EVOLUTION IN SCHOOLS.

Evening Star, Issue 20135, 27 March 1929, Page 2

EVOLUTION IN SCHOOLS.

TO TUB EOIXOK. Sir, —Anybody occupying a less honourable position than that of the Kev. r. B. Eraser might well be accused of deliberately misstating the facts as shown in ills letter of comment on the reply of the Minister of Education, published in to-night’s ‘Star.’ Mr Eraser says “an irreligious evolutionary test” will be now applied to students in training, to teachers and to pupils m file schools. This is absolutely wrong, and Mr Fraser cannot find in the syllabus any evidence in support of his statement. Mr, Fraser quotes part only of tho context of page 173 of the syllabus. The whole passage reads: “The culture of the past was founded on religion, literature, music, and art. The validity of this culture is so great and so generally admitted that its methods still largely form the instruction given in all our educational institutions; but, just aa these subjects gained their value in the first place from the fact that they were the expression of movements of the utmost significance in man’s mental evolution, so science, the expression of a movement comparatively new, but of primary importance in our rite© history, will become—is indeed already becoming—the basis of a new culture. This is the first and greatest reason why science should not only b© taught, but receive a prominent place in modern education.” By any reasonable man the only construction to bo placed on tlus passage in that it is a pica for science to take its proper place in our scheme of education. With regard 4© the inclusion of Van Loon’s books hi the bibliography, 1 otats that these books are not in the list of text books for children, but in a list suggested for the use of teachers. If Mr Fraser has any respect for -his honourable calling ha will not persist in the misstatement, made in his latter. Further, Van Loon’s books are not included in the bibliogtaphv of Nature study and science. No biologist admits Van Loon as a scientific writer. Like Haeckel, he is a mere popular writer on scientific subjects. His books are not scientifically authentic, and have been included only in the history section of the bibliography for tcachefs—and then only one of them. Mr Fraser says that evolution “is now a subject of instruction in training colleges and schools.” This implies that it is added as another subject of instruction, and is absolutely incorrect. The syllabus says that in the teaching of Nature study and science the scheme of work should be arranged bo that the senior pupils “ gain some definite ideas oi*'the principle of evolution.” Moreover, the “ should ” is governed by the statements, page 5, that the whole syllabus is ‘ mainly suggestive, 1 ' and that the teachers are “free to make any alteration or rearrangement of work they think desirable.” These, sir, are facts, and the only kind of facts ■which can be sustained by reference to the syllabus. They are evidently unknown to Mi Fraser. Mv respect for him, 1 hough based on a slight acquaintance, is such that I am nnwjlHngjto believe he would deliberately suppress or manipulate tin l evidence.—l am, etc., F. G. A. SrucKiii'; March 26.