MONKEYING WITH SCIENCE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2439, 10 June 1922, Page 3

MONKEYING WITH SCIENCE.

' HOLLANDITE BLUFF AND CAMOUFLAGE. Addressing a meeting of electors in Oamaru Mr H. E. Holland, M.P. got off this gem of pretended erudition.

“Anyone with a knowledge of biological science or economic science would know that evolution and revolution were companion terms. In applied science there is no evolutionary process without a revolutionary culminating point. Even in the minds of men a revolutionary point is reached when a complete change of thought takes place. If there was not a revolutionary' point the mind would go back to the primitive and’ would only be capable’of jibes at the Labour Party.” This politician is here engaged in word twisting, posing as a philosopher and acting as champion spellbinder. Of course the purpose of all that word building is to convey* the suggestion that the revolution of his party' is no more than what might, have been held by such eminent men as Herbert Spencer, Professor Huxley or Charles Darwin. But recently this same politician lectured on the West Coast taking for his subject, “The world’s two greatest revolutionists, Charles Darwin and Earl Marx.” The whole trick being played is in conveying the idea-that the word “evolution” means just change, and “revolution” means change, the latter beattached to the former as its inevitable culmination. The introductory reference to biological and economic sciences is just the conjuror’s touch to suggest that the speaker knows all about the sciences. What a fraud this is. The subject is not one of biology or economics, it is simply the question of what are the correct uses of these two words, evolution and revolution, taken in their political and historical relationships. Evolution is not merely change at any time and it is 'utter twaddle to so construe it. Revolution is . not merely change, either, and it is entirely wrong to so translate it. To say, as Mr Holland does, that “in applied science there, is no evolutionary process without a revolutionary culminating point” is but to display ignorance of the true meaning of the words “applied science.” As for the “culminating point” which this opportunist plays with, it has no more real meaning in science than the philosophic conundrum of “which came first, the hen or the egg?” The culminating point of a geyser’s upheaval is quite natural, hut the mau who would philosophise at the edge of an active crater, and let himself be blown into eternity would be spoken of as a stupid ass and not a scientist. To-day we witness the social geyesrs blowing off in Russia, South Africa, Ireland and other parts: these revolutionary outbursts show tremendous destructive force, and the politician, who, witnessing these events, can talk persuasively of revolution as merely change, you know —just a culminating point—should he shunned as a political leper, whose very presence is a danger to society. We write plainly of this because we wash people to realise that the revolutionary agitator is more dangerous under the cloak of philosophic subtlety than when he rants and uses violent language. In the latter case he is recognised as a fool, but in the former he is not always recognised as being far more dangerous than a fool can be. (Contributed by the N.Z. Welfare League.)