FOREWORD

The influence of Charles Darwin's work, 'The Origin of Species', is greater now than at any time since its publication a century ago, as scientists investigate the ramifications of the Theory of Evolution and apply it to other areas of research. Reaction to Darwin's Theory has varied widely among religious groups, the conservatives rejecting it out of hand, the moderates making an accommodation with it and the progressives embracing it as yet another way of understanding human spirituality. Two of our regular contributors, Dr. John Robinson and Terry Skene engage in this debate on the progressive side.

The role of the individual conscience in our decision making has been explored obsessively in the press over the past few weeks. We enter this discussion with two reflective pieces from John Robinson and Bill Stephen.

We also include reports on recent S.U.A. sponsored events to show something of the work of the wider Unitarian Community in Scotland and remind our members of the excellent facilities and opportunities for recharging our spiritual batteries available to us at the Haughland House Retreat Centre in Shapinsay, Orkney, which is operated by Lesley McKeown, a Unitarian Lay Pastor.

We acknowledge with gratitude the financial support of the Scottish Unitarian Association in the production of this issue of' The Link'

Bill Stephen (Editor)

Back to Contents

EVOLUTlON: A QUESTION OF CREDIT AND CREDIBLITY

By Dr. John Robinson

In the whole of the field of Development Biology two publications rank, in terms of their contribution to knowledge, far above all others. They are Charles Darwin's book on The Origin of Species, published in 1859, and Watson and Crick's scientific paper on the structure of DNA published in 1953. Darwin's book provides the observational evidence for evolution and Watson and Crick's paper the chemistry that makes evolution possible. Ironically for both discoveries there were other contributors whom many commentators now feel deserved much greater recognition than has been accorded to them. In the case of the structure of DNA it was Rosalind Franklin for her X-ray diffraction images of DNA which were influential in guiding Watson and Crick to its double helix configuration. For Darwin's Origin of Species it was Alfred Russel Wallace for his independent observations and writings on evolution by natural selection.

In this the bicentenary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his book on The Origin of Species, the focus of attention is understandably on Darwin. While not wishing to detract, in any way, from the genius of Darwin I have found it interesting to compare the lives of these two outstanding naturalists, Darwin born in 1809 and Wallace fourteen years later

Unlike Darwin's comfortable and affluent schooling Wallace's was harsh and hampered by financial constraints. He was the eighth of nine children and when he was only thirteen his parents were forced, through lack of money, to end his education at Hertford Grammar School. As an interim move he went to London to live and work with an older brother, John, an apprentice builder, and at the same time attended lectures at the London Mechanics Institute. A year later he moved to Leicester to live with his oldest brother, William, and to train as an apprentice surveyor in William's business. Towards the end of his apprenticeship William's business was failing leaving Wallace unemployed. Hired by the Collegiate School in Leicester to teach drawing, surveying and mapmaking he spent his evenings self educating in Leicester library. Like Darwin he read and was enormously influenced by The Principles of Population Growth by Thomas Malthus. He also met the then nineteen-year-old naturalist Henry Waiter Bates, two years his junior, who enthused him in one of Darwin's childhood passions, the collecting of insects. But the direction of Wallace's life was soon to change again. The death of his brother William saw him reunited with his brother John in what turned out to be an unsuccessful attempt to rescue William's business. Unemployed for a second time he managed to secure a position with a civil engineering firm that was designing part of the railway network. This job gave him the outdoor environment to pursue his recently acquired passion for collecting insects. As always however, he maintained strong family links, eventually foregoing his job in order to rejoin his brother John in the setting up of an engineering firm. They tendered for, and won, a contract to design a building for the Mechanics Institute at Neath in Glamorgan. Their design so impressed the founder of the Institute that he offered Wallace a lecturing post in engineering at the Institute. Back in the academic world and living with his brother John and their mother in Neath, he kept in contact, by letter, with Bates, the young naturalist whom he had met in Leicester library. With a growing desire to follow in the footsteps of travelling naturalists such as Darwin, he and Bates set out on Darwin's equivalent of the Beagle; theirs amusingly was called the Mischief, to explore Brazil and the Amazon rainforest. Unlike Darwin who, through his social status and academic training at Cambridge, had a close friend, the Reverend John Stevens Henslow, Professor of Botany at Cambridge, who recommended him to the captain of the Beagle as a suitable candidate to join his expedition, Wallace and Bates had no influential backer. They had to be their own men.

For four years Wallace concentrated on the Rio Negro and the Amazon, collecting specimens, making notes and from time to time sending specimens back home, in much the same way as Darwin was doing, but not as in Darwin's case to eminent experts for comment, but rather for sale to collectors as he needed the money. For a period he was joined by his younger brother Herbert, but Herbert became ill and had to return home where he died soon after from Yellow Fever. Wallace's own return journey was typical of the adversity that had always been part of his young life. After a month of sailing fire broke out and he and the crew had to abandon ship with the loss of all the specimens he had on board and most of his notes and sketches. After ten days drifting in an open boat he was picked up and brought back home. With nothing only the money from the sale of the relatively small number of specimens he had four shipped back earlier and the insurance from his lost collection at sea to live on, and his memory to go by, Wallace set to and wrote six scientific papers on topics that ranged from The Monkeys of the Amazon to The Amazon's Palm Trees and their Uses. At this point he made contact with Darwin before embarking on an eight-year exploration of the Malay Archipelago, now Malaysia and Indonesia. Here he collected over a thousand species which had not been documented by science. It was on this expedition that he wrote down his ideas on evolution.

