Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

SMAD. An Organ of Student Opinion. 1936. Volume 7. Number 16.

Nutshell Knowledge — XI.—Evolution

Nutshell Knowledge

XI.—Evolution.

Some people try to say that science conquered religion in the field of biology last century and has now conquered it in the field of the social sciences. Both statements are false, and of the two the latter is the more dangerous, for more harm is done by the halfbaked social sciences than by biology. Scientists are not consistent: they decline to take Genesis literally, but they insist on taking the social teachings of Jesus literally. They should realise that whether or not Genesis is true. Jesus did not intend his views on peace and love to be taken seriously.

Poverty, exploitation and war are sent to try man. Reformers have failed to prove that they are immoral, and the social scientists have failed to prove that they are the inevitable effects of removable institutional causes. However, let us pass on from the social sciences which endeavour to treat man objectively and forget his divine spark.

The dispute about evolution is not yet dead. Haven't you heard Professor Kirk apologise for having to lecture about it? Any sensible clergyman would naturally he most annoyed at the suggestion that animal ancestry is more than a primitive totemic myth, and would naturally launch a furious attack on any such theory.

The churchmen realised that the doctrine of evolution struck right at the root of their teachings, and they attached vast importance to it. But they didn't see the fallacy of it, so they reluctantly conceded pont after point until finally all but the fundamentalists came to accept evolution.

Mind you, the churchmen had enough sense to minimise the importance of this apparent defeat. They had sufficient presence of mind to discover (after their apparent defeat) that evolution isn't really at all important, and doesn't affect the subjective glory of the relation between the individual soul and the Almighty.

It's a pity that the priests of last century didn't see the fallacy of evolutionism—it was famous centuries before Darwin. Religion teaches of sudden creation. and thus avoids the pitfall that entraps all who believe that man evolved from the amoeba—which came the first, the chicken or the egg?

And don't you admire the sublime blandness of an egg. You can never tell from its immobile expression whether it's just fresh, or a hard-boiled egg, or a real dinkum had egg. An egg remains happy because it refuses to think about social injustices. Moral—forget organised injustices.

—"Spectator,"