SCHOOL SYLLABUS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 4 March 1929, Page 7

SCHOOL SYLLABUS

CLERGYMAN’S CRITICISM The Rev. P. B. Fraser has forwarded the following letter to the Minister of Education: May 1 request your attention to an important matter which may not have come under your notice, as possibly the new syllabus of instruction for public schools was completed before, by change of Government, you took office. This document of 222 pages is remarkable in that it bears no signature and fails to indicate any person as responsible for its contents. It is loaded with countless details, from making pot-hooks to a reconstruction of the universe, and impresses one as the product of amateurs rather than of thoughtful educationalists at their best. Without the knowledge, concurrence, or authority -.of the people of this Dominion, it constitutes a distinct revolution in principles of education hitherto recognised, and issues a challenge to parents, teacher?, and pupils as to what it means. Under the heading “Nature Study and Elementary Science” (p. 42 at top) there is found the following:— “The scheme should provide for progressive treatment of the subject as the pupils advance in school life, and in the higher classes the pupils should be given some definite ideas of the principle of evolution.” There is, it will he owned, a marked distinction between theory and principle, between view and fact. The word evolution, like the word Christianity, may be made to mean anything until it is further defined. The thing meant will he discovered from the text books prescribed. As Aristotle reminds us, the nature of a thing may also bo known from its tendency; and the probable effect in immature minds of tbe books prescribed may be thoughtfully considered by our people. I do not review all tlie books prescribed to teach “the principle of evolution” in Nature and human history. For brevity and point I shall refer only to Hendrik Willem Van Loon, a Duteh-American agnostic, a brilliant propagandist and populariser of evolutionism at its worst. Right at the head of text books for history is placed this author’s “The Liberation of Mankind—-The Story of Man’s Struggle for the Right to Think,” an astonishing book truly for training colleges and elementary schools of New Zealand. There follows in the list his alleged “Story of Mankind,” which is an 'expansion of 1 his lesser volume “Ancient Man.” A glance at this smaller volume would soon inform parents of the new dogmatism in State schools. On the first page we have the confident if chilling assurance:— “In one respect, however, we' are quite as ignorant as the most primitive of men —we do not know where we came from. "We do not know how or why or when tlie human race began its career upon this earth.” It is not surprising, therefore, after the storm we come through in his “Liberation of Mankind,” to find the oracular declaration at its close (p. 303). “Tbe human race is possessed of almost incredible vitality. It has survived theology.” If it has survived .

. . Christianity, it may even survive Hendrik Willem Van Loon. I should think that no one could be more surprised than Mr Van Loon to discover himself "down under” a prophet in New Zealand public schools. Certainly it will surprise Americans to say nothing of our countrymen throughout the British Commonwealth who lovingly regard us as a courageous little people who mix sanity with progress. To show that I do not stand alone in my estimate of Mr Van Loon, I shall ask you to read a competent American review of his “Story of Mankind” text book prescribed for New Zealand training colleges and public schools.

“It is to be regretted,” says the Presbyterian (Philadelphia) that in his hands history is an instrument in the service of a naturalistic interpretation of human development. It would nbt be so bad if the book was intended primarily for adults, but, in our judgment, it is nothing short of criminal to seek to,convince children that this book gives a measurably true picture of human development. The child who gets its ideas from this alleged history will suppose that it

took our ancestors almost 1,000,000 years to learn how to walk on their hind legs, that other centuries had to go before their aniinal-like grunts developed into an understandable language, (lint writing—the art of preserving our ideas lor the benefit of future generations—was invented only 4000 years ago. What is more, it will have a purely pagan view of life and destiny, with no place in its philosophy of life for God as the personal ruler of the universe or for Jesus Christ as the Lord and Saviour of mankind. Moreover, they will hold, not only religion in general hut Christianity in particular in very low repute, no opportunity being lost by Mr Van Loon to cast discredit on Christianity.

