EVOLUTION IN THE SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20228, 12 April 1929, Page 14

EVOLUTION IN THE SCHOOLS.

Sir, —According to the best authorities there can be no such belief as Christian evolution. We must either believe in special creation or in evolution, anything else being simply rail-sitting. To accept so-called Christian evolution cuts the ground from under the orthodox. If ail life is simply an unfolding, then what need is there of Christ's atonement and personal salvation through Him in order that men might be lifted to perfection and eternal happiness? To accept biological evolution should mean that all honest people give up true Christian belief and service. To say that Christ's passing reference doijj not confirm the special act of creation Recorded in Genesis is really too weak.lj Even if the Creator took time with the act, that does not conccdo anything to evolution, for Genesis states that man was formed by a special act out of the dust, and not gradually from some lower type. It is suggested by Mr. 0. E. Burton that, as the opponents of evolution are in a minority, which is not admitted, they should establish other schools. Possession is said to count for much in law, and as the non-evolution-ists have this advantage, those who are the setters forth of strange gods, or no God, should be the ones to move out It may yet be found that " Tennessee will be -repeated in New Zealand. It is possible for a learned majority- to fool some of the people all the time, but they cannot fool all' the people all the time. A modern historian stated that a moral collapse followed the acceptance ot evolution in England and Europe. WiH it not be the same here in a few years. A. W. Campbell.

gjf —1 notice in your correspondence \t is assumed by the "B'ble cntics that the Bible chronology of '1034 yeais B.C. dates from the creation of the world, whereas it dates from the creation of man, showing that the age of man on earth in 1929 is 5932 years according to our Christian calendar. So the statement 'I do not believe the world was created in 4000 years" has no point as far as the Bible" chronoiogists are concerned. It. is also stated, "The Book of Genesis was written by three different individuals, commonly referred to as .J. E. and P." That those three documents (Jahveh, Elohistic and Priestly documents), had three authors is only conjecture. The only author of Genesis that tradition hands down is Moses. New Zealand ought to have sufficient warning and experience from the teaching of evolution in American schools, from "Scopes case." What intelligent or decent parent is going to have his child taught that genealogically he is from the ape, instead of having been genealogically the Son of God as the sacred narrative in Luke iii., shows, as also does Genesis i., 27, or that man was millions of years in the earth before Adam? Or, on the other hand, what intelligent and decpnt teacher would teach such ? J. Matheson.

Sir,-—The Rev. A. A. Murray seriously misquotes the passage in Mark x., 5. He makes it read: "But from the Creation God made them male and female." It should be: "But from the beginning of the Creation," etc. A correct quotation favours evolution, as showing that Christ regarded creation, not as instantaneous, or timeless, but rather as a proce.ss which had a beginning. A correct translation of John i., 3, would read: "All things were begotten by Him," etc. This biological conception agrees also with words used in Genesis. (The very' word Genesis is biological.)- The modern developmental conception of nature is more in accord with the Bible than Mr. Murray recognises "A.E;C." and Dr. Giles are both mistaken in thinking that science and religion may be taught independently of each other. The doctrine of evolution. for instance, is inherently both scientific and religious. To illustrate Suppose we teach in our schools that the nectarine is a new species, derived from crossing a peach and plum (which, I understand, is a fact), we immediately oppose the religious dogmas of those who hold that no new species has come into existence subsequently to the instantaneous creation of all things. We may quote the words attributed to Christ: "My Father worketh hitherto, (R.V. even until now), and I work." —John v., 17— but to no avail with those who are determined to see in Scripture nothing which conflicts with their own preconceived ideas. Such persons may regard themselves as the friends of Christ and the Scriptures. Perhaps they are. Yet I fear that Christ is wounded more to-day in the house of .his misguided friends than in that of his avowed enemies. Mr. O. E. Burton and "Schoolgirl" have both written admirably on this question. Personally, I support the educational authorities" in the teaching of the developmental doctrine. If the truth hurts any, then let it hurt. Tt hurt the flatearthists. The hurt- will not be ultimately hurtful, but helpful. J. G. Hughes.

Sir, —I do not "accept evolution for myself," as "A.E.G." humorously, puts it T have too much desire for exactitude in the use of words to do so. I am concerned with the transparent trick of the secularists in this debate and with the almost overlooked issue of the children concerned. The trick is, to draw a line in the dust and to force those who suppose that God's action in the world ha? been continuous to st;ind with those who view the. whole development as an affair of blind force find lucky combinations. They would leave the poor reliqious to stand on the other side of the line, pinned down to the belief that creation was sudden action perfected at, the beginning of time. But it really wu' not wash. To put, it colloquially, arc not taking any.'' Jewish rabbis, the early Christians "(vide Augustine), the Roman Catholics (who reserve the question), the Protestants generally (outside certain small groups), refuse to be bound bv any such concept on. I am a creationist holding the liberty of a Christian man in the matters of method and time. But. what, I may be. or what Mr. Murray may be, or what "A.C.W." may be matters very little in view of the large issue now open. Can we put- on primary school teachers the task of depicting the successive stages of the world's development, while they must ignore or mumble over the last questions ? The processes described in science are one thing. i' ie explanations of the processes which philosophy and religion give are another. Neither theism nor atheism are science. They are philosophies, the one radiant, the other beggarly. A mature person may reeogniso that in his science the final question is reserved. But he seldom does so in fact. He either meets God in the process, or he hears the clanking of the fatherless machine. Mow will it fare wit l our children? All a. child hears about the struggle for existence, the of the fit, and of the resident forces raa> very well lead him to what, Carlyle calle "mangey atheism." Unless teacheis a l ® extremelv explicit on the intelligence an purpose displayed in Nature, and on these as revelations of Him in whom we .m® and move and are, wo shall head stiaig for perdition So far as mv reading g 00 "* J should say that Darwinian evolution is as dead as the dodo, and that the cur rent theories are still in a very condition. Those who hold the an^ n< ( , theories with enthusiasm may doubt tne success of -a general experiment with tne children of this country. J. J- Nobis-