EVOLUTION IN SCHOOLS

Evening Star, Issue 20134, 26 March 1929, Page 12

EVOLUTION IN SCHOOLS

THE MINISTER'S REPLY \ 10 THE EDITOR. Sir, —May I ask you to give publicity to the reply of the Minister of Education to my letter challenging the insertion of evolution as a subject for instruction in training colleges and public schools? I have waited for the reply before taking further action, lest I should prejudice the Education Department without a statement of its meaning, Tho reply of the Minister follows: “ With reference to your criticism of the now syllabus, I have to state that the foremost educationists, lay and professional, were engaged in its production, and I may fairly claim that it marks a ,distinct advance in primary education in this country. “ I note your objection that ‘ tbo pupils should bo given some definite idea of the principle of evolution. ’ This does not mean that evolutionism as a dogma is to ho taught, hut that some part of tho wonderful scheme of creation should be discovered and a love of Nature implanted, with a consequent reverence for its Creator.

“ Tho books you mention as being included hi tho bibliography are not for use by the children, but for reference by teachers. Tho Government does not guarantee the truth or otherwise of statements contained in these or any other books included in the list.”

I need hardly say that this defence or explanation of the department will satisfy none but evolutionists, and only those evolutionists who are regardless of the sentiments of the vast number of the people of New Zealand. A genuine evolutionary scientist, who is not also a militant evolutionary propagandist, would refuse to introduce so highly- controversial a subject in compulsory education in schools supported by all taxpayers. Christian teaching has been kept out of public education for fifty years, because it was felt to bo difficult for the State to undertake without definition the teaching of Christianity and without making religious tests for teachers. I. personally, have opposed making religious tests for teachers, holding, with all those opposed to State religious tests, that the proper and adequate test for State employment, whether in schools or elsewhere, is not primarily religious, but that of character, fitness, efficiency, and service. But now, indeed, wo are to have an irreligious evolutionary tost applied to students at the training colleges and to teachers and to pupils in schools. I need hardly say that the people of this dominion, when they got down to a knowledge and understanding of what is implied, will not stand it for a minute.

Ami they will nob be satisfied with the evasion of tho question in the reply now presented. Tho reply evades and contradicts tho plain statements of the syllabus, and their meaning as understood by teachers themselves. Tho smallest inquiry will satisfy anyone that teaching of evolutionism, undefined, is now a subject of instruction in training colleges and schools; yet the reply says that evolutionism as a dogma is not to be taught, but that “some part of the wonderful scheme of creation should bo discovered,” plainly as “ discovered ” by evolutionists. That evolution is to be taught as the fundamental basis of thinking in schools is clearly set forth in the syllabus at page 173, where the “culture of the past,” of course now obsolete, “ founded on religion, literature, music, and art,” is to give place to the grander scheme, favoured by “ foremost educationists ” of the Education Department. This “wonderful scheme ” is founded ou “ science ” —that is, evolutionary philosophy, now become “ the basis of a new culture.” Nothing could be plainer than that evolutionism ns fact and dogma is to be made the basis of “.the new culture ” of the people of New Zealand. The statement is made that the books of Van Loon are only in a Bibliography of reference for teachers. I may describe this as simply contrary to fact. The books of Van Loon arc indeed under the general heading of Bibliography; but they are placed in a division headed text hooks, and arc included with books plainly, indisputably, for use of children. And 1 need hardly say that they indisputably set tho standards of teaching at training colleges. I need not pursue .the subject further in this letter. But I may say that my letter to the Minister, with his reply and suitable comment, will now bo reprinted and sent to members of Legislature, to religious authorities, to all education hoards, school committees, and teachers throughout the dominion. I am confident 91) per cent, of tho people of New Zealand, whatever differences of opinion or belief they hold, null ultimately declare that evolutionism, undefined and highly controversial, is uncalled for and unnecessary for instruction in the compulsory education of this dominion.—l am, etc., P. B. Eraser, M.A. March 25.