EVOLUTION A Non-Catholic View

SIR,-1 must reply briefly to three of your correspondents. In reply to Mr. Dewar, 1 regard any carbonaceous matter embedded in the rocks as of organic origin, because 1 know of no other source. With regard to pre-Cambrian fossils, Mr. Dewar will find 20 types mentioned on p. 83 of his joint book with Professor Haldane. There can also be no doubt that, in the neighbourhood of the Galley Hill skeleton, the earlier and later of the recent fossils are clearly distinguished by their fluorine content. I am not asserting any relation more general than this.
Miss Barclay is concerned about the teaching of evolution in schools. Obviously it should be taught wherever there is a course of biology, or general science, sufficiently advanced to call for it. It is, however, possible to teach it for the wrong reasons. If, as Miss Barclay suggests, the British Social Biology Council advocate teaching it for anti-religious reasons ("Religion is the opium of the people") that is just as objectionable as omitting it for supposed religious reasons. But science must be taught as such, and evolution is an integral part of modern science.
Mr. Lunn raises the main issue whether or no evolution is proved. I do not like the word proved, which is ambiguous. But there can be no doubt whatever that. in the opinion of those with an adequate knowledge of the relevant sciences. evolution is regarded as thoroughly established. and there is no reasonable doubt about the conclusion. THE CATHOLIC HERALD is not the place to argue this question, so I must tell you bluntly that such is the opinion of the scientific world. If, as Mr. Lunn suggests. this implies that I am an incompetent advocate, then I am an incompetent advocate. These personal questions are trivial. If anyone doubts my statement they would do well to make enquiries in the zoological and geological societies of England and America. So far as I am aware, none of the few eccentrics who disagree do so on scientific grounds. A few put forward scientific reasons, which in my opinion consist of many words but very little substance, but it is always obvious that the reasons are not the grounds. Of course it is possible on religious grounds to reject scientific conclusions, but Catholics. if they do this, should be quite clear what they are doing. It is the "Copernican Theory" over again.
I therefore tell Catholics quite plainly that their problem is how Christian doctrine can be aligned with the discoveries of science. If they can do this, then there is no need for them to argue about evolution. It is then, for them, an academic question. I will not enlarge on the result if the Catholic authorities decide that it cannot be done.
H. S. Shelton.
f Mr. Lunn may have something to say about this letter, but there are no lack of instances in history, including the history of science, of the eccentrics proving right after all. Nothing Mr. Shelton has to say remotely touches the Catholic obieclion to absolute evolution. while his whole tone and temper confirm us in holding a scientifically minded agnosticism about moderate evolution, within which further study and research can be pursued.-EDITOR. C.H.1
A Boycott?
SIR,-As Mr. Arnold Lunn mentions me as one of the victims (so to speak) in the battle he presided over, may I throw some light on why Mr. Dewar won-as many people think he did. Two.of the reasons are
(1) His ability to weigh evidence (after long years as an 1.C..S. judge). This is all-important in this question. Could you not reprint the letter from a lawyer in your 1941 correspondence on evolution? (April 25.) It would help.
(2) I-le reads French easily; and he possesses some of Vialleton's works. Vialleton was a Catholic. But that is not the point. He was a great scientist, and he came to reject evolution -except in a quite restricted senseas a result of his researches. His Utt Problem de l'Evolution (1908) attacked Haeckel's now obsolete theory of " recapitulation"; and his heavier work (790 pages on Morphology, 1911) steam-rollered that fallacy flat. In 1924 came his most important book, of which the sub-title was Critique Morphologique du Transformisme (710 pages and 270 fig.), teaching that evolution took place only inside the family. His 1929 book, l'Origine des Etres Vivants ran through 15 editions by 1930-the year he died. Our scientific bosses have used the well-known hush-hush tactics--e.g., Thomson and Geddes* semi-popular Life: Outlines of General Biology (1,500 pages, 1931), do not give Vialleton's name in the index, nor the titles of any of his numerous works in their 24 page bibliography Eng., Fr. and German) not even under morphology (in which he showed genius). or embryology (of which he was one of the leading experts, and so the contributor of a volume to a most authoritative French series on human anatomy, 1894-1922).
If Catholic students are not allowed to know for even know of) the work of leading scientists whom our master's don't -approve of, how can they form reasonable opinions on evolution? Perhaps Vialleton would have put British biologists on the right track. Some do occasionally reflect his ideas (without acknowledgement). Mr. Belloc used him in answering Wells, but that is ancient history. and only two years ago a Catholic periodical printed disparaging words about Vialleton based on comments by a very tenacious Frenchman (who was evidently taken to be a qualified scientist, and objective). Cuenot has a strong attack on Vialleton. but avoids mentioning the titles of his books, and does not put them in the list at the end of the chapter! Pere Descoqs says his criticism " ne porte pas "-because Vialleton's contention was "nullement arhitraire. elle est fondee sur le Halite." (Verb. sap.).
Vialleton wished for a new terminology as " moderate " or " mitigated" evolution does not describe the difference of view. But we still await it. We also await a translation --or at least a summary-of his works.
Vera Barclay.
Anti-Boycott?
SIR,-It should be clear from this correspondence and accepted by all except the prejudiced and perhaps the newcomers that " biological evolution" is a term to denote a theory and not an established scientific conclusion. This is the view of W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., who wrote : " Any scientific theory of natural Evolution should explain the process
(Continued at foot of next column) as due to specified natural causes having an effect that can be experimentally verified. The absence of an explanation of this kind is an extremely serious defect and until it has been remedied we certainly cannot assert on scientific grounds that Evolution is a fact." In the meantime, teachers and parents who have the responsibility for shielding the young from harmful ideas ought to feel hound to boycott all text-books of whatever sort, be it history or science, which give evolution the status of an established scientific conclusion, to boycott the school broadcasts which do the same, and to protest to the Ministry of Education against the evolutionary propaganda in both spheres. It was T. H. Huxley who said that " an assertion which outstrips the evidence is not only a blunder but a crime."
This protest movement may be a novel idea to many parents and teachers but if it appeals because of its defence of truth and protection of our children it should produce effects. Opportunities for education are now widespread. but what use is it all if a wrong philosophy is being foisted on our youth in the name of " science "7 What are the reactions of parents and teachers to this?
Laurence P. Lynch. 24 Gransha Park, Belfast.