EVOLUTION IN THE SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20230, 15 April 1929, Page 12

EVOLUTION IN THE SCHOOLS.

Sir, battle axe in this controversy has Ix'cu Genesis and Christ. Bufi "A.E.C." tries to rob me of my weapon by affirming that Genesis is mythical and utterly untrustworthy, having been derived from the Suiueriari legends. 'lhesa legends, we are told, existed 2000 yeai'Sj 8.C., while tho Hebrews had no writii% before 900 8.C., and ther<!foro 'tho Hebrews derived their information- from mythical or heathen sources. This is a plausible argument, but utterly false and misleading. Lot me state the case as briefly as possible. The Hebrews wero not without a book from the days of Moses, and that book is . referred to throughout the Old Testament. A book that was constantly added to, but not without directions as to how it was to be increased. A book that was kept up by tho prophets whom God. raised up for that and other purposes." Here, then, v,-e discover that tho Hebrews were, in possession of the writings of Moses immediately after their departure ' from Egypt in 8.C., 1491. This book was carefully preserved, and added to from time to tune. So that the Hebrews wero never, without the writings of Moses and others, and wero in no way dependent upon tiia heathen for information. To show further that tho Hebrews did not go to heathen sources, let " A.E.C." consider the following comparison between the clay tablets of the heathen, and the inspired writings of Moses and tho prophets. The tablets begin with chaos; Genesis with perfection, ch i., 1. The tablets d.eify the sun, moon and stars; Genesis regards them as created matter. Tho tablets give us gods many; Genesis gives us one God. The tablets make all the work of a. craftsman; Genesis tells us that God speaks and it is done. ■ The tablets are puerile, grotesque arid full of superstition; in Genesis we find that which is grand and solemn —that which is righteous and holy. Does this- -comparison lead to the conclusion that tho Hebrews copied their scriptures from heathen sourcesl leave any honest man to decide. Moses therefore wrote at the command of God, and there £an be no reasonable doubt but what all tho facts of creation were handed down from Adam, through Enochs Noah, Abraham and others, and thus the stream of knowledge was kept pure, from heathen adulterations. Dr. Pettit lias effectively answered Mr. O. E. Burton. As for Dr. North he is a theistic evolutionist,. and to him I would address tho words of Professor Pfliederer, "There is only ono choice When wo say evolution wo definitely deny creation. When- J we say creation we definitely deny evolution." A." E. Murray.

Sir, —The discussion is revealing very clearly the fact that opposing and quite irreconcilable schools of thought are in direct conflict. We have: (1) Those Christian people who are absolutely opposed to evolutionary teaching of any sort and who on conscientious grounds will utterly refuse to allow such teaching to be given to their children. They believe that Genesis is verbally inspired and that no scientific evidence, however convincing, is sufficient to over-ride what/ they consider to bo the teaching of this book. (2) Those Christian people who see in an evolutionary principle of development the marvellous handiwork of .God —our Father —who is working even to this time to bring forth out of His universe things ever more wondrous and beautiful. (3) Tlioso who, apart from any religious belief, simply desire to seo scientific truth given its rightful place. (4) Those who, like Dr. North, are agnostic on tho actual question of evolution —and quite rightly claim Christian liberty—but who arc concerned that evolution, if it be taught, shall not bo presented in a materialistic way. Between the first school of thought and the other three there is at tho present time no possibility of agreement. Dr. Win. Pcttit, for instance, is unable even to allow that "Schoolgirl's" thinking is Christian, because she differs with hiui on the question of the scientific accuracy ot a Jewish historical book. This being so, it becomes imperative that, a search be made for some principle of freedom by means of which education shall be emancipated from coercion and restriction. I again make the suggestion that we so amend our present system as to enable any dissenting minority the right to establish its own schools, and if these reach a reasonable standard of efficiency to receive financial support and fair capitation basis. This freedom should bo available equally to the Roman" Catholic, the fundamentalist, the modernist, tho atheist and the Hindu or Moslem. Only by some such "principle of toleration can we not. only save the national system in a real sense, but also ensure- the unhampered pursuit of truth. In th« present secular system, which shuts out such teaching as Dr. North would like to see, v.e have an example on the grand scale of the particularly deadly effect of coercion by elimination. What we want is not more of this utterly pernicious principle, but the introduction of a wider and fully liberty. While it. i' l impossible to deal with various criticisms on account of space the statement by Mr. A. W. Campbell that moral collapse, will follow evolutionary teaching calls tor comment. Such a collapse will not follow fearless and honest search after new truth, but if in the light of that new truth a Church which has posed as the spiritual guide of men be found to be untrue, her moral cuthority is gone and men wander in perplexity and darkness. A Church, which, in the light of modern research, teaches, its laity that the Bible is a verbally inspired and infallible book, is certainly making inevitable a period of moral chaos. O. E. Burton.