Although overawed by the social and scientific status of Darwin, his once brief meeting with him gave Wallace the confidence to write to Darwin. First he sent Darwin his paper entitled 'On the Law that has Regulated the Introduction of New Species'. This immediately showed Darwin the closeness of their independently arrived-at, but unpublished, theories regarding evolution. But it was not until Darwin received another essay from Wallace in 1858, entitled 'On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type' and with it a request that Darwin review it and pass it on to his eminent geologist friend, Sir Charles Lyell, with a view to publication, that Darwin became alarmed. Wallace had arrived at virtually the same conclusion regarding evolution as Darwin had spent twenty years formulating but hadn't yet published. Not only that, but Sir Charles Lyell was impressed beyond measure by the depth of Wallace's thinking and the clarity and beauty of his written word. Darwin's delay in publication, whether it arose from a drive for perfection or a fear that his theory would infuriate religious leaders, left him vulnerable to being pipped at the post by Wallace. What should he do to avoid this happening? Well, it was Sir Charles Lyell and the eminent botanist of the day, Dr Joseph Hooker, later Sir Joseph Hooker, who came up with what they considered to be a fair solution to Darwin's problem, namely a joint publication by Darwin and Wallace, in the form of a paper to be presented at a meeting of the Linnean Society of London. The paper would contain private correspondence by Darwin to close colleagues regarding his theory of evolution along with Wallace's essay. Wallace was so flattered by the idea of a joint authorship with Darwin that he instantly and gratefully accepted the arrangement. With both Darwin and Wallace abroad and unable to attend the meeting it was left to Lyell and Hooker to present the paper, on their behalf, on 30th June 1858. The event went unnoticed; indeed the President of the Society remarked later at the AGM that the year had not been one with any striking discoveries.

Seeing Wallace's ideas on evolution gave Darwin a new sense of urgency to publish and the following year his book on The Origin of Species came out. The reaction of the Anglican clergy could not have been more hostile. The biblical description of creation had been shattered and it was not until September last year that the Anglican Church fmally decided that now, the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, is a fitting time to apologise for its misunderstanding of Darwin, for getting its first. reaction to his theory of evolution wrong, and for encouraging others to misunderstand him still. Meantime, the scientific world is awakening to the fact that it too got it wrong in so far as Wallace's contribution to the theory of evolution was much greater than it gave him credit for at the time. Despite the closeness of Wallace's thinking to that of Darwin's, there were differences that are now regarded as five important and had these been given recognition at the time they would have stimulated fruitful debate and led to enhanced understanding. In contrast to Darwin, Wallace excluded observations for domestic animals, arguing that they were neither subjected to natural selection nor the laws governing the survival of the fittest which are central to the theory of evolution. I'm sure that in relation to dog breeding and showing the RSPCA would agree that Wallace got it right. Secondly, despite the title of his book, Darwin was vague on his definition of a species whereas Wallace was more definite and it is upon Wallace's definition that the presentday concept of a species is based. Thirdly, unlike Darwin, Wallace never accepted that an adaptation to an organism that was acquired during its lifetime could be passed on to subsequent generations. Apart from the recently-observed phenomenon of epigenetics involving the modification, in the early life of the embryo, of imprinted genes by environmental factors, time again has proven Wallace to be correct.

But so much for the science; how did their observations on evolution affect the religious views of these two great naturalists. One gets the impression that in Darwin's case it left him confused. After all he had, from the age of eight when his mother died, boarded at an Anglican public school, and later on he had opted out of medicine at Edinburgh University and gone to Cambridge in preparation for a life in the Anglican Church, yet he himself accepted that his observations on evolution implied a materialistic rather than divine explanation for his existence here on earth. On the other hand, in words which in parts are not dissimilar to biblical text he states in the final sentence of The Origin of Species, 'There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one'.

Unlike Darwin, Wallace separated the material component of evolution which is all about the moulding of the structure of life forms, from the spiritual, which for him involved the moulding of intellect. In the context of evolution being driven by natural selection, Wallace could not accept that the evolution of the human brain to its present capabilities was solely the result of natural selection. To him, there was no evidence that the understanding and reasoning power of the human mind, its wit and humour, its mathematical, artistic and musical genius and its depth of emotion had arisen solely from natural selection pressures imposed on humankind. It was Wallace's view that something 'in the unseen universe of spirit had interceded at least three times in history.' The first was the creation of life from inorganic matter; the second was the introduction of consciousness and the third was the creation of the higher mental faculties in humankind. In Wallace's view the human mind had attributes which were not derived, through the pressure of natural selection alone, from animal ancestors. Also, for Wallace, even if one dismissed his concept of spiritual evolution, material evolution was merely a process, but how was the process created?

One hundred and fifty years ago Darwin's. Origin of Species rocked the Anglican Church. It even moved his great friend and mentor at Cambridge, the Reverend Professor John Stevens Henslow, the founder of Cambridge University Botanic Gardens, the man who had been instrumental in stimulating Darwin's interest in evolution, and who had used his influence to get him a place on the Beagle expedition to comment after reading the book, 'but I wonder if that's all that there is'. In the heretic to hero arguments that accompanied the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, Wallace's contribution and his religious views were respectively ignored and dismissed. Yet here was a man who, at the time wrote these words: 'I am thankful I can see much to admire in all religions. To the mass of mankind, religion of some kind is a necessity. But whether there be a God and whatever be His nature; whether we have an immortal soul or not, or whatever may be our state after death, I can have no fear of having to suffer for the study of nature and the search for truth, or believe that those will be better off in a future state who have lived in the belief of doctrines inculcated from childhood, and which are to them rather a matter of blind faith than intelligent conviction'. Wallace's quest for scientific truth and his theory regarding evolution had not shattered his particular faith; he was a spiritualist. Yet it was his spiritualist ideas that drove eminent scientists at the time to withdraw their support for him. As for the leaders of the Anglican Church, they branded Darwin an atheist, but it would appear that to them Darwin, the atheist, was more acceptable than Wallace, the spiritualist! With the benefit of hindsight it is now clear that Wallace deserved more credit for his contribution to evolution than was accorded to him. At the same time, by ignoring Wallace and by reacting in the way it did to Darwin, the Anglican Church lost more credibility than it needed to.

Back to Contents

THE INDEPENDENT CONSCIENCE AND THE COMMUNITY

by Bill Stephen

"Living authentically" is a modernist expression for an age old ambition to do one's very best with one's life no matter what. The modernist version, I would suggest, developed out of the declining influence of traditional Christianity, the rapid development of psychology and psycho-analysis and the "Be all you can be" approach to living one's life that has become so popular over the past half century or so. "Living authentically" implies being honest with ourselves, living sincerely according to our values and aspirations, and according to our nature and talents, without pretending to be what we are not, or assuming roles that are beyond our range, or masks to conceal our true identity. That is the aim. Of course, it begs a great many questions. It places, for instance, all moral authority on the shoulders of the individual who, therefore, decides which values he or she will choose to live by and indeed whether or not these will be honoured in any particular instance. It also encourages an on-going conflict between the individual and the community, since the wishes of the individual at some point,will inevitably clash with those of the many.

