Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 544, 22 December 1928, Page 8

Citizens Say

ORORKE! Sir, — Your correspondent, “Macsporran,” with, perhaps national consistency, misses the humour in the Sassenach’s spelling of Highland names. By way of giving him a helping hand —Christmas time and all that, you know—let me suggest that he study the telephone directory, which puts the Central Police Station at “Cr. Ororke and Princes Sts.” Another injustice to Ireland! ‘ SENSITIVE. WHAT’S THE PRONUNCIATION? Sir.— Can any authority among Sun readers tell me what is the correct pronunciation of Motuihi?. This island is being talked about a great deal at present, and one hears It referred to alihost universally as “Moter—Hee.” Apart from the crudity of the first two syllables, what has become of the vowel “1” between the “u” and the “h”? I suggest the correct pronunciation is “Mo-too-ee-hee ” WATI. IN THE BEGINNING Sir, —- Mr. Frederick R. Field will pardon mo for remarking that his letter does not throw much light on this problem. He certainly makes some claims, but divulges nothing by which these may be judged. Futher, his opinion of science on the one hand and his own theory (whatever it may be) on the other, shows remarkable divergence. Science, Mr. Field says, is “so-called and “our vaunted science is still in its infancy—almost too young to speak.” Yet Mr. Field does speak, and in no uncertain tones, of the scope of his own theory; that “it reveals to us the origin, nature and purpose of methodical workings throughout creation It brings the whole story of the evolution of our solar system within our ken. It is also said to explain every science and be in complete accord with Genesis. Whatever disparagement Mr. Field has for the science of other folk, he certainly has no qualms about his own. Yet we get no hint of what this remarkable theory is Theories are not generally accepted at once even when they are- revealed in their details. They mugt run the gamut of all other theories, meet and survive every objection raised by other scientists, every known fact must fit them, and none contradict. One'contradictory fact will kill the most promising theory. That is the scientific attitude, and if Mr. Field’s theory survives it, as will be necessary before acceptance by the world, he will have a place on the roll of scientific fame So far as the Bible is concerned, just what lie has to prove is this that there was a. beginning before which

(To the Editor.)

was nothing but God. Science has yet to discover a trace of one or the other. That first was created the heaven; then our earth. That there was then water on the earth, before light or sun (not gas or Ice). That light was then made and divided from the darkness. Next a firmament or sky was made to divide the sea from the clouds and called heaven, previously made also on t,. . day. The waters were then divided to let land appear, when grass herbage and trees appeared, all before the sun was made. Next the sun, moon and stars were constructed, after the ? a £* h ’ and » a J thoug ' h day and night had been created on the second day. The heaveniy bodies were made and set in The la H?est telescope whS S^ bOUt .. a thousand million suns which were "made also” to give us shin* flJh n l Sh *; Followed In succes- ’ fl3h - fowls . animals, reptiles and man That is the literal Genesalc ae Mr - Field claims he can prove these are not onlv riven in earthquakes would scene. » retell pared with this task. I wish htafe A.E.O. * CAPITAL PUNISHMENT Sir—are.** precise over my , aS 30 taliated. Even if ~ ’ 1 nat urally rethree weeks to make ’hbT n d ° es have It is practically the Q , some people ignore rL Tu as when well with them and e aII soes trouble arises when a deep doesn’t satisfv. Thev* tb hUl ? an hfelp to God. When all i = therefore turn they are WM more w-orldly trivialities and with glected. Those neonit 3 ° od Is ne ‘ an idea that merest” have upon when they are 1 called their wav of th L, are in trouble. To in their Prayer cient. I consider that an - G suffiAs regards the ‘‘fn,“ lnsult to God. Who smiled to the latt S m . ur derer a case like that is th °P‘nion o’ bravado. caused v “ was sheer through harsh treatment des Peration ishment had done inTw*' Capital punthe soul to an jo-no W( ? rs * by turning Whole s ™°pal“ My souls, who know S no bener than t P °° r haTrr r a ” t y r \S G °?- A mVd°etS wickedness serving V

than he has with his heart enraged over a death sentence. Should Mr. Nicholson wish to discuss anything further, my name and address is with the editor. CHARITY. THE CREATION Sir, — Even at the expense of exhausting your wonderful patience, I send one more reply to “A.E.C.” Instead of our letters being confined to a discussion on Science and the Bible account of Creation, they have descended to a mere wrangle of words. So often have I been compelled to take up space in denying the correctness of “A.E.C.’s'’ quotations of my letter, there has not been much left for pure argument, so that by now your readers must wonder what all the controversy is about In his recent letter he says: “I no* where referred to Professors Dana and Guyot sls Doctors of Divinity.” Now in The Sun of the 12th inst. I quoted from Professor Dana’s and Guyots writings showing they said the latest discoveries of science agreed with the Bible account of creation. Thin was followed by a quotation from Professor Wilson on Old Testament criticism. The next day “A.E.C.” replied to me and said: “Readers have no need to consult the musty personal opinions of professors and deceased doctors of divinity resurrected by your correspondent.” If that statement of “AJ3.Cdoes not refer to Professors Dana ana Guyot as professors and doctors ox divinity, then language ceases to have any meaning. He says again, “In far as it (higher criticism) has an, value, it must be scientific.” Protesscx Sayce says: “Archaeology base f. 2 scientific excavation has demolishes the assumptions and subjective criticism.” “A.E.C.” . eludes with: “Finally, when Mr. R l * mer says he is content with ioned scientific company, I would gest he is satisfied only with the co, pany that supports his preconcepti Well, sir the scientific company ferred to was the list given by fessor Romanes himself, and they Sir W. Thomson, Sir Gorg© Professors Tait, Adams, ClerkCayley, Routh, Todhunter, * etc. As these men agree wi “preconceptions,” I may I fied. David said: “How- wonder^n(jer- | thy testimonies. ’ and they are w fUl ' S. L P. RIMMB* ; (The correspondence betwe®®^j^ Rimmer and “A.E.C.” is EiL, The Sun.)