Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 10, No. 10. July 16, 1947
Salient Smacked
Salient Smacked
Dear Sir,—
The main feature of your issue of June 11 was about the radio serial "How Things Began" and its suspension: this article calls for some comment.
The fact that Professors Ford and Whittard approved of the serial proves only that they approved of it. They are not infallible. Even "Salient" must know that other Professors do not approve of Evolution as used in "How Things Began." The use of those names, therefore, amounts to a very old fallacy of which "Salient" should be ashamed.
One good point of this article is that it quoted the "Listener's" summary of the serial: and that summary shows that Evolution is not used in the serial as a theory or a hypothesis, but as something fully demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt. And that, precisely, is the objectionable character of the serial—it elevates a mere theory to the dignity of a dogma. The serial dogmatises about Evolution in the singularly efficient manner of presuming that Evolution is clearly true. The "dogmatic" trouble is in the serial and in those who want it broadcast to children who would easily be deceived by it. The dogmatic trouble is not in those who object to the serial on the solid ground that it is wrong to present to children a mere theory dressed up in the truth of a dogma.
Your article says: "The only criticism was on anti-evolutionary grounds and that in letters to the Editor of daily newspapers." But how do you know that no other criticism was made? That fact that Miss Jean Combs knew of no other criticism, proves only that she knew of no other. Again, "Salient" is illogical in jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence.
And even if the only criticism was letters to the Editor in daily newspapers, one such letter pointing out the radical error of presenting to children who have no critical ability, a mere theory to which there are grave difficulties, and to which in its extreme form there are overwhelming objections is sufficient reason for the suspension of the serial. For it is enough for one sensible person to expose so gross an error—enough, surely, for protective action for our children.
Your article on "Education or Dogma" appeals to teachers. But why? It is not the function of teachers to decide what shall be taught, but to teach what they are told—provided that they are not asked to violate conscience. Teachers are the servants of the parents to whom pupils belong: and even if "Salient" would hold, with totalitarian regimes, that children belong not to parents but to the State, or the nation, or the race, or the collectivity, teachers are the servants of the State. And their function is to do as they are told! It is certainly not for them to decide what children shall learn.
It is nice of "Salient" to say: "It is a public duty to criticise the curriculum of schools, provided the bases of criticism are sound and logical." But it is also impudent and impertinent for "Salient" to act as though it has the right to decide what constitutes "solid and logical grounds" for criticism. This article, "Education or Dogma." provides grounds for grave doubts about "Salient's" aptitude to recognise true reasons for criticism.
"Salient's" appeal to the fact that "How Things Began" was a B.B.C. programme logically amounts to this: if the B.B.C. made a mistake, let us follow suit. Is the B.B.C. infallible? If it is not, do not follow it blindly and do not repeat its errors.
"How Things Began" has appeared in summary form in the "Broadcasts to Schools Handbook." But again that proves nothing beyond itself. If this argument proves anything, it proves that everything that has been issued to teachers, is true: but not even "Salient" with its penchant for fallacies, will be so silly as to hold that.
P.S.—Regarding "Salient's" notes to Mr. McIntyre's letter: In "Salient's" opinion the theory of Evolution is the theory which best explains the facts: but that proves that "Salient" so thinks. It proves nothing more than that, and that is not much worth proving.
If teachers desire this series of talks, they are certainly welcome so to desire. What they have not proved and what "Salient" has not proved is that the teachers have any right to have the series broadcast. As is said above, the business of the teachers is to teach as they are told.
Finally it is by no means certain that the authorities conceded to only a small minority: as far as "Salient" knows that is the case: but "Salient" is by no means omniscient and we have learnt not to rely too much upon all statements made in its columns.
Anthropus.
In controversial matters everyone claims a right to his opinions. In its article on the suspension of "How Things Began" "Salient" exercised that right—as Anthropus claims his in this letter. It is, however, fair to admit that a considerable majority of the more eminent modern biologists lend their support to the theory of Evolution: We agree with their findings.
The serial merely presents in dramatic form the results of modern scientific interpretation of observed facts. This can scarcely be regarded as more dogmatic or objectionable than the religion which is dished out over the radio, and which rests upon a scientific foundation of no greater demonstrable validity.
In nearly all primary schools ministers of religion avail themselves of the opportunity of preaching their dogma to children. In the case of the serial, as in the case of this religious instruction, children had a right of non-attendance.
In a country which boasts of secular education, surely a case for the theory of Evolution, which is accepted in its main outlines by many Christians, has a right of presentation equal to that of unproven religious dogma.
(Correspondence on this subject is now closed.
—Ed.)