This problem has bedevilled human society for thousands of years but has become more acute than ever as the state, while increasingly liberalising legislation concerning personal, family and sexual relationships, has been increasingly interfering in the private lives of its citizens. As a result, individuals find themselves frequently at odds with the values promoted by the state, particularly when these values appear to emerge from confused and even partial motives. The state can also behave irresponsibly and capriciously, assume responsibility for some welfare provision which seems politically apt at the time only to decide at a later state that it can no longer fund it or has lost the will to support it and so abandons it and the thousands of people' who have come to rely upon it. The authority of the group or the community or the state, relies upon the consent of the majority, and so the appointed or elected leaders of the group use their power, in the name of harmony and good order, to ensure that the group's values coincide with the values they wish to promote. Conflicting values of individuals are dismissed as being those of a minority or accused of being divisive or deliberately deviationist or subversive in order to sabotage the solidarity of the group.

Maggie Watt was a distant cousin of my mother's. For a while, in the years immediately prior to the Second World War, she was living in one of the small fishing towns along the Moray Firth. She was what used to be called in the North East, "Gweed Living". That is she lived a life of extreme self denial in pursuit of spiritual salvation. She was a strict sabbatarian, always wore plain, dark coloured clothes, never touched alcohol, nor ever attended a popular entertainment, such as a cinema or dance hall or theatre, and read only moral or religious works. She attended a fundamentalist Christian Church, twice on Sundays, prayer meetings on Wednesdays and Saturdays and Bible Study on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The Church was the centre of her existence, providing for her social as well as her religious needs, and she contributed financially as generously as she could from her weekly wage as an assistant in a local draper's shop. In her way she was living authentically.

Their Pastor of some forty years, retired and they were seeking his replacement. Several applicants had been heard and interviewed but had failed to attain the standard set by their predecessor, either in theological rectitude or preaching ability, until one, weekend when there arrived at their invitation a very young man who seemed to fulfil all their requirements. His Biblical knowledge was comprehensive, his theology impeccable and in spite of a very heavy cold and hacking cough he had preached that Sunday morning, an inspiring sermon in a strong baritone voice which had reverberated around the church and lifted their spirits with its energy and passion. The congregation returned to church in the afternoon for the final interview and examination by the Elders. Unfortunately, it emerged that in his written application, the young man had overstated his academic qualifications and his pastoral experience. He had acquired his diploma from a correspondence college and his experience was limited to helping out occasionally at a chapel in his home area.

Suddenly the mood changed. An icy chill gripped each stricken heart. The meeting was disappointed, dumbfounded. The sound of wind and rain outside. Silent, anxious people within.. His confession had deprived the Elders of the power of speech. They stared, unbelievingly at the young man his shoulders heaving as he tried to suppress a hard, dry cough. Then the Senior Elder found his voice. His wrath was monumental. How dare this young upstart lead them on, deceive them with fraudulent claims, bear false witness, give voice to bare-faced lies! He was no better than a thief. He had tried to steal a living from them, a stipend, a manse, status as a minister, and a respected position in the community. He deserved to be reported to the police. He was no better than a common fraudster. There would be no remuneration for him for his preaching that Sunday, not even a penny of expenses for his travelling to their town. He had lived with his innocent family under false pretences and he now would be cast out and into the street to find shelter where he may.. Root and branch, he would be cut off from every member of the fellowship. He had done an ungodly thing and forfeited the shelter and compassion of God's people. The walls of the church echoed with this harsh denunciation and after it a tense. silence descended upon the troubled pews.

Trembling, dry-mouthed and uncertain, Maggie Watt, stood up and to her own and everyone's amazement, spoke out. Indeed, the young man had deceived them grievously, and they would not appoint him, sinfulness would not be rewarded, but should they not in the name of Christian charity, shelter him from the night and reimburse the cost of his travel. He was a person in need. Poverty perhaps had prompted his deceit. They had invited him after all. That he was in their midst was of their doing and so he was their responsibility. Jesus laid a duty of forgiveness upon them and surely his crime did not put him beyond the love of God.

The Senior Elder magisterially commended Maggie for her compassion but said her heart had betrayed her judgment and endangered her soul by urging succour for the unrighteous. Serving God was not easy and while they felt for the young man's plight, their duty to demonstrate to him the error of his ways and bring down punishment upon him therefore, was clearly God's will. The Holy Spirit had moved the congregation towards that end. Their unanimous consent was such a sign of it presence in their midst. He had sinned against God's people and God would forgive him when proper reparation had been made, but it was not up to them to anticipate the will of God.

The object of their exchange, who had long been slumped in his chair and apparently remote from the proceedings, was then escorted from the building by the elders.

The Senior Elder then reiterated the demand that no-one should offer the fallen one help or shelter. That to do so would undermine' the authority of the Church and would be a slight unto the majesty of God.

Deeply troubled, because her conscience was at odds with the majority, Maggie made her way home, in the teeth of a cold wind and driving rain, her anxiety increased by the sight of the young man sheltering in a doorway beside a forlorn bus-stop.

An appalling, ungodly idea formed in her mind as she battled homewards. She caught up with her next door neighbour, another maiden lady member, and shouting above the wind asked if she could spend the night with her, so that she could shelter the young man in her own cottage. Dismayed and terrified by the suggestion, her neighbour, refused to entertain the scheme, expecting if not the retribution of God at least the wrath of the Elders to fall upon her for even listening to Maggie's misguided words. At home, Maggie prayed for forgiveness and then for guidance but still the awful desire to help him would not be quenched. She, an unmarried woman could not spend a night alone under the same roof as an unmarried man, no matter that he was many years her junior. The whole town would be scandalised. Her reputation would be ruined forever. The elders would never stand for it. She would be, quite rightly, driven from the church. Rules were there to ensure good order and decency. They had to be respected otherwise anarchy would result. . The elders were good and holy men. They knew God's will better than she. She was guilty of pride and arrogance to think that she knew better than they. But Jesus said love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek and besides her own instincts were urging her ever more strongly to act.

Hatless and coatless she plunged into the storm in search of her quarry. She found Ilille him, soaking wet, collapsed in the doorway by the bus-stop. He was shaking and his breathing was laboured. She helped him to his feet and supported back to her cottage, where she fed him hot soup, settled him by the fire to dry his clothes and retired to her bedroom,. locking both the living room and the bedroom doors. Next morning his condition had worsened.She fetched the doctor who said he was too ill to leave and should be kept warm in bed for the next few days.

