Show QUESTIONABLE TEA TEACHINGS A A R RED 1 PLY Tl j 3 In the editorial columns of THE CHRONICLE CHRON CHRON- ICLE of March 13 appeared a short criticism criticism criticism cism of Professor Pauls Paul's papers on Design Design Design De in N Nature atur in the sign published published- College- College Record In Jais bis reply to this criticism m Pi Professor s Raul Paul mentions THE THE- CHRONICLE a as being eing the official organ of the University University Uni Uni- an and I fr from m this he seems to draw the conclusion that hat the p University ni or or- more concisely the instructors of the theU U University are r responsible for the criticism criticism cism of his papers Now if Prof Paul aul d did d not already know knoY that as a rule ule all college papers are con conducted ducted by students he might have con convinced convinced convinced con vinced himself with regard to THE CHRONICLE CI RONICE by reading its title page A 4 little thought might have convinced him him also that while a college paper is supposed supposed sup sup- posed to present the ideas a and anil a opinions of gf the the stu students it i is not necessary that it it- it should always represent only the majority By considering the question in a fair- fair minded minded way he e might also ls have have ai arrived arrived at the co conclusion conclusion- which which is inevitable that in an institution which cl claims ims to be n non sectarian n ian and not to favor any party party- or clique either in politics religion or philosophy the surest possible evidence evidence- of its being what it professes to be is that its students hold varying views on ally all speculative subjects The idea that Students students students stu stu- dents should not express these views is is absurd If any of them should be dan dangerous dangerous dangerous dan dan- or questionable there is more danger liable to result from their suppression suppression suppression sion than from their expression But Prof Paul misses all these points points- and flies off at a tangent He exclaims exclaims- 16 what a pity that such buch should be spread by the official organ i fl of the University of Utah But at thes the- the s same same n e time in replying to THE TILE CH CHRONICLES CHRONICLE'S CHRONICLEs CHRONICLE's CHRONI 1 CLES CLE'S criticism he studiously ignores TIIA I 1 i Ii I A CHRONICLE an and refers directly and personally personally personally per per- to his critic For this reason leason I reply to him personally It will be noticed that Prof Paul while heading his article Questionable Teaching makes makes- no o attempt therein to sIlo show in what way vay t the e criticism he ob- ob je ts-to ts indicates que questionable ble teaching instead he confines him himself elf to his own defense d defense and find to to toan an an attempt tf to s 's show ow wherein the criticism is la lacking king kingin in l logic gic This of cou course course i is in the direct nature of ofa ofa ofa a a a defense and is what one one ne would natural natural- naturally Iy ly expect defense of f h his s position was the ls object why di did ii i he choose hoos such a title litre for his article If If on the th other h hand nd he wis wished ed to slow show that th t the criticism in qu question tion indicated ques questionable s- s teaching why did he not show w wherein herein the eVil lies If If he h has s n the criticism to be be absurd then then 1 It i is-at is at least harmless if l lie e has had shown it to tobe be illogical even sti still l h he lias las not not shown makes make no attempt to show wh wherein rein it has an evil tendency Or pr does he assume that it is ma manifestly 1 fe t y wrong for any per per- person person son to presume to criticise one s so so immaculate as Professor P Paul ul It would certainly certainly certainly seem so We must obviously come to one of tw two 0 conclusions either Prof Pauls Paul's exclamations of sui surprise prise and pity are aie hypocritical or else they are absurd As to the papers on I Design signI I I repeat my previous assertion they are valuable valuable valuable ble chiefly for the facts they con con- tain For the rest the re reasoning is loose and often fallacious And those defects ds are shown to even a greater degree degree de- de gree in his reply from which I will vill quote He says The induction was therefore that since it takes mf mind J to carry carryon on our part of the process it likewise takes mind to carry carryon on the whole process of of which our industry is a part on the well-known well principle rth that t lik like effects are w produced d by like causes causes Then he asks r Does the critic know of any intelligence intelligence intelligence intelli intelli- gence that is not a particular in intelligence intelli intelli- lIi that gence gence that is not a personal be being being being be- be ing I r I said nothing about personal intelligence nce What I did say say Was that tha even even th though ugh the necessity for the existence ex existence exist exist- sten st- st en ence e- e of an intelligence governing nature eis e- e is proven to o a a certa certainty nty it does doe's n