“Wo arc told by Mr Van Loon that about 1,000,000 years elapsed between the time when ‘what had been dead gave birth to life,’ and when the first ‘true man’ appeared. The great-great-grandfather of the human race, we are told, was a very ugly and unattractive mammal. He was quite small; liis head and most of his body, his arms and his legs, to, were covered with long, coarse hair. He had hands like those of a monkey. His forehead was low and his jaw was like the jaw of a wild animal which used his teeth both as fork and knife. He wore no clothes. He ate his food raw. He had no tools and built himself no houses. He jabbered like the animals in the 7,00, producing unintelligible gibberish. He died more than 500,000 years ago. Mr Van Loon has the grace to say that ho lived and died and left no trace of his existence except a few collar hones and a few pieces of his skull, and that ‘in describing him we must guess many things. This representation, it is unnecessary to tell any informed person, resits on no solid knowledge,. is, in fact, purely imaginary; in reality, he never existed, and is nothing hut a poetical creation of monistic imagination.

“Especially objectionable in what claims to be an historical book is the brief chapter of five pages devoted to ‘The Story of Joshua of Nazareth whom the Greeks call Jesus.’ It consists wholly of an alleged letter written in 62 A.D., by Aesculapius Cultellus, a Roman physician, to his nephew, Gladius Ensa, a captain with the army in Syria, together with the letter which the nephew wrote in reply. Not only do these letters give a misrepresentation of Jesus different from that of the New Testament, hut no intimation is given that these letters are purely fictitious. The ordinary reader, certainly the ordinary child, can scarcely fail to get the impression that these are genuine and authenic letters, and since no mention is made of the New Testament, they are quite apt to get the. impression that these alleged letters are our most reliable souce of information. We do not see how it is possible to characterise Mr Van Loon’s procedure in this connection as other than ‘dishonest.

“If we were atheistic evolutionists, we should doubtless be loud in our praises of this hook. We are, however, Christians, not atheistic evolutionists, and the attractive manner in which the subject matter of this book is presented does not blind us to the fact that it inculcates a life and worldview flatly contradictory to the Christian life and world view. Hence in proportion as that picture of human history presented in this hook is accepted as the true one, in that proportion will Christianity cease to function in human life; and in this connection, let us not forget, as even Mr Van Loon points out, that ‘in practice it does not matter what is truet hut everything depends on what people believe to he true.” I could swell this letter beyond useful proportions by giving extracts from Van Loon’s books prescribed which would both startle and create deep concern and feeling among our people. I cannot hut believe that when this is examined by representatives of the people, thev will for themselves, and for the people of this Dominion, refuse to give permission to make our public education the sphere of evolutionary propaganda and the cause of intense controversy. It is known to all interested in education that already a conflict is being waged in some American States on this question. American papers to hand record the result in another State, that of Arkansas, in November last, where after a referendum of the Bill, an AntiEvolution Act was passed by a large majority, prohibiting the teaching “that man ascended or descended from a lower order of animals” in State schools, including the State University. I am far from desiring a. State referendum on evolutionism in the schools, in this Dominion, regarding it as the worst form in which to present complicated religious and quasi-scien-tific issues for settlement by the people. May we not expect some common sense from those in charge, of our public education system, that in some reasonable way they will keep this highly - controversial subject from being fought out amongst the children of our public schools? Certainly if there should he no other remedy to remove evolutionism from public compulsory education, our people, when they awake to the meaning of it, will fight the issue in their own way with all their heart to a satisfactory settlement. May I respectfully suggest for your consideration that the words “and in tlie higher classes the pupils should gain some definite ideas of the principle of evolution,” be eliminated, from the syllabus as not being sufficiently defined and unsuitable and unnecessary for instruction for public schools. I am not writing to you an essay on evolutionism good, bad, or harmless. As I have said, it is like the word Christianity, capable of meaning anything. When placed as a compulsory subject of instruction it must be carefully defined. It is defined in the hooks prescribed. Why should not hooks controverting those prescribed have a place also on the list? Why should the dogma of evolutionism he projected into the schools and the dogma of Christianity be excluded ? Christianity as a subject is not distinctively taught ,in the schools, why should evolutionism he? To fail to treat it as other subjects of controversy are treated is to make our system of education distinctly and vehemently sectarian in the narrowest sense. Van Loon’s sectarianism is distinctively atheistic. With him man lives like a pagan, and dies like an oyster.

I purpose to send copies of this letter for acceptance to his Excellency the Governor-General, to members of Legislature, and to educational and religious authorities throughout the Dominion.