Maggie rushed to her place of work to explain the circumstances to her employer who was also the Senior Elder. Maggie's neighbour, however, had already carried the news of her wickedness and disloyalty to him. He dismissed Maggie on the spot and expelled her from the congregation. She had brought lasting shame upon them all. She had flouted God's will and not a decent person in the town would sell her a penny bun or pass the time of day with her ever again. She should take her self off and purge her iniquity by indertaking some menial task in some remote and distant place.

All day long, shame for breaking the rules, anxiety for defying God wrestled with her compassion and sense of responsibility for the young patient, gravely ill in her cottage. All day long as she sat by his bedside, she could neither condemn nor forgive her behaviour, there was no resolving her predicament. Over night his condition deteriorated. At first light she dashed to the doctor's. He immediately. had the young man transferred to hospital. Next day he died of pneumonia. The town's people were deeply shocked but while s few muttered their admiration of Maggie's actions in private, the majority agreed with the Elders that his death was the will of God and so they were blameless.

However, Maggie's compassion had revealed the harsh and unforgiving attitude of her erstwhile friends and her continued presence in their midst was a constant reproach and reminder of this, and so she decided to sell up and leave. She came to live in her grandmother's cottage in the next street to us. She found work in a local canning factory, lived a solitary, self-denying existence, prayed, studied her Bible, very occasionally came to church with us but never joined any other religious community. "Gweed living" to the last, she died in 1958, a few months older than the century, leaving all her possessions to the young man's mother and handicapped sister to whom she had been sending a proportion of her income since his death.

Fifty years on, the priorities of the power brokers have changed; but like skilful wrestlers they have simply changed their hold to gain a tighter one. Spiritual and moral preconceptions have given way to materialistic ones which find their political and practical expression in the welfare state, which in the name of improving our quality of life at an affordable price, is constantly subject to revision as economic and social conditions and political fashions change. The State which is the political will of the majority, or at any rate of the most powerful may be enlightened as far as the masses are concerned but it is miserly of compassion where individuals are concerned. The State's conscience is influenced largely by what is politically advantageous to the rulers and by utilitarianism, which is satisfying the needs of the greatest number. Compassion for the individual is a luxury the State is nor prepared to afford.

Living authentically, has been criticised as living complacently, because one can live a virtuous life without necessarily contributing anything to the wider community, a criticism that ones hears often directed at religious communities. The individual conscience, however, when it motivates action, no matter how well meaning, must be disciplined. Just because one feels strongly about something, for instance, does not give one the right to act in a way that brings harm or inconvenience to innocent people. Demonstrators and. terrorists who destroy property, u terrify, kill or maim innocent people to change a situation which they consider to be evil and offensive to their social conscience show a degree of arrogance, irresponsibility and lack of compassion for other people that is absolutely alien and abhorrent to the ideal of living authentically.

Living authentically is above all living compassionately. 'First do no harm' ought to be the guiding principle of anyone who is motivated by conscience to act on behalf of others. Neither the State nor political campaigners in spite of claims to the contrary, are moved by the plight of individuals who get in their way, but people who act sincerely out of conscience and not out of self-interest or self-promotion, always are. Compassion is almost the only area left where decent, honest people can make a difference to the life of another individual.

Living authentically has many risks. The exercise of love and caring may make us vulnerable in many ways. Helping an other person may make us feel apprehensive about the length and depth of our involvement. Clearly we need to be aware of what our limitations are as well as our strengths. Responsible and sincere offers of help, however, prompted by compassion are the finest fruits of living authentically.

Maggie Watt gave up a great deal to live and act authentically. She never once mentioned her generosity and kindness to people whom she never met. There was no air of "holier than thou" about her, nor any sense of selfsatisfaction or triumph over self, in her demeanour. Modest and self-effacing as she was, one was also aware of her composure, her self-respect which emanated from a conscience which was at peace with itself. Self-respect and a quiet mind are the gifts of a compassionate life lived authentically.

Back to Contents

OF MARSHMALLOWS & SELF-DISCIPLINE

By Dr. John Robinson.

As a child I loved to pick brambles; in fact I still do. But in those early post- war years there was the added incentive of receiving payment for doing so. Each autumn, small rural shops in N. Ireland became centre points for the collection of brambles for processing into jam. The farm hedgerows were excellent picking grounds and, with bramble- filled buckets dangling from the handlebars of my bicycle, I used to ride off in the evening to the local shop to sell my day's produce. On one occasion, towards the end of the picking season, I decided to reward myself by spending the money from the day's harvest on marshmallows. On the way home I ate the lot, went off to bed and fell fast asleep. A few hours later I woke with horrific stomach pains and was violently sick. So traumatic was the experience that even yet the very sight of a marshmallow makes me feel ill. In my self indulgence, I had failed what is now known as the 'marshmallow test'. This test was developed in the 1960s by Professor Waiter Mischel at Stanford University in California. It involved the Professor placing a marshmallow on a plate in front of a four- year- old child and then giving the child two options; either to eat the marshmallow right away, in which case the child only received one marshmallow, or refraining from eating the marshmallow for a few minutes while the Professor left the room and then returned, in which case the child received another marshmallow. Follow up studies of the many four- year old children who were subjected to the test now show that, compared with those who ate the first marshmallow right away, those with the will- power to delay their gratification until the Professor returned with the second marshmallow, were more successful in adult life, be it in academic achievement, social interaction, self- confidence and the capacity to overcome adversity. The test has been so successful in predicting adult- life achievement it is now being used by neuroscientists in brain- imaging studies to identify those neurons within the anterior prefrontal cortex of the brain that are believed to be involved in resisting temptation. It has become the focus for studies of emotional intelligence, now regarded by many psychologists as more important than IQ when it comes to academic achievement. Emotional intelligence is defined as the ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate thought, understand emotions and to regulate emotions to promote personal growth. Its expression requires sound reasoning, self- discipline, persistence, grit and determination.

