. It is a. statement which could only he mafic, with the host hope of belief.' lo a very prejudiced or ignorant audience. Fancy_ a lecturer who is a devout believer in a miraculous process of creation describing tho truths of evolution as only a “ philosophic speculation ” ! Arc we not to believe the evidence of our own senses? If evolution and the innumerable facts which support it aro “speculation only, what, may I ask. is a version of tho world which is lacking in intelligibility, cohesion, consistency, and wholly miraculous from beginning to end? If wo arc to look with suspicious eyes on a process of evolution when proof of its truth is everywhere in evidence, what are we to sav of an ancient hook concerning the authorship, authority, and truth of which ve have no evidence whatever, and which is destitute of any supporting outside testimony? It is, of course, easy to select the cautions statements of an isolated scientist who does not wholly accept the evolutionary process or Darwin s theory of its processes. Can Dr Pettit produce the statement of one eminent sen. entist to-day who says that evolution is false? . Tt is a subtle attempt to convince the uninformed that science is undecided and contradictory to quote tho cautious statements of a few scientists among thousands. _ A wholesale repudiation of the evolution process by the scientific world, or even an indifference to it, such as is manifest to-da,V to the churches and the doctrines believed in by Dr Pottit, might point to a strong doubt of evolution, hut nothing abort of this carries conviction. _ Such statements as that there is as much real science in evolutionary theories as there is real history in ‘ Alice m Wonderland ’ ”‘aro either made to mislead a prejudiced audience or are horn ot ignorance pure and simple. _ Can Dr Pettit produce one fact which shows beyond shadow of dispute that evolution is wrong? Evolution was faced with insuperable difficulties, we are told. This is hardly to he taken in so literal a sense, as Dr Pettit would have us believe; hut. aside from that, how then does tho miraculous version of the first chapter of Genesis fare? Hole again Dr Pettit repeats what he has already stated, that the Biblical record of creation is ‘ in perfect accord ” with every other branch of science.” I put to your readers and Dr Pettit one fact which is flatly contradicted by Genesis, hut tiiat gentleman’s silence is only equalled by his presumptuous commandeering of science to holster op his otherwise incredible sforv of creation. Truly has Dr Pettit stated that once evolutionary processes were accepted the need for the Atonement and the very foundation of the Christian faith were undermined; but does ho think that dogmatic statements which fly m the face of every established fact ot science will prove Hie lattci false? 1 see that my criticism of only one lecture has already run to some length, so reluctantly 1 must bring this to a close, and ignore the statement upon statement made hv Dr Pettit which cry out for correction. With all his disparaging of science and evolution, has Dr Pettit made the Gospel .account of creation one whit more credible, or has ho proved its truth in one single particular? Ho may do this later, of course, or at least he may attempt it; but its lack even at this stage is very evident. Is there no man of repute who will criticise Dr Pettit’s extravagant statements? They arc, on tho face of them, so absurd that perhaps an authority feels there is no necessity to reply; lint there are many among ns who arc unable to distinguish between the true position and that so plausibly set out by Dr Pettit.—l am, etc.,

E.W.F.

September 20