MODERN SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT.

Waikato Times, Volume XX, Issue 1668, 15 March 1883, Page 3

MODERN SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT.

We j|ia"Ve<,reo<m'edr the, following by the Englioll'Mail from the hdrt secretary of' the 'Vio'tdria Institutio 'or Philosophical' Society of Great Britain with 'a request for its publication :-^The' Announcement that lieV Majesty the Qitefo had graciously signified jib the Victoria, Philosophical' Institute 6f London 1 hel* consent to rfeceivfl ' the Voitftrie' bf'its ••Transactions," gave additional eclat to a crowded meeting of its member^; held oh the 15th of Jan nary 1 ' at th? Hail of ihe'Society of Arts. The" Institute'," 'fouiuted to ' investigate all scieufcifife question?, including any said to militate ' ' against Religious Belief, announced that nearily 1,000 Home, Indian; Colonial, and American members had now ' joinbtt. Dr. Stokes, F.R.S., Secretary and Fellow of the Royal Society, and Professor ot Mathematics at Cambridge University, read the paver of the evening. In it he, as a 1 scientific man, repudiated the idea, sometime given expression to, that the progress of scifenci 4 would disprove the truth of Revelation, adding that the progress of science constantly showed the reverse to be the case. The Book of Revelation and the Book of Nature, rightly understood, had never yet clrfahco. Truth was only in danger from a want of knowledge,' we often had evidence of that, and the progi'ess of accurate scientific research and its full encouragement w ere therefore of the greatest value. Professor Stokes then proceeded to review the hypothesis of Darwin remarking ' " there may, I will' not say must', be nothing atheisti6 iu.the belief that great numbers of species were evolved under the operation of laws known or conceivable trom some's preceding condition of a simpler character ; in case," he added, with marked emphasis, "we should find reasonable scientific evidence in favour ot tin affirmative answer" ; but the entire tenour of his paper went to demonstrate that such evidence was not at piesent forthcoming. After showing from the principles of vihion that " useful ends are lmmjlit about by means," he went on to anra, — '/ \Ve should expect a priori that, as the wisdom of the designing mind must be immeasurably abo\e our own, so' contrivance should as a rule r \toiul far far beyond what we can trace. We should expect, therefore, on ptnclt/ t/i<n,lic gi omuls, that the docttine of evolution, assumed for trial, would be a useful and ordinarily trustworthy guide in our scientific lesearches ; that it might often enable us to go back one step and explain how such or such a lesult was brought by natural laws fiom such or &uch an anteiior condition, and so might lead us to extened our knowledge at the operation of natural causes. But this is a very different thing fiom assuming it as au axiom, the application of which may be extended step by step indefinitely backwards." As for Mr. Dai win's throiyof "ancestral derivation and suivival of the fittest," Dr. Stokes said it was one which" fiom its natvue can haidly, if at all, be made a subject of experimental investigation in the rocords of the pist," anil, thoieforo must "rest mainly on the estimate which 'nay be formed of its own piobabihty," " thought doubtless' Professor Stokes added, "au underlying feeling that the phenomenon was in s jme way explicable by natural causes has contubutcd not a little towaids its propagation."' Still the most he could say on uehalf of Darwinism was that it was " highly ingenious as an hypotliesis."' " I think," he added, " a large number of ocientiflc men would admit that it is very far indeed fiom being admissible to the mnkofa wellestablnhed theory," and though " true possibly, as accounting for pcunanent or sub-peunanent diiieicnces between allied forms, yet not conceivably bridging over the great gulf which separates remote forms of life" [Hiose who have read Professor Nicholsons " University Text-book on IVieoutology" wilhecogniie recognise this as his final opinion alho]. Piofessor Stokes, refemng to the question of the creation ot man, said, — *'In the account of the creation it is distinctly stated that the man was .separately created, 'in the imagine of God,' whatever that may imply. Nor is that a point in which, by a wide license of inteipietation, we might say the language was moiely figurative ; that we can afford to undeifctdiid, for that Sciiptiuc was not given us to teach us science. Our whole ideas respecting the nature of sin and the ehaiacter of God are, as it seems to me, profoundly afleeted according as we take the statement of Scripture straightforwardly, which implies that man was cieated with special poweis and privileges, and in a state of innocence from which he fell, or it we suppose that man came to be what he is by degres, by a vast number of infinitesimal vaiiations from some lower animal, accompanied by a correspondingly continuous variation in his mental and moral condition. On this latter supposition, God was made to be responsible for the present moral condition, which is but the natural outgrowth of the mode of his creation. As reenrds the lower animals, little change would apparently be made from a theological p^ lint ot view, if we were to interpret as figurative the language which seems to asbcrt n (succession of cieative acts. But the creation of man ami his condition at creation aie not confined to the account given in Genesis. They aio dwelt on at length, in connexion with the scheme of ledcmption by Nt Paul, and are moie briefly referred to by our Lord Himself in connexion with the institution of maniage." As against these statements "so cxpiebs, so closely bound up with man's highest aspnatious," we have nothing more to adduce on the side of stiencu, bays Professor Stokes, "than a hi/pollwsis of continuous tiaiisniutatioii incapable of experimental investigation, and making such deniiuuls upon our imagination ab to stagger at last the initiated." A modified theoiy of Datvvinism, as applied to the creation of man, was thus dealt with : ".Some have cndcavouicd to combine the 1 statements of Scuptiire with a modified hypothesis of continuous transmutation, by supposing that a certain epoch in the world's history mental and moral powers were confened by divine interposition on some animal that had been gradually modified in its bodily structure by natural causes till it took the form of man. As special interposition and special creation are here recognised, I do not see that lcligion has anything to lose by the adoption of this hypothesis, but neither do I see that science has anything to gain. Once admit special divine interposition, and science has come to the end of her tether, Those who find the idea helpful can adopt it ; but for my own part this conbination of i natural and the supernatural seems ewhat grotesque, and I prefer resting \e statement of a special creation." A discussion ensued in which many Fellows of the Royal Society took part, including Sir J. Risdon Bennett, vicepresident of the Royal Society, Sir J. Fayrer, K.C.S.L, Professor Lionel Beale, Mr J. E. Edward, Dr. John Rae, and others. Several applications to join the! lustitute were received.

Smaktbon calls hia girl " Opportunity," because he has embraced her. The happiest moments in a woman's life are whan she is making her wedding garments. The saddest, when her husband comes home late at night, and yells to her from the front steps to throw him out some keyholes, assorted sizes. Scientists say that' shutting the eyes makes the" hearing' more ' acuie. This explains why a 'man £ant sneak into a house at midnight, and crawl upstairs as noiselessly 'aS a feather, 1 without being hefflX.X>y~ -hi fl .wife,, .who is asleep. ' ft, women were to sleep with their eyes op^n.p.married', ,men would,, have.mpre fun i at. 'the lodge when there -|s V pwtFW^4 wiiton.i ; ' '" ;,' >Ji " / -