FREEDOM OF THE AIR

New Zealand Listener, Volume 13, Issue 329, 12 October 1945, Page 5

FREEDOM OF THE AIR

Sir,-Though not wishing to extend the controversy on Evolution, I should like to point out to P. H. Bromwell that he is in error when he talks of the "wellestablished truth" of Evolution, and the "irrefragable basis’ on which the theory stands. How can clergymen "confirm the truth" of. Evolution seeing they are not scientists? Also Darwin nowhere asserted that we sprang from apes. All through his writings occurs his now wellknown phrase, "We may well suppose." The fact is that very few scientists will

do more than say that "the theory of Evolution offers an explanation of man’s existence," and I would point out that many scientists hold the theory’ in reserve. : Also why does P. Bromwell say that for "us’* the Bible stories have become folk lore? There are still many thousands in the world, educated and uneducated, who receive the Bible record as substantially correct-I am one, in spite of the learned bishops quoted. Let the evolutionists speak over the air, but see that they speak the truth-the whole truth and nothing but the truth-and anti-evolutionists will be satisfied.

COMMONSENSE

(Wellington).

Sir,-As the originator of this discussion, may I make a few observations on the letter of "Student" (Canterbury)? I have always understood that the function of science was continual probing, prying, proving or disproving, until a theory is accepted as being true and factual or else rejected as false. Surely theories preceded most scientific discoveries, and though frequently ridiculed were later honoured and _ vindicated. Harvey held a theory or belief regarding the circulation of the blood; Pasteur and Lister theories on bacterial infection and asepsis, and were proved to be at least on the right line of thought. Had these men not believed in their theories in the face of bigotry and bitter hostility what a tragic loss:to the world. "Student" sees no reason why a biologist should not "use" evolution in his work, while believing.’ implicitly in Genesis as an "article of faith." By what process of mental gymnastics may a man believe in a scientific truth and a weird effusion of ignorance at one and the same time? To, me, a mere layman, it is attempting a policy of appeasement and self-delusion.

R.

HULBERT

' (Waipukurau).

Sir-As another science student I should like to comment on "Student’s" letter. First I find that my mind rather baulks at his phrase "uses evolution." A scientist may make use of the theory of evolution to explain varietal differences within species or, he may study the trends of those variations in the past and try to predict possible future trends. But I hardly think you would

say he "uses evolution." Further, I was assailed by doubts when I read his statement that "there seems ‘to be no Teason at all why the biologist should not use evolution in his work while believing implicitly in Genesis as an article of faith." The statement reminds me of the man with two girl friends, to both of whom he makes passionate love, And: while he is making love to one there lurks in the back of his mind the thought Of the other, and the hope that "she won’t turn up at the wrong moment. Similarly, "Student’s" biologist with his "implict faith’ in Genesis would have to still whisperings occasioned in the back of his mind by his knowledge of. the theory of evolution. Or, alternatively, the anthropologist would have difficulty in reconciling the remains of Pithécanthropus with the story of the Garden of Eden, which’ happened so many, many thousands of years later. I feel that the biologist who is thoroughly imbued with his work would be unable to keep his "implicit faith" untarnished. To do so he would have to have his faith all nicely tucked away in one corner of his brain, and his knowledge of evolutionary theory in another, and trot them out one at a time, and never allow the two to mingle, This is not possible. Two incompatible ideas cannot remain for long in an ,efficient ;brain without struggling one against the other. Of course they could easily. remain at peace in an inefficient brain which just absorbs ideas and doesn't

bother to ponder on them.-

-ANOTHER

STUDENT

(Canterbury College). .

[Abbreviated. ~Ed:]

Sir-"Argosy" has it all off pat. Against the lack of inspiration of the Pentateuch he would have us applaud the divinely-inspired higher critic creators of J.E.D. and P. Sir Charles Marston has ‘the answer to these ultraintellectual pretensions. Basing his remarks on the evidence of archaeological discovery he writes in his book The Bible Comes Alive: fey "The critical methods assumed that the Hebrews were more. or less illiterate. The assumption has completely broken down . . . so J.E. & P. . . . the supposed authors of the Pentateuch are becoming mere phantom scribes and fetishes of the imagination. They have made Old Testament study unattractive, they have wasted our time, and they have warped our judgments ‘on outside evidence. In the clearer light that Science is casting, these shadows that have dimmed our days of study and devotion are silently stealing away."

ROY H.

COLLINS

(Te Puke).