EVOLUTION IN THE SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20221, 4 April 1929, Page 12

EVOLUTION IN THE SCHOOLS.

Sir, —Your correspondent, Mr. 0. E. Burton, seeks to side track th.e contention that an attempt has been made to introduce into our schools the teaching of "evolution"—as distinct from an "act of creation"—as the cause for created things. The particular p9int at issue at present is with regard to Van Loon's book: If it is not a prescribed text book is tho Rev, Hurray's contention put out, of court? And is it not a text book?' Now if the syllabus requires that the "principles (theories) of evolution" b e taught, and does not state the scope or to what subjects it is to bo applied in teaching, is not. this information supplied by suggesting Van Loon's book as a source of information. The exposition bv tho teacher is based either upon the subject matter of a book or books in the hands of the class, or in his own hand, and Van Loon's book has been placed in his hand. How then can it be regarded as other than a text book ? And must not the scope permitted be that of this book ? Surely your correspondent would not contend that the pupils' learning from it by tho ear and not through the eve makes it not a text book ? J. D. MCNaughtox. Royal Oak, April 2, 1929.

Sir,—Mr. 0. E.ABurton reintroduces tho threadbare "assumed results." As the majority has sucHs-limited knowledge of the sciences referred to—geology, zoology, biology and so on—can Mr. Burton give us a little evidence, beside his bald etatemeot ? Personally, I may be a bit behind the times—a kind of back number and up to tho present have only reached, say in' reference to geology, etc., such noted men as Lo Co rite Dawson Jones. In his "geology" Lo Conte says:—"We havo not been able to find any undoubted transition forms or connecting links between man and the highest animals." Sir Wm. Dawson .said: "I know nothing about the origin of man, except what I am (old in Scripture—that God created him— I do not know anything more than that, and I do not know anybody else who does." W. H. Ballan : "On the whole it is rather amusing to the varied genealogical trees . . . I think every paleontologist of the world now admits that not a single missing link has been discovered below man, and that we know even less concerning tho origin of man than we thought wp did formerly." F. W. Jones, professor of anatomy in the University of London, when speaking of reconstruction of human ancestors, savs:— "I find no occupation less worthy of the science of anthropology than the not unfashionable business of modelling, painting or drawing these nightmare pictures of imagination and lending them in process an utterly false value of apparent reality." Wm. Brady.

•Sir, —The many opponents to the doctrine of evolution ever endeavour to undermine the doctrine by working •on man's sub-conscious fear; Should there be any place for fear in the Divine unfolding of life ? Can we dispute that, "God has a plan, and that plan is evolution?" Can we dispute that this Divine plan is governed by immutable laws, which the lower kingdoms accept without comment, but man,' who has gained greater unfoldment and knowledge, ever avoids and ignores, to his own great hurt and suffering? "Evolution is unfoldment,. such as the opening of a bud into a . flower. There is a succession of forms' each less inadequate than the but these forms are made, preserved and expanded by the life. Even a little seed shows the same thing, finding what it wants in the soil, the moisture, the air, the sunshine; it takes these materials and by its own capacity builds them into a tall tree. The material does not gather itself together and evolve into a tree." "Evolution is the unfolding of our life in less and less inadequate expressions and it will end in the fulfilment of life, the fullness of life." The above is a, brief summary of evolution. Can any objection be found to the teaching of so beautiful and manifest a truth? It is the truth we should seek and give, no matter how upsetting to our past traditions and teachings.. Let our education of the young be an. endeavour to guide and develop thought, as games develop muscles. Let us feed these thoughts with truths, and not with crusted and inapplicable knowledge. Is the doctrine of evolution anti-Christian, as many infer? Evolution, being of J)ivine origin, the thought is impossible. If we accept evolution in the • lower kingdoms, then man must be a part of that evolution, for in our planetary scheme, there is but one plan, one life. Your Rev. A. A. Murray, would have proof of evolution that would satisfy our law courts. Can man give proof that would satisfy our law courts, as to man's soul or of intuition. Having stated the case for evolution I would, in closing, ask for toleration from both sides on this question, for although r I believe and delight in evolution's maffg, beauteous revealings, I have no wish to force my beliefs on others. We can but state our views, leaving man absolutely free in his choice; you can only believe to be true what you feel to be true. J. L. Vercoe. Te Puke, April 2, 1929.

Sir, —Mr. Norman Burton is mistaken when, ho states that I admit evolutionary teaching in schools to be "a manifest ' violation of religious neutrality.'* My whole contention has been that it is nothing of the kind. My suggestion that primary school teaching should be limited to natural history, minus co-ordinating theories, was obviously based on educational and not. religious considerations. Mr. Burton's contention is briefly that if any religious body or sections of such bodies conscientiously object to anything taught in schools (even though all possible religious or anti-religious, implications arc rigorously excluded), it then has the right to insist upon the suppression of that teaching, which automatically moans that the remainder of the community is denied the right to instruction in that subject, however necessary to a proper education experts m that field consider it. In my previous letter I showed how serious for students of certain courses would be the exclusion of evolution, in the opinion of acknowledged scientific experts, and Mr. Burton has failed to answer my argument as to the evil results had his contention held sway in the. past. I would now go further and say that no one J.ias any justification in objecting to scientific theories on religious grounds. Let such objectors disprove the debated theory 011 scientific grounds, and they will be listened to with respect Scientists have no ulterior motive in accepting evolution as hue. They do so because they conceive it fits the facts, and if anyone can prove that it does not, evolution will be overthrown, while incidentally that person would receive fame far ahead of anything accorded Darwin. Rev. A. A. Mi**ay desires rigorous proof before he accepts evolution. May not ■ the evolutionist logically ask in return a similar rigorous proof of the truth of those portions of Genesis upon which Rev. Murray relies for t !ie disproof of evolution ? A.E.G.