Untitled

New Zealand Listener, Volume 13, Issue 336, 30 November 1945, Page 5

Sir-I question the accuracy of Mr. Hulbert’s quotation attributing to the preacher whom he criticises the statement that any atheistic theory is an invention of the devil. Then, whether the preacher said "the atheistic theory of evolution" or "the theory of atheistic evolution" seems tome to make little difference, because it was clear from the context that the preacher was not condemning every theory of evolution, but only the atheistic theory. Mr. Hulbert (who has evidently not read the last paragraph of The Origin of Species) thinks that every: theory of evolution must be atheistic, for he writes: "Science deals only with facts, and biology, geology and zoology, being factual sciences are inherently atheistic." Only _-wrewereerereyrrevewvevwevevwvvwvvwvw

a person ignorant of the distinction between science and philosopHy could make such a statement. Science is neither theistic nor atheistic, for it does not concern itself with the question of God’s existence. It is the business of science to discuss less fundamental problems, such as the structure of the atom, the structure and functioning ot living bodies, etc, Whether God exists or not is a question for philosophy, and many great philosophers, e.g., Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, S. Augustine, S. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes and Leibnitz, have answered it in the affirmative. Aristotle, I may add, was also a great biologist, the moderns, according to Darwin, being mere boys alongside him. Since biology is a science, it has nothing to do with any Biblical creed or dogma, and if anyone has been guilty of , mixing the two, it is Mr. Hulbert, who has asserted an incompatibility between them. Next, little children are not "taught parrot-fashion religious exercises and catechism long before they are capable of reasoning." If Mr. Hulbert had had any experience of teaching children, he would have learnt that they are capable of reasoning very early. They are not taught the catechism "parrot-fashion," but in a manner accommodated to their understanding. And even though a child of six or seven may not be sophisticated enough to be satisfied with the shallow dogmas of "Rationalism." he can at that age understand \something of God and of the many mysteries that point to His existence. Whether or not it is opportune to have religious topics debated over the air is for those in charge of broadcasting to decide. Religion would have nothing to fear from such debates, for her opponents have found very little new to say since Celsus was refuted by Origen in the second century.

G.H.

D.

(Greenmeadows).

(Mr. Hulbert, who started this controversy, may reply briefly to close it.-Ed.)