| OCR Text |
Show B. Y. U. STUDENTS DESTROY REPLY 1 THE PRDTESTTHEY FORMULATED i Diplomatically but firmly They Warn the Faculty H That it Modern Teachings Are Excluded They ;H Must Look Elsewhere for Their Education; jH Demand Freedom of Investigation H SAY CHURCH CANNOT IGNORE SCIENCE Ifl Evolution, Petition Declares, Gives New View of jfl Mormon Religion, hut Accounts for More PH Facts Than Any Other Hypothesis; Re- tention of Professors Asked jH B. Y. U. students, asking for the retention of three teachers H of evolution anal the higher criticism, present the following argu- lH ments: 11 No church is big enough to ignore science. iH Freedom of investigation requisite to progress. jl If tho Mo'rmon gospel is true it will triumph over error without ar- I'l tificial aid. llH Theology, not science, is .the church's metier. 11 Evolution, although causing students to view Mormon doctrine in dif- . ferent light, nevertheless accounts for more actual facts than any other hypothesis. iH If these professors go none other of like scholarship and like sym 11 pathywith Mormonism can ho found. . . - Their removal will hurt school's credit in oastern universities. Students would be compelled to look elsewhere for a complete educa Missionaries to do effective work must be educated to cope with scl- jH entiflc arguments leveled at their church. Without a knowledge of evolu- tion they would be useless. Toleration of others' beliefs also is part of jH missionaries' creed. Tho very existence of school as a progressive institution is involved. ; Mormon church, too, will surfor if thoso professors go. Special to The Tribune. PROVO, March 15. After rccoiving from the presidency of tho Brigham Young university today an answer to their protest against the contemplated dismissal of three professors who have been teaching evolution and the higher high-er criticism, the students decided to give to the public the full text of the protest. The students assembled in mass meeting this morning to receive the answer to their protest, which they arc pleased to designate b the mild tonn " petition.' The answer, which .was in the form of a private communication communi-cation to the students, was destroyed as soon as the meeting adjourned. This remarkable action led to the report that, the students were deeply offended b' tho tone of the presidency's reply, but students who were questioned declared de-clared that tho answer, while not altogether alto-gether satisfactory, was couched in the most considerate terms, it made no specific reference to evolution, psychology, psychol-ogy, the higher criticism or even to Professors Joseph and Henry Potcrsou or Professor Chamberlin. A nswer Softly XZorded "The faculty fully appreciates the attitude of the students and their friendship expressed for the school," is one of tho sentences quoted from tho answer. In spile of their temperate and diplomatic dip-lomatic conduct, the stuleuts determined deter-mined to givo their side of the controversy con-troversy to tho public. In doing so they addressed the following uotc to The Tribune: Editor Salt. Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, I't.ili: Dear Sir Tho inclosed statement - of the aliunde of tlio collcpo students stu-dents was ratified and signed by 113 out of 111 students unrolled. The ordinal purpose wna to rnnkc tho statement only to the presidency of the school, but since numerous garbled gar-bled nccounts .have already boon published pub-lished we thought. best to wive thu , article to the public in the exact form, confident that tho statement would speak for Itself- Text of Petition The comploto text of the "petition" is as follows: Vq believe that we have sincere-v sincere-v at heart tho interests of tho church, the Interests of the Brlpham Young; university, and perhaps our own selfish Interests as coIIoko students, and we respectfully ask that our voice be considered In a matter that Is of vital concern to the school and lo every Individual connected there-. J with, viz., the question as to whether wheth-er some of tho subjects of science ' which are being: taught from the ' modern sclent lllc viewpoint aro to be excluded. We tnke It for Brant -etl that the question at issue is mutually mu-tually understood without detailed explanation and will proceed ut once with our reasons for asking that Dr. Joseph Peterson, Dr. Ralph V. Chamberlin anil Prof. Henry Peterson Peter-son shall be retained by the faculty. In the- first place, wo believe that freedom of lnvcxllKatloii a :L fundamental funda-mental necessity for all scientific, 4 i religious, or any other kind of prog- rcss, and that we, of all people, can M least afford to take any stand against it. or do anything that will be interpreted as such a stand. 'fl We believe that tho ?reat prob- 'H Ictus of modern science arc worthy of H our most respectful consideration, and we realize the folly of attempt-lug attempt-lug to solve them independently nml alone by Ignoring the findings of Nl tho past and the work that Is be- Pl in? done at present by others who arc striving- with honesty and sin- jil cerity equal to our own and with ll better facilities. I'H Hint and Warning Even if tt were desirable for a church school to maintain an atti- jl tudc contrary (o tho generally ac- ,H ccpted stand of the scientific world, It Is absolutely impossible for tho Ml reason that, except in theology, the tll church docs not furnish adequate !! material for college work, and we must necessarily look elsewhere. 