The concept that the ability of some fouryear- old children to exhibit the maturity to delay self gratification transforms them into highly successful adults is being seized upon by many different groups in society. Dieticians are looking to it for early- life clues on how to prevent teenage and adult obesity. In this regard I'm sure there are child psychologists and nutritionists who would claim that, had I not sickened myself for life of marshmallows on that balmy autumn evening almost sixty years ago, I would have continued to eat excessive numbers of them each day and in all likelihood would now be two to three times my current weight of nine and a half stone!

Chief executives in the world of commerce and banking are now using the example of the marshmallow test to impress on their staff the need to refrain from short- term strategies that increase share prices but risk market collapse in the longer term. And then there are the clergymen who are embracing the general principle of self- discipline that the marshmallow test embodies when appealing to their parishioners to refrain from sin. Of course the Bible provides them with ample texts for their appeal. In addition to the ten commandments and fasting, scripture is awash with references to the importance of self-discipline. In Proverbs 25 verse 28 we read 'He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city broken down and without walls'. In Luke 9, 23 and Mark 8, 34, Jesus made it clear that to follow him involved self denial. Calls for sobriety, temperance and resisting temptation are widespread in scripture; 'He that striveth for mastery is temperate in all things', 1 Corinthians 9, 25. 'With knowledge comes temperance, with temperance patience and with patience godliness', 2 Peter 1, 6. In this context one can visualise the innocent four- year olds sitting patiently in front of their marshmallows waiting for the Professor to return with a second one; that wait being the St. Peter gospel equivalent of godliness. In scripture the power and importance of the mind and the perceived weakness of the flesh are there too in Romans 7, 25 where it states 'So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin'. In Timothy 1, 7, God is seen not as one who gave humankind the spirit of fear but of power and love and self control. Yet in language very similar to 'The back is made for the burden', 1 Corinthians 10, 13, refers to the faithfulness and considerate nature of God; 'He will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able'. With the temptation he will also 'Make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it' .

The Bible informs us that self- discipline is a fruit of the spirit. So too according to Galations 5, 22, is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness and faith. But do the four- year olds who opt for deferred but enhanced gratification in the form of a second marshmallow possess all of these qualities as well'! There are child psychologists and philosophers who believe that they do; their evidence is based on experiments, the results of which indicate that role model and other environmental influences in very early life, play an important part in children's ability to resist temptation, control aggression, and perform acts of kindness. Indeed the acquisition of self- discipline in small children is apparently so sensitive to environmental factors that it can be weakened by undue praise and overindulgent parenting.

Of course the attainment of self-discipline and the other very laudable attributes that appear to accompany it falls short of what many Christian fundamentalist and evangelistic preachers demand. For them the fruits of the spirit are for naught unless they involve the indwelling of Christ within humankind; their cue for this assertion coming from John 15, 4, 'I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit, for without me ye can do nothing'. To an evangelist my childhood marshmallow spree and subsequent violent bout of vomiting which deterred me from ever eating another marshmallow had, in order to be real, embrace a divine dimension, akin to Paul's epiphany on the road to Damascus. Purging myself of one of the Bible's seven deadly sins, gluttony, was undoubtedly my salvation, but not in the evangelistic sense of the word.

This perceived need for salvation, in the form of deliverance by redemption from the power of sin and its ensuing heartache, no doubt is a major recruiting agent for atheism. Recent letters to the press on the controversial bus advertisement stating there's probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life, confirm this. The advert itself conveys the view that God is a control freak and a spoil sport; someone whose sole purpose is to prevent us enjoying ourselves. In the many forms that I have imagined God to take, a kill- joy is not one of them, yet letters to the press confirm the sentiments expressed in the advert by describing God as the man who lives in the sky and controls us; the one who promotes guilt and who judges our every move.

That the advertisement's appearance coincides with the credit crunch and at a time when a little bit more self-discipline and belt- tightening rather than instant seif- gratification seems warranted, is ironic. The advert is however in line with the government's desire for us to spend our money since, for many people, enjoyment necessitates spending. Thus, my instant reaction was that the advert must have been instigated by government and/or business to boost our failing economy and alleviate the personal hardship of economic recession. It turns out however that the advert is the idea of the comedy writer, Ariane Sherine, in response to seeing evangelical Christian adverts on London buses. These adverts contain quotes such as 'Jesus died for your sins' and refer to a website for further information. From the material on the website Ariane Sherine concluded that, as a non-Christian, she was heading for eternal damnation and was going to 'spend all eternity in torment in hell, burning in a lake of fire'. The idea of eternal damnation being preached from the side of a bus was such an anathema to her she decided to run a counter advert and came up with 'There's probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life'. No doubt in the eyes of evangelistic Christians this action has condemned her to an even more horrendous hereafter!

By her own admission Ariane Sherine has always been exasperated by the idea of hell; so too am I. Given that her religious background is Unitarian on her father's side and Zoroastrian on her mother's, what I find strange in her reasoning is her claim that she couldn't bear the idea of her and her mother having to go to hell because they were non-Christian, for I very much doubt if her Unitarian father would have led her to that view. It seems to me that the message in her advert is a perfect expression of the sentiment of the child in the marshmallow test who instantly gobbled up the first marshmallow. I would have thought that from her perspective a little more research and reasoning, as is called for in the marshmallow test, would have produced a more emotionally intelligent and constructive advert; something along the lines, there probably is a God who can give additional purpose and meaning to life so stop worrying and start living.

Undoubtedly what is emerging from the marshmallow test should be very important in developing new early- life role model, parenting and teaching strategies; it may even call for a return to those of the past. The importance that it places on emotional intelligence appears, at first sight, to be a new concept. But is it? It seems to me that emotional intelligence embraces many of the useful elements of religion. I'm not, for one moment, suggesting that the regulatory component of emotional intelligence, of which the enhanced benefit of deferred gratification in the marshmallow test is one example, is in some way analogous to a utopian hereafter for leading a good and well- disciplined life. We don't have to accept the existence of heaven or hell in order to enrich our lives through the conduit of emotional intelligence. Faith, in what ever form, adds meaning to life and with added meaning comes deeper reasoning and a more holistic and balanced view. This is where I would take issue with a recent correspondent to the press who, in supporting the anti-God bus advert, claimed that there doesn't have to be a purpose or meaning to life. It seems to me that without purpose and meaning life becomes futile and worthless. Outward behaviour rooted in a much deeper inner spiritual awareness or faith brings additional purpose and meaning to our lives. For want of a better word I call that inner spiritual awareness, religion.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, who was left fatherless at eight years of age and was well versed in early- life self discipline, claimed that every material event in life is a lesson which the soul should take as a spiritual lesson. In that context the principles embodied in the marshmallow test are a powerful example of the benefit to the long term well being of all humanity of those elements of emotional intelligence that bring a spiritual awareness and therefore greater purpose and meaning to our everyday living.

