DR. BARNES AND EVOLUTION
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sm,—Your columns seem to give the impression that there are only two classes of Christians, sacerdotalists and evolutionists. The writer of your " News of the Week," indeed, knows " no well-educated clergyman who denies evolution." I must, therefore, run the risk of his well-deserved censure for venturing to enter a humble protest. Our sacerdotal opponents are no
doubt well able to take care of themselves in the matter.
Will you allow one who sincerely believes that both these forms of thought are " dangerous deceits " to state very briefly some reasons for the rejection of the evolutionary hypothesis ? (1) New species have not, as a matter of fact, been proved to arise ; (2) Missing links have not been indubit- ably found ; (3) In the case as it affects man no savage tribe has ever been known to raise itself without contact with higher civilization. Therefore savagery in man is not a primitive condition but one of degeneration. I would remark also that evolution is a word used with very various connota- tions. And it is perhaps not too much to say that the term has so much altered its meaning since Darwin's day that it has already approximated much more closely to the idea of creation.
With regard to the Bishop of Birmingham, I would observe that during all the time in which he has been assailing the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture not very much has been said. But because he has expressed himself frankly with regard to the doctrine of transubstantiation there are these vehement public protests and he is blamed even by the Spectator. Which is a pity.—I am, Sir, &c., J. RUSSELL HOWDEN.
St. Peter's Vicarage, Southborough, Tunbridge Wells.
Previous page
