EVOLUTION VERSUS CREATION. Auckland, March 18.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 353, 23 March 1889, Page 6

EVOLUTION VERSUS CREATION. Auckland, March 18.

Mk, Aldkidue lectured on Sunday night on "The Origin of Man ; by Evolution or by Special Creation ':" The hall was crowded. Heading the story of creation in Genesis, the lecturer said he held to the Bible btoiy, which was so linked with redemption that both must stand or fall together There were believers who understood Scripture only through other writings — accepting the thoughts ot men without any persomxl investigation. So with some sceptics, who, not ha\ ing the capacity or the opportunity to investigate for themselves, aio as mistaken otten, and as dogmatic always, as the believer in matters relating to both Bible and science. We ought to be willing to hear at all times when able men speak, and to meet the case fairly should we differ. Some scientists say thatthewritingsinthe rock and of thesurface agree with the evolution of man from minute forms. Spencer's definitions were incomprehensible to the ordinary mind. He would cite Darwin, Dawson, Wilfred Hall and others to speak for themselves pro and 'con. It is said that in ages past there were minute forms of life — jelly or albumen — and in time from these came organisms, now fossils ; and eventually evolved man. Darwin says that man's immediate progenitor, though not an ape, was hairy, with long pointed ears ; yet these or any other immediate progenitors had not been shown — the first link, and what ought to be the easiest, had not been found. .Professor Dawson and Professor Barrande declare this. Dr. Patterson gives sixteen proofs from geology that evolution has not been — all lossils yet found are clear types. Professor Tyndall refuses to believe in spontaneous generation, and the dredgings of the Challenger confute Huxley's jelly lite idea. Professor Hajckcl's theory ia that all living forma aie from the moneion ; but against this is the fact that the monera are now in myriads unchanged from what they were as far back a& you can go. Wiitied Hall takes up the moneron, a little speck of jelly as small as a pin's head. He allows the supposition that one of these develops a something, say an eye — what then ? Can this serve the case ? No ; for the way the monera increase is by iisfure, in., each forms a ring, which hardens and breaks into two, each part becoming a moneron. Ir can be seen that the eye is with the onehalf, and can never be in more than one, repeat the process as ottcn as you like. Attention was called to the cereals ; the evolution argument cannot be applied to these. There must be cultivation or extinction. The conclusions of evolutionists were in the opinion of well-known and accepted scientists not sufficiently supported by facts. In _ our own Evening St\ti ot 1883 their verdict was recorded as gi\en to the Victoria Institute by Sir J. R. Bennett, F.K..5., Professor Beale, F.R.S., Professor Stokes, F.R.S., Professor Virchow — "That as yet no scientific evidence had been met with ghing countenance tv the theory that man had been evolved from a lower order of animals. There was a complete absence of any fossil type of a lower stage in the development of man, and that any positive advance in the province ofprehistoiicanthropology has actually removed us further from proofs of any such connection, namely, with the lest of the animal kingdom, Professor Barrande declaring that he had not found one fossil species develop into another." The lecturer was not asked any questions on the previous lecture.