RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19418, 28 August 1926, Page 9

RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY.

Sir,—Mr. Ncrinan E. Burton's latest Utter on tha above, passing by his unsupported disparagements of ray reasoning, exhibits a strange confusion of motives and thought. In his first letter lie confesses to a belief in the truth of the evolution theory and further ntates that such loyalty in no way invalidates hi:» religious beliefs, yet in the last letter he contends that the touching of evolution (without any commont on its philosophical or religious bearings) will have the effect of upsetting the religious beliefs of others. There are many pcpsiblo solutions, but I leave it to Mr. Burton to unravel this mental tangle, To get down to bedrock, the ovolutkm-. teaching scare originated by your correspondent •seems grossly exaggerated and merely a counterblast to. the successful opposition agiinat the lust. Bible in Schools BillApart from a natural hictory lesson on the known facta connected with history of the horsa through the ages, there is no evidence of a campaign to introduce avolntinn into primary schools,. In our university colleges biology is not a compulsory subject/for all students and thoso who f#ar that a course of modern instruction in that subject will adversely •affect their religious beliefs can well study for a profession not entailing such dangers. / - : A.E.G.

Sir, —With much that "A.E.C." eaya on "Religious/Neutrality " I heartily agree. That such terms as "secular" and "sacred" may be used as descriptive I readily admit, but I protest against a rigid use of tbase terms which is inconsistent with facts. Wo do not "divorce from the words all meaning" when wo show that their respective meanings overlap. By which I mean that some things, such as evolution, are included cinder both terma. Evolution is a big word. It applies to the evolution of the universe, which is unquestionably a subject for philosophy and religion, and not merely to "tho evolutionary view of life," in which restricted sense "A.E.C." wrongly implies that I uis«d the term. But even the "evolution of life" must, be taught from tho viewpoint of teleology or contingency. The teacher cannot explain what is meant by "the spontaneity of life," nor teach that a material organism was prepared for the reception of life, without teaching, teleology or its opposite. The very word "prepared" involves teleology, which involves Providence. Thus, what is a scientific subject is seen to be also philosophic and religious. Every subject has a religious aspect _ and is defectively taught so .long as its . religions aspect "is ignored. On matter') irach as the benefit of aspiration and tha virtue of love, as well as upon the reality of God and tho importance of prayer, there is greater agreement among religious teachers than the agreement among scientists on thf matter of Agreement on the existence of Goo 1 "A.E.C." admits. On the nature and attributes of God ha savs there is disagreement; but he has to "admit the samp arnono: scientists on the modus operandi of evolution. Belief in the efllcscv of prayer, he says, is "a vastly variable onantity.*" So it is. But the "importance," not tho "efficacy," of praver is what I cited as matter of agreement. And it was tho fact, not the desrree, of this importance. To find "unanimity" on evolution among scientists "A E C." restricts the mutter to those whom ho regards as "exnei'ts." But T maintain that there is agreement on the religious matters I have named without restriction to experts. Tho terms J "fr»o, secular and compulsory," as applied to our State schools, mast he understood in ft restricted sense. J. G. Hughes.