not t follow that a particular deity must be that in intelligence in- in rice Allowing g Prof Pauls Paul's inference infer inference infer infer- rence r ence that if intelligence is manifested dl anywhere re such intelligence he belongs ong's t td a ta a a personality and even all allowing wing that there exists an 1 analogy na between the the limited finite mind w whose se workings are known know 1 tl ii us us arid and rid the unlimited mit d infinite int intelligence the uni necessary for the governing g of t 1 verse vers ev even ri then the argument t. t is riot not not cleared of f fallacy Allowing that this intelligence in- in in intelligence must necessarily be bep p personal there still the question c Who o or ar or what is this personality It is proved provE w by analogy that the unknown infinite in intelligence intelligence in- in e in some some way way resembles tHe trie- known wn fi finite He intelligence but Pi of P Paul Pauly I. I substitutes an an n unknown in h his bis' bis equation m without any word of proof as s to its possessing pos pos- possessing sessi g the fhe necessary qualities qualities sufficient resemblance to to the known Perhaps he he- will say that God as cis' cis taught by Moses is- is generally accepted as as' possessing the these e qualities In this case his rg m argument tends ent er t tends tends- only to demonstrate an an n already aheady and obvious truth and is therefore valueless valueless value value- less l ss except as a specimen of logic It Itis is not the argument for foi Desi Design ii but f from 2 Design I referred to as being I have sh shown wn that it is incomplete te and hence that the papers are valuable chiefly for the facts they contain I did in truth see sec that the facts were set forth only as a basis for the writers writer's inductions but m must st I therefore take the perfection for Jor of of 01 both hoth inductions and deduction granted Prof p Paul ul assumes assumes that beI be be- I cause a lse I I. I point out his fallacies I am an enemy to religion as as if he were the sole champion I pion of religion The Pi Professor of defends defends defends de de- fends a system m of theo theology ogy and his d de- de use ie f ease is a questionable support as I have shown but since inco he has luli with evident in intent in- in tent teut to deceive inferred that I oppose i re- re e- e when I I. I cr criticise ti ise his pap papers s 1 I declares it iT as my nay y belief that true the religion the thel e l bro d s and and best can best can very w well U do without without with with- out such sophistry as that indulged d in by J. J Pd Prof d of PaulA Paul A to the remaining objections ns set forth in Prof Pauls Paul's answer he does make the Direct ass assumption in Nos No's VI am and VIII that hat the dle the theory ry o of evolution i is no v vain in inhar har harmony ony with what hat he ets sets forth and pd that there can caa be no reconciliation between the theory of survival of ol the fittest fittest and that of the cc design And further Prof Paw JPaul c cannot not show that Any uny co cosmic mic philosophy phil phil- Qs p uti dating that of mo modern lern evolution lion tion oI- oI even attempted t to demonstrate the existence of order orderly sequence e in nature a as asja ja jt whole The psalmist exclaims s but exclamations exclamations exl ex ex- l mation are not demonstrations though Prof Paul through some mysterious process process pro pro- cess ess of mental gymnastics seems to have arrived 21 rived at this otherwise impossible cono con con- o elusion Copernicus s and Newton proved the existence of law and order in the movement of the planets but this had nothing to do with se sequence as applied to tot tow w t organic c nature Hence their systems St t. t were systems of fragments and po rational I attempt was was made ade to Ul unite ite them until the resent century k I made no implication that there exists in tl intelligence that is not a personal in intelligence intelligence in- in though I might r reasonably i have said that only an infinite being which ich has nothing beyond it to condition f jt it can be even subsisting self-subsisting much less Jess c can n be able ble to i rule ule the universe e and that t at any any ny intelligence e analogous to that at of which we are aie cognizant must must ne es- es be bea a limited conditi intelligence M 1 As to the theory theory theory-of of evolution mY invalidating 1 1 tho the argument for design I cant can't possibly see how my remarks could have been becu construed construed con con- to mean any s Stich ch thing But Prof j Paul as he has often shown On previous occasions lets pass no opportunity gity of trying trying try try- ing to injure the tho reputation of This Uni Un But by ignoring the CUR CHRONICLE NICLE E and challenging his his' critic he h has given s me Ine the opportunity of assuming the responsibility re for the criticism in ill question and of freeing the CHRONICLE from the odium which might t atta attach h to it through Ugh th the prejudice of certain classes to which Prof Paul Pul is unfair enough and malicious enough to appeal V W. G. G ROYLANCE |