EVOLUTION IN SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20218, 1 April 1929, Page 12

EVOLUTION IN SCHOOLS.

Sir, —Much of "A.E.C.'s" letter ;s irrelevant. Let me bring him hack to the real question. It is this: "A'.E.C." and his friends have insisted on tin principle of State neutrality in matters of religion. Now, a very largo section of the community declare that the literal accuracy of the Bible is a fundamental article of their creed, and they hold that the theory of evolution flatly contradicts the Book oJ Genesis. If this statement of the position is correct does it not inevitrbly follow that the teaching of evolution in our Stateowned or State-supported educational institutions is a manifest violation of religious neutrality. "A.E.C. admits that this is truo as far as our primary schools are concerned, but contends that the position is different as regards our university colleges, because attendance at these institutions is voluntary. He seems to forget that the money required for rheir upkeep comes from State endowments and out of the pockets of the taxpayers. Is it fair that the fundamentalists should bo taxed foi the progagation of a theory which' is violently opposed to their religious beliefs? It is true that a student may select his own course, but could it ho truly said that the State was neutral in tho matter of religion if a student was prevented from obtaining a scientific degrco because he had religious objections to tlie theory of evolution ? As I have previously stated I accept the theory of evolution myself, but I cannot help seeing that its propagation by tho State at tho expense cf the taxpayer may have very serious consequences. Nor max Burton.

Sir, —In reply to Mr. Norman Burton I can only repeat my belief that the theory of evolution ought to be treated on purely scientific principles, however difficult it may be to shut out an intrusive and irrelevant theological element, and I leave the question there with my best wishes for Mr. Burton's speedy and complete recovery from his illness. Another letter in your columns by Mr. A. A. Murray on the same subject seems to deserve a, moment's notice if it were only for the unscrupulous question-begging which it endeavours to conceal under a, spray of theological froth. This criticism only needs for its justification a short quotation from Mr. Murray's letter in answer to Mr. 0. E. Burton: "They (State school teachers) have no right to teach that which is opposed tc what God has revealed in Genesis, and what has been endorsed by the infallible eternal Son of God. For any man to leach our animalistic origin is to give th>i lie,direct to the teaching of God's Son." And this is the sort of talk that is expected to keep back tho tide of knowledge and arrest the progress of the human intellect!. J. Giles.