Back to Contents

EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM

By Terence Skene

We are on Main Street. The morning sunlight is blinding. Not a soul stirs. The atmosphere is oppressive and threatening. A black shadow appears from a doorway. Another comes suddenly around a corner. More emerge, hurrying towards the square. Were it not for their city garb, we might be in a Western film, and observing the prelude to a lynching. Not a footfall disturbs the brooding silence, not a word from the grim set faces, not a wheel creaks, but of out of the sky fraught with storm, comes a slow menacing drumbeat.

This is the opening sequence of Stanley Kramer's film "Inherit the Wind", starring Spencer Tracy and Frederick March and photographed symbolically in stark black and white.

Above the drumbeat soars a high female voice singing 'That old time religion is good enough for me' as a wedge of black clad figures led by a man wearing a clerical collar and carrying a black bound book enters the high school building. Stanley Kramer thus launches into his dramatic retelling of the infamous 'Monkey Trial', so called, which took place in the middle weeks of July 1925, in Day ton, Tennessee. Earlier that year the State Legislature had passed the notorious Butler Act which forbade the teaching of Theories of Evolution in State schools because they contradicted the Biblical accounts of the Creation. John Scopes, a biology teacher at the high school, was asked by the American Civil Liberties Union to help test this law. The opening shots of the film show Scopes being arrested in front of his class by the local sheriff, supervised by a Minister and the members of his Congregation, all of whom are white and male.

The holy war against Charles Darwin's Theory of the Evolution of Species started almost as soon as the book was published in 1859. Churchmen feared that it would lead to a decline in religious belief and in moral standards. A literal interpretation of the first Chapter of Genesis is incompatible with the notion of the gradual evolution of life forms on Earth, . including human, by natural processes. Furthermore, the Christian belief in the immortality of the soul and the conviction that God created man in His own image also appear to be contradicted by Darwin's evolutionary claims. The most articulate dismissal of Darwin's work during his lifetime, came from an American protestant theologian, Charles Hodge, who argued in a book published in 1874, "What is Darwinism?" that the design of the human eye is so complex that it could never have come about by chance and, therefore, was the work of an intelligent designer; namely, God the Creator, just as a watch is clearly the planned work of a watchmaker. This, of course, is no more than a restatement of the 'argument from design' for the existence of God. Charles Hodge also claimed that the denial of planned design in nature is a denial of God. Others tried to use Evolution as a confirmation of God's existence. A.H. Strong, President of Rochester Theological Seminary, in his "Systematic Theology" (1885) wrote, "We grant the principle of Evolution but only the method of divine intelligence". In other words, God invented evolution in order to create life.

By the first half of the twentieth century, evolution was becoming gradually acceptable to the majority of Christian writers. Pope Pius the 12th. in his encyclical, "Human Generis" in 1950, acknowledged that biological evolution was compatible with Christian Faith, but insisted that God's intervention was essential for the creation of the human soul. (In this he is reflecting the view of Darwin's collaborator and rival, Alfred Russel Wallace, who claimed that some spiritual agency had intervened to produce the human mind.) Pope John Paul rd. in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1981, clearly aimed at Christian fundamentalists, said it would be a major blunder to regard the Bible as an elementary book of astronomy, geology and biology. The late Pope in his Apostolic Exhortation of 1996, wrote, "Fresh knowledge leads us to the recognition that the Theory of Evolution is more than just a hypothesis".

Evolution as an idea was not unknown in the ancient world. The Sicilian philosopher, Empedocles (490 - 430 BC E) famously developed a theory of evolution in which human beings and animals, as they are now, gradually developed from earlier forms, and as a result, the need to reconcile the Creation story with scientific theory has been recognised since at least the 5th. century CE. St. Augustine in response to the claims of pagan philosophers, who poured scorn on the Christian creation story, in 401CE wrote a very long work in which he argued that that while God included all the principles which were required for the creation of life, he did not create everything all at once within the timescale suggested by the writer of Genesis. St. Augustine believed there was a process of gradual development. This approach, incidentally quite appealed to Galileo, who of course earned the enmity of the Catholic hierarchy of his day for questioning the traditional cosmology of the Roman church. There appears to have been two discernable Catholic attitudes, one which was prepared to accommodate new scientific knowledge and the other which dismissed it out of hand.

The Scopes Trial was yet another instance of this situation extended to the protestant church. Although the case was prosecuted by the Tennessee State Attorney General, Stewart, the Fundamentalist banner was carried by William Jennings Bryan who was engaged to demolish the defence and to destroy, once and for all in open court, the credibility of the case for Evolution. Born in Salem, Illinois in March 1860, Bryan, a Democrat and a populist politician, was a magnetic orator, who had stood for the Presidency unsuccessfully on three occasions. While by some he was regarded as a dangerous rabble-rouser, by others he was revered as a champion of liberal causes who had supported women's suffrage, prohibition and in 1913, when Secretary of State had persuaded a group of 31 nations to foreswear war in favour of peaceful negotiation. He became involved with the Fundamentalist party which declared the absolute authority of the Bible and which was dedicated to discrediting Darwinism. This pressure group, which became very influential in America during the 20th century, particularly during the Reagan and Bush junior presidencies, is also associated with anti-abortion and homophobic attitudes, the promotion of capital punishment and of compulsory Christian prayers in schools and attacks upon other religions.

The liberal team in the Scopes trial was led by Charles Darrow, a leading criminal lawyer, a champion of the under-dog, a supporter ofthe labour movement against big business and dedicated to justice and fair-play. He opposed capital punishment and saw to it that none of his clients ever suffered the death penalty.