'Il From some of tho printed slate- Lll ments of the first presidency we take !jH it -that it Is not tho function of the iH church 4 o pass upon scientific ques- IH Hons, but rather to furnish theo- logical direction. The general theory Hl of evolution is not put forth as the- i ological doctrine, but Is hold to slm- jll ply as a working hypothesis, because ''ifll of the great number of observable i'l facts In nature which it explains and j.l to which It gives meaning. It will 'fl be discarded without a tear just as iil soon as another hypothesis is brought lil forth which explains a larger num- ill bcrof facts, but we believe that w IIH ought not to condemn this valuable rl theory until we Pie able to examine lil the evidence upon which it is based Sjl more carefully and more completely ' than It has ever been examined be- i'H foro and produce a better explana- 'iH tion of the workings of nature with ll which to condemn the old one. Xo llH other sort of condemnation can ever 'IH be effective. Shall we acquire the Ijl power to do this by excluding the 'H subject from our schools? Freedom of Inquiry jH In view of the fact that the bast !H modem educational thought takes !H us a ba.sis the theory of evolution, pH we feci that It. should be taught iH here. This does not mean that we liH thereby assume that the theory is IH true or false, but simply that be- I'H cause It Is commanding the attention of the greatest thinkers. It should be open lo Investigation. IH As collego men and women we IH have confidence that If the evidences which tend to support tho theory of evolution to be presented simply for what I hey are worth we win have sufficient discretion to determine whether or not we wish to accept ll them. In so far as we have studied IH the subjects In qtie?tlon wo feel that v.'( have broadened. In that wo have seen both sides of a mooted ques- tlon. Wo believe that it is not tho IH proper attitude to fight a proposition !H by ruling U completely out of con- jH sldcrntlon. We feel that If our go a- IH pc Is true It will triumph ovor error J without any artificial protection. We '1 understand that it Invites us to In- vosllgate anything that is "praise- B worthy or of good report " hence to H prohibit the ln cstlgation of n sl- entlllc theory so well established as B the theory of evolution Is scarcely pBVJ living up lo our understanding of t ho HBVJ gospel. Would It not be better to IflBVJ thruw the question open to study and S'l Continued on Page Three. Pl B. Y. U. STUDENTS MAKE THEIR PROTEST PUBLIC Continued Pram Page One. v Investigation, if for no other reason than that we stand for fair play and toleration of the beliefs of all men? Is this not our missionary watchword? watch-word? We aro convinced that nothing can be gained by excluding these subjects from our college, since every man or woman who goes cast of west to colleges of high rank must faco the questions. We believe that wo should piovlde for him to meet them here under circumstances that will assist him in making for sane, conservative, con-servative, and logical adjustment. We have Just reached tho point In our educational career as. a college where our work is being recognized by up-to-date universities. This recognition means considerable to us educationally and to our hopes as a church of wielding nn influence among humanity. If the proposed restrictions re-strictions are adopted It needs only common foresight to foretell the effect ef-fect upon our credit abroad. Those of us who have had work under the men who arc being criticised criti-cised arc unanimous In denying tho nlleged evil effects of their teachings. teach-ings. They are all leaders in their respective re-spective lines. They are eminently successful as teachers, and for our present needs we consider them to bo without peers. Aside from our appreciation ap-preciation of their scholarship, wo havo the highest respect for their integrity as men and as loyal members mem-bers of the church. (JsIeecl of Suck Courses Those of us who have had missionary mis-sionary experience reallzo tho need of just such a course as we are getting get-ting now to enable us to defend tho truth against all comers. While wo arc free to admit that in tho new light some points of doctrine, as wo have understood them, lose their former for-mer color, we see a deeper moaning In llfo than before, additional evidence evi-dence of an all-wise God. and a new and holler significance in tho message mes-sage of Mormonlsm and all other revelations of God to man. It Is not simply a question of dropping drop-ping the professors who havo been criticised, but we bollevo that tho proposed policv, if persisted in, can amount to nothing else than a deaLh-blow deaLh-blow to our college work, because it Is Impossible to secure men equal in scholarship to tho ones we have, who are so thoroughly In sympathy with the church, who do not give credence to the same objectlonablo theories. We have great folth In the church and can hardly imagine that any policy contrary to its best needs will be adopted, but wo ask you to consider con-sider what tho proposed restriction -would mean for us educationally, anil what it would mean to our critics, and what It would mean to our standing in the educational world. Some of our fondest hopes havo been for tho future of the "dar old 13. Y. U." that it would continue to grow and continue to adupt Itself to the growing needs of humanitv and demonstrate dem-onstrate to the world, as only that can demonstrate, that Mormonlsm Is? a real, vitalized, divlno institution. institu-tion. C. II. Carroll James Clove. Jr. G. L. Luke Joseph D. Foster O. W. WhllnUcr Il.vrum Harris Heber Snell Charles Ilafen Fred Buss A. L. Kolly Andrew Gibbons llan.. Peterson II M. Woodward I.. IL Nelson Uyrlng Thompson Juantta Johnson J. 13. Storrs Klvu Kelly Anna Ollorlon Archie Tliunnan C. P. Olson Kenneth Uorg M. O. Paulson S. W. Williams S. 13. Hlgby Bessie Flndlov J. Morrill George Aubrey Andclin Lola Ollorlon J. It. Tlppctts Alma Esplln F. Wm. Hacking J. W. Nixon, Jr. Arthur L. Bceslcy Reuben Hill Odeen Luke CIkis. Scbwcnckc Virgo L. Johnson Kimbnll Young Dottle Deal Charles Redd Goo. Wort hen Ray Oberhansley Kraslux S. P.omney M. W, Poulson Margaret Crook D. R. Mitchell Cliarlottu Grcen-131 Grcen-131 1 F. Taylor wood Samuel B-nird Hugh IMdaway Harrison Hurst G. Ray Hales Carl F. ISyring G. G. Meld rum Emily Woodward Laura Hickman Leroy Nelson Emily Wnnlass George Haws Sadie Lloyd F. L. Hickman Dora Day J. M. Pond- Pearl Holdaway Paul Miner J. L. Lybhcrt James Jensen Hyrum Mnnwarlng Ray Monson W. L. Wnnlass Marie Clark Laura Bird Zlna Johnson Preal Kolse.v J. H. Tucker Samantha Thorno H. L. Rood I'earl Kelsey Harold Finch llerschel Pearson William Baker I A. W. Tracy Carlos Woodward Arthur Hnfcn Thomas L. Martin Ivