Widnes Examiner. — 1891-12-05 (Widnes, Cheshire, England)

GNOSTIC.  In the first place he treats the "soul" as though it I coUlirhe d dciâted 'frith' the ••-mi nd and tells us -the former is the gift of God and is that which distinguishes man from "the lower order of animals." Ilere,we have a. quite new mammalian classification. Herein I find my education to have been very defective, inaemuch as I have always regarded mail as being an animal and distinguished from his congeners of the animal world by his higher structural—mental and physical—development. But new it appears that it is to be done by some intangible and unlocateable attribute! If this is to be a sample of "soul improvement" I think a course of "mental improvement" might be substituted with manifest advantage to the members of the association: if they could stand it. To see the need of this; mark what treatment this most important subject of evolution gets at their hands. Had this been a question of law, of physic or some such branch of special siudy, the members of the association might, and probably would, have kit the need of the advice of some specialist in that study, and would have hesitated to express crude and offhand opinions upon a subject they had neither studied nor understood. But not so in a subject like that of evolution, requiring, as it does, an intimate 'knowledge of a vast number of facts in biology and palceontology, close reasoning and accurate generalization from these facts! On a subject of such complexity and involving much special study for its comprehension, these young Friarsgreen philosophers undertake to make pronouncement after half-an-hour's discussion and less study! It will be news to the world of science that "the theory of evolution fall to the groupd because it fails to provide us (the Y.M.C.A., I presume) with the missing link between instinct and reason " ! Now, not insisting upon the fact that there is no such missing link and never was, instinct being merely a species of lower inherited reason, how would this one "failure to provide" overturn and destroy the great array of facts and the" logical inferences from facts upon which the hypothesis of evolution is founded? How is this new test of the validity of evolution to be applied in the case of, fossil animals? I have not yet i come across a fossil instinct—a fossil reason, orany connecting link between them. 1 oan't say the same of fossil reasonings ; these are as plenty as blackberries. But what would Mr. J. Horton have? Surely he is not Quixotic enough to wish to resurrect the obsolete fable of special creation ? This has indeed fallen to the around, and that not through the failure of one fact alone, but, in consequence of the vast majority of physical facts and phenomena being entirely adverse to such an explanationof how things came toi be as we see them. In one thing, however, I do admire the essayist. He is consistent. I have known people who profess a belief in systematic Christianity, at the same time avow entire concurrence in the central facts of evolution. In this at least Mr. J. Horton is more logical than they. He has what Herbert Spencer calls !‘ the inarticulate fear." of science as the destroyer of sacridotalism and religious formula's. He is quite logical in this. Certain it is that the ideas of evolution and any creed involving a belief in special creation cannot find rational lodgment in the same head at the same time. These two ideas are entirely and completely incompatible and are mutually destructive. They cannot be entertained simultaneously without intellectual suicide. But this incompatibility is no argument against evolution for the substantialtruth of which we have abundant and ever-increasing evidence; but rather against the antagonistic theory, which is without either evidence or probability. And here I wish to be understood. The great mistake people make, is in thinking that true science and true religion are necessarily and naturally antagonistic. No greater mistake could be made. On the contrary Religion and Science are complementary; both being necessary factors in 'the complete man: Science always has been—is now—and I hope always will be destructive solely of the outside dry husks—the man-made externals of religion. Is there a living man bold enough to maintain that the religion ef to-day is not the better for having thus passed through the purifying fire of .scientifie criticism ? Finally there is one fact Which alone should have'pre:, vented the essayist from draWing lame couclusions from halting premises. It is this—At one, period of his prenatal existence he—like the rest of mankind—had a well-developed tail—and in every other respect was indistinguishable from a puppy of like age. Take this and the occurence of the fossil reptile-bird--or feathered lizard—Archeoptrix, and let our friend give us a rational explanation of them in the light of specific creation. I firmly believe that all these artificial tremours for the truth would vanish as an ugly dream could these people but see the ability of the Groat First Cause to preserve His own truth. Want of faith is their disturbing element.—l am, &c., Penketh, November 29th, 1891.