The trial reached its climax on 20th.July, an incredibly hot day, when Bryan, the witness and Darrow the defence lawyer wrestled over the absolute authority of the Bible. Hour after hour, as the sun climbed up the sky, the duel continued. Gradually, Darrow exposed the illogicalities of Bryan's position and by the afternoon, it appeared that the defence had won. Next morning, however, to everyone's amazement, the Judge declared Bryan's testimony irrelevant. He said, "The lawsuit now is whether or not Mr Scopes taught that man descended from a lower order of animals. It is not a question of whether God created man all complete at once, or it isn't a question of whether God created man by a process of development and growth. These questions have been eliminated from this court and the only question we have now is whether this teacher taught that man was descended from a lower form of animal." Since there was no doubt that Scopes had been teaching Darwin's theory, the Jury in less than ten minutes, returned a verdict of Guilty and Scopes was fined $100. He was, however, allowed to make a statement "¥ our Honour, I feel I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have done in the past, to oppose this law any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom - that is to teach the truth as guaranteed by our Constitution - and of personal and religious freedom. I think the fine is unjust"

The verdict was eventually reversed on a technicality, but the Butler Act remained in force in Tennessee until 1967.

Over the past forty years, there has been an on-going battle between the Legislative Assembles and courts of several southern states on the one hand and the United States Supreme Court on the other as to whether the teaching of evolution may be permitted in State schools. Arkansas, Kansas, and California have all tried to ban it several times and Kansas insisted in including the Genesis account of creation as part of its science curriculum. As a result there is a great deal of confusion among ordinary people about what ought to be taught in their schools. A few years ago it appeared that 29% thought that evolution should be taught in science class and creationism discussed as a belief. 7.5% thought that evolution only should be taught. 13.5% thought both should be taught as science, 16% that only creationism should be taught and 4% did not have an opinion.

The creationist movement, starting in the United States, has now spread world wide and is influential in Holland, Korea, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Turkey and in Russia where it is taught in several state universities and in Great Britain, where the Creation Science Movement has flourished since 1932

 In this country, creationism is increasingly appearing on school curricula. For instance, the secondary schools run by the Emmanuel Schools Foundation funded by the car dealer, Sir Peter Vardy, and supported by the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, teach Creationism side by side with Evolution as do many other Faith funded schools.

Educationalists and scientists are deeply concerned. Professor Richard Dawkins, the champion of Evolution, said recently, "These children are being taught ludicrous falsehoods. This is not a matter of one scientific position against another scientific position. There is no scientific position which states that the earth is a few thousand years old. Any bishop would say the same".

The question to be asked, of course, is why is this happening in the 21st century, dominated as it is by science and materialism. I think there are two reasons which perhaps are basically the same reason. We live in a pluralist society consisting of different races, different cultures, different religions, languages, values and priorities. We hold on to our traditions jealously, not simply to assert our own ethnic identity among so many others, but also to seek refuge from a confusing, ever-changing and frightening world, by retreating into the past where everything was so stable, so orderly, fixed and well-managed, where there was authority and structure. The authority of our Holy books, the Bible or the Koran, seems so clear cut, so certain, so comprehensive, so absolute, that to defy it or ignore it seems to be sheer folly.

Two years before the Scopes trial, Werner Heisenberg formulated the Uncertainty Principle, a scientific theory confined to the quantum level but which seemed to coincide with the developing mood of the twentieth century that the modern age after all was not delivering the Utopia everyone expected. Perhaps subliminally detected by the Fundamentalists, this feeling of uncertainty and scepticism about the influence of Science has grown steadily as one disaster after another has overtaken us and as technology has come to dominate our lives. Why wouldn't one question the role of scientists and science in our lives, given two catastrophic World Wars, the Cuban missile crisis, the Chernobyl disaster, radiation leaks at Windscale and Dunrea, pollution, global warming, weapons of mass destruction, and so on, in spite of all the benefits we receive from technology? What an uncertain world we live in. None of this would have happened if we had not forsaken the tried and trusted beliefs of our forefathers. That 'old time religion was good enough for them' and given the chance will save us too. Stanley Kramer's film appeared in 1960, perhaps prompted by the developing interest in space exploration as America and the U.S.S.R competed with each other to be the first to land a man on the moon. To support scientific endeavour in these circumstances was clearly the patriotic thing to do and so the film is enlisted on the side of science against faith. The two are clearly demonstrated to be incompatible.

However, more than forty years later, when the products of technology are taken for granted and science is scrutinised as never before, creationists are emboldened to cast doubt on the authority of evolutionary science over Genesis. Sir Peter Vardy, for instance, gives the impression that as a community we can hold in mind two contrasting positions at the same time when he says that creationism is a faith position as valid as evolution which is a scientific position. Apart from the fact that this is a restatement of the Cartesian fallacy that mind and body are of separate substances, it defies logic in order to. protect an indefensible traditional position and in the process, does as much to undermine religion as it does to support it.

Religion is under threat, not because science is currently rampant, but because it has failed to find a means of understanding it and coming to terms with it Science is knowledge, a part of our every day experience. Technology is a means of getting things done, a part of every day life. In the past our ancestors used their knowledge and technology to grow their crops, raise their flocks, cure their diseases and fight their battles as we do today, and they also were aware of the stresses and strains of living.

Their religious practices responded to their way of life. As that way of life changed so did their religious beliefs, otherwise we would still be worshiping pagan idols. Spirituality copes with change, it does not hide from it. Spirituality implies that approach to living that Aristotle called "the examined life", that is we seek out honestly what is benevolent, enlightened and compassionate in our society and support it while opposing what is destructive, cruel and misguided. Creationism is backward looking and its opposition to science, in spite of its utopian intentions, will inevitably reap the whirl wind and add to human suffering and distress. We need to see science as a helpful servant which does our bidding, not an enemy which is willy-nilly bent upon our destruction.

Back to Contents

PRESIDENTIAL CELEBRATION IN DUNDEE

By Janet Briggs

On 16th May the Scottish Unitarian Association held a celebratory lunch in the splendid surroundings of the Queens Hotel, Dundee. Guests of honour were Rev. Bob Wightman and his wife Mary, at the start of their Presidential year - he as President of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian churches, she as President of the Unitarian Women's League.

About eighty people, most from the four Scottish Unitarian churches, plus a few from further afield, enjoyed lunch together and listened to speeches. First came John Letford, the Lord Provost of Dundee. He spoke warmly of his friend Bob, outlining his career from marketing to ministry and from Glasgow to Dundee, where he has become a wellloved and valuable member of the community, not least because of his weekly Sunday morning talk on Radio Tay.

