Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 559, 11 January 1929, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

MORE BUSES FOR PT. CHEVALIER Sir, During the peak hours, after 4.30 p.m., it frequently happens that many people have to wait at Surrey Crescent for a bus to Point Chevalier until several buses, fully loaded, have passed from the city. This causes quite unnecessary delay and much irritation. The remedy is to run special buses from Surrey Crescent to the Point during the rush hours. Should the question receive prompt attention by the new Transport Board it will be a triumph of common sense. TRAVELLER. FEEDER BUSES Sir, Now that the Transport Board has begun to function, it is to be hoped that one of the first moves will be to improve the “feeder bus services, which at present are most unsatisfactory. As an instance, the feeder • bus on the Edendale, Halston Road route, about two miles in length, has broken down twice since New Year. I may state that prior to the cancellation of the buses on this i*oute a really good service was maintained. You can imagine the feelings of disappointed women, especially those with babies and parcels. SUFFERER. THE COSTLEY HOME Sir, — I had occasion to call at the T.B. Shelters, Costley Home, Epsom, yesterday, and in the course of conversation with the inmates learned that they are generally well cared for, are delighted with the light, airy, cool and comfortable shelters, and the spotlessly clean linen provided, and express their appreciation. The one great disability seems to be the difficulty in keeping themselves interested. Boredom becomes, at times, almost intolerable. Therefore, they would be grateful to you if you would kindly make the above public,, in the hope that sympathetic readers may forward to them any literature they may have at their disposal. Books, magazines and papers would be thankfully received and greedily read and passed round. Packets of playing cards (discarded after euchre parties, etc.), draughts and chess boards and men. and any other suitable games would prove ti boon and blessing. How easy it would be for many of your readers to drop a parcel of used magazines at the gate (addressed to the T.B. Shelters) when passing in their car, and many, no doubt, will def so. The inmates are worthy of our consideration. They also desire publicly to express their thanks to the president, Mr. Rowe, secretarv Mr. Mabee, and executive of the Auckland Trotting Club for the munv

favours conferred and privileges extended to them; also to the Auckland Racing Club management. Thanking you, on behalf of the inmates. SYMPATHETIC. IN THE BEGINNING Sir Biblical argument usually leaves the disputants where they started; and this correspondence cannot very well do otherwise, without the introduction of new and very voluminous matter. My work is perhaps more teleological than any other yet attempted. But, it has its limitations. If “A.E.C.” requires me to prove the existence of God, then he may go further and ask me the origin of God. Who says the design argument is a “discredited device?” "Why the design argument is practically all that science has to work upon. Are we to accept for our supreme guidance the perfect natural laws and the perfect works of nature, both utterly beyond the power of science to imitate or comprehend, and then deny the perfect wisdom behind those laws and works? To such as do so the words, “eyes have they and see not,” apply. For argument we must accept as axiomatic many things which we cannot measure with our little man-made two-foot rule. Who can prove that the sun shines, or that he has any mind to apply to the question, or even that he is alive? There is such a thing as a “mind’s eye,” which is mentioned and used largely by philosophers, notably Shakespeare. Like our more physical organs, it is developed far more in some than in others..

My reference to a little “child” was pertinent and plain. A.E.C.’s distortion of it is hardly cricket. At the same time I hold that in some respects the babe is usually wiser than its parents, merely because it is guided by nature unalloyed. When scientists have given months of thought to work which had seemed to them unsound, of course their opinions afford one some satisfaction. Need I repeat that I have much respect for the honest searcher after truth? It is the self-sufficient man who hastily, and then persistent!:/, denies the existence of any truth beyond his own limited experience whom I pity or despise. I might add that the only New Zealand scientist of recognised high standing who has made any study of my work is Mr. Hill, recently inspector of schools, of Napier. His opinion also deserves respect. I am not aware of ‘the many fundamental contradictions in the Bible, both with its own statements and commonly-known facts.” The Bible is a source of wisdom, perhaps endless, to those who seek it. When Descartes, for instance, set about his worh upon philosophy he cut himself off from all ordinary scientific associations and sought seclusion, taking with him but one book of reference—the Bible. I have said nothing to indicate* that (Continued in next column.)

I condemn all science. But I do condemn the jealousy, intolerance, pretence, self-sufficiency, and piracy found so generally among scientists, especially among those who make a trade of science and strive for monopoly, and my complaints are widely shared. The Press of the world has recently published in much the same terms its disappointment at the doings of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. It is true that increased knowledge of God’s laws and requirements has in many ways led to better conditions for mankind. But, to say that “the face of the earth has been transformed in the past 100 years,” and transformed “by science,” sounds very extravagant. Of course, I used the term “doctor” in its wide sense. But, what score diseases have been eradicated by doctors? Surely the number of our maladies is rather increasing, and suffering as common as ever it was. If we consult Hippocrates and the earlier writers upon medicine, we are amazed to find how little medical science has advanced during the past 3,000 years. We find that in earlier times a knowledge of medicine was gained naturally, not scientifically, and that some important teaching, which it now falls to my lot to explain, has been utterly disregarded. because our scientists could not see the reason for it. Of late years it has been quite the rule in medical science for a thing to be regarded as heresy one year and to become a fad the next, and vice versa. My reference to Sir Oliver Lodge was merely to show one instance, out of scores that might be enumerated, of the lack of agreement in science. I must confess that I am not acquainted with Newton’s writing upon Biblical prophecy, any more than I am with his views as a politician. But, 1 venture to say that any opinions held by such a man must command respect sooner or later, and to predict that those upon Biblical prophecy will survive like his theory of light, which, after having been utterly rejected for some three centuries, is now found to have truth in it. FREDERICK R. FIELD. NOTICE TO CORRESPONDENT F. —Your sentiments are good ones, but tho consummation you desire will not be effected by calling further attention to the case.—Editor. The Sun