The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-10
ORIGIN or LIFE.
since the scientists Dtsa9ree. why Net
Have RAIfh IN the ChrlatlAM CreedH

HaNe faitn IN the Cnfistiam treemG
To TEE EDIToR or TIE sUN-Sr: schol-
ars and scientists OF ability at least equal to
that Of your correspondent. Mr.. Dobson.
totally Disagree With him and his master.
Darwin. In some OF their conclusions. For
Instance. the great Italian writer. FosaEzaro.
says: We must admit that science does not
possess a single relia BILE direct proof Of the
origin OF man from an inferior species" Viz
CHOW nt = late scientific congress In Moscow
said that the theory OF the origin Of man from
an Inferior species had been beaten on It's
whole line Of battle OF Darwin's theory
Moleschott said: Men were more generous
20 Darwin than the facts So think also the
diatin guished scientists Tuccimei, Grassi and
others quoted by Boni CSi Puo essere Evolu-
EionAsta.- Siena, IOO0J. Yet Mr.. Dobson.
somewhat In the tone and manner OF a Cen
eral Council Of the Church or Of q Pope de-
MINI ex cathedra. promulGates this dogma
that it may be then stated as automatic that
al phenomena. Inorganic and organic. are but
the Unite representations Of the infinite and
eternal substance, meaning thereby both force
But where did the substance com frOmI
From What did i e%vOlvsf' Where Is the
cause Of it's evolution. inside or outsider
Hove sSsre DO Si you me sh n5ss : dsS% ,S g cell Csls So% 3: s GTS%t
ton, II there has been evolution. Ia solely In
the being that is evolved? II Mr.. Do6soR
o. creation and wishes 10 substitute for Il a
plausible hypothesis. why not accept the poetic
tneory OF Dante that life and the germs Of
NE came down from the stars? lParadiso q,
Canto ~ The poet. unlike some OF the scien-
tlsts, does not try to prove his theory by bad
never be refuted. for science can never know
the nature and conditions OF ali the stars.
Now. which is harder 20 bslieye, the arst
God the Father Almighty. Creator Of heaven
asa esrtn Or the evolution theory. as .ex-
recent German scientists? Man Is conscious
that he Il a p~eEson-snd hence the personality
N a.n supreme Spo@. SsinE sppssls to his good sense;
make himself; and hence the idea Of a Creator
appeals 70 his good sense. as the idea Of .
his watch. The idea OF a soul dietinot from
ms oSdy appears rational 70 him, for he knows
that he can think, and he knows and feels that
the processes Of digestion as a flower is nom
a pig. he viii not therefore, II he follows
digestion are The ptodHst Of sH1 q. . ssms ap.c a9S
because he hopes and longs for it. The de-
moral being and he knows Il: and therefore
ne VIII believe in God. in creation and in the
,%1%SoTiaIis Ss. OF the soul; for he knows that
nersonsI or socisi I! ms snere can De no ree'
Some, cultured. freakiike Pyrrho who
ley who doubted the testimony OF his own
senses. some ~JOuffrOy who doubted the real
ity OF his own existence. some aRnostic who
argues that ne does not know. while he stiles
the cry Of nature which tells him that he does
know, may from time to time try to destroy
belief In the primary principles OF human In
tenigence and morality. But the masses Of
mankind. true to nature and common sense.
Will believe and try to be moral. Mr.. Dobson
and Mr., HAeckel are therefore whistlinR
against the wind.
q for a new AristOphanes and a new
Clouds, or . new Balzac. with a new vol
nme in the Com@dl Humane properly TO
portray the contradictions. the contentious,
the subterfuges. the sophistries and the self
sun1cienoyo OF some Of our modern scientists!
NEw York. October 0. II. A. u.