The second speaker was Alistair Ballingall of Radio Tay, where Bob has worked for twenty years. Ally praised Bob's personal style of speaking, as if there were only one listener out there, when in fact, audience figures show that many people tune in for Bob's half hour at Bam, and then go off to start the day.

He was followed by Victor Herd, President of the Dundee Ex-Services Association, of which Rev. Bob has been chaplain for many years. Together they have led many a church parade, and side-by-side led the mourners at many a funeral. Victor thanked Bob for his personal touch, listening to problems and offering an encouraging word.

Scottish Women's League President, Barbara Clifford offered congratulations to Mary Wightman on becoming National President in the League's 100th year. Although there have been other couples to hold both Presidencies, never before have they done it simultaneously. Former General Assembly Presidents Bert Inkson and Joyce Ashworth were among the guests, and so were former League Presidents Jean Inkson and Theresa Taylor. Dot Hewerdine, our link with the GA Executive Committee was present along with husband John, and so was Jen Atkinson who has performed that duty for the past three years.

Bob and Mary's sons David and Colin, who are local Undertakers, were present with their wives. David followed his mother in saying how proud the family is of their hardworking and popular father, and how busy and fragmented the Wightman household will be during the coming year of Presidential visits.

Bill Stephen of Aberdeen ably compered the meeting, in his role (complete with badge of office) as President of the SUA, and it fell to his Deputy, Roddy Macpherson to thank all the speakers. He told us that he was just returned from Transylvania, where the liberal faith that is Unitarianism began in 1561, in the reign of King John Sigismund of that country. Roddy had been speaking at a conference there and had playfully informed a Romanian history professor that Transylvanian history was much respected in his home country. Rev. Maud Robinson of Edinburgh gave the opening grace, in Irish Gaelic and English, and Rev. Bob spoke the benediction that closed the proceedings.

Back to Contents

WHO - IF ANYONE - BENEFITS FROM PRISON?

Bv Janet Briggs

This SUA meeting in Edinburgh was addressed by Tony Cann, who is a member of Padiham Unitarian church. He told us that his Unitarian faith, with its emphasis on that of God in each one of us, had led him to take an interest in the treatment of offenders. He is a member of the Penal Affairs Panel. His daytime work as a successful businessman has proved to him that if all the members of a team feel valued, their work will be a success.

He began by asking us which we regarded as the main cause of criminality, individual responsibility or our social environment.

He pointed out that the majority of prisoners are young men between 18 and 30. 78% of these return to prison within 2years, which tells us that it has little deterrent effect. 70% enter prison with a drug and/or alcohol habit, but for 80% of them, there is no treatment in prison. Others become addicted in prison. 70% have mental health problems, yet our prison service offers little in terms of treatment. It just locks them up with other sufferers. Finland employs ten times as many prison psychiatrists as we do in Britain. Two thirds of new prisoners were unemployed before entering prison, and for those who were working, there is often no job to go back to. Many have poor literacy and numeracy skills, without which there are only limited chances of employment, yet mindless repetitive work like stitching mailbags is rewarded with small payments, while attendance at classes is not. One third of prisoners have no homes to go to when they are released. Families may not want them back, partners may have moved on. People are routinely detained many miles from home. In prison they will have had pals among the criminal community. Is there any wonder that they are drawn to re-offend, and go back inside? Many people consider that custodial sentences should not be given to women, because of the disruption caused to their families.

Tony is a governor of a local school. He refuses to allow exclusions for bad behaviour, because he sees how alienation leads to criminality. Special provision must be made within the school, even if it means individual arrangements.

You may be thinking that these English statistics are disgraceful, and that the answers are self-evident. England imprisons 253 people per 100,000 of the population. In Scotland prisoners on remand are routinely held in protective custody. Scotland's figure is 754, second only to the USA.

 Back to Contents

HAUGHLAND HOUSE RETREAT CENTRE

SHAPINSAY, ORKNEY, KW17 2DZ.

SUMMER & AUTUMN 2009

PROGRAMME OF RETREATS

 JUNE

Wed. 3rd to Sunday 7th "Out of the Stones"... letting thwe stones speak to us as we explore the surrounding countryside and shoreline around Haughland. Merryn Dineley an Archaeology Historian will take us on a guided tour round some of Orkney's ancient sites on Mainland. Only six places available. Meditation, live traditional music, Walking and Exploring. Four nights full board all inclusive £177.00.

Thursday 18th. - Sunday 22od. "Gifts of Love to Earth are bringing" . Circle dancing, meditation, being creative with poetry and brush. Celebrating the Summer Solstice at the Mor Stein with ceremony, Yoga and fun. Three nights full board all inclusive £114.00.

JULY

Friday 10th. - Sunday 12th. "Moments of Truth". Drawing on the grace and wisdom of Irish poet and writer John O'Donahue, a reflective and creative weekend. Three nights full board, all inclusive, £109.00.

AUGUST

Saturday 1st - Monday 3rd. "First Fruits" Orkney Wheat, Black Oat, knead and weave. Using our hands and not machines we make bread and our baskets...with some 'juggling' in between! Two nights full board all inclusive £80.00. Saturday 8th - 220d (inclusive) Haughland House will be closed. Friday 28th. - Monday 31st. "Drafts for the Spirit" with the 'crafty Shapinsay folk'. Textile printing with Claire Evans. Create your own pot to take home with you with David Holmes at Elwick Mill. Three nights full board all inclusive £129.00.

SEPTEMBER

Friday 18th. - Sunday 20th. "Harvest Thankfulness". Celebrate with Yoga, dance, song and colour, as we approach the Autumn Equinox. Three nights full board all inclusive £109.00

OCTOBER

Friday 16th - Sunday 18th. "Moon Glow and Winter Sun" Walking in the Moon's glow and meditating with the Winter Sun, sharing stories and being nurtured by the moon. Three Nights full board all inclusive £109.00

OCTOBER/NOVEMBER

Friday October 30th. - Sunday November 1st. "Spiritual Thresholds" . A Reflective Retreat with Gentle Yoga, meditation, sharing, poetry and music. Three Nights full board, al inclusive, £109.00.

DECEMBER

Friday 18th to Sunday 21st. "A Festival of Lights" For all the Retreats you can come for the day if you prefer.. Haughland House is open most of the year so you can come at other times if you wish.

Please visit our website for more details. www.orkneyretreat.org.uk
Email: lesleymckeown@hotmail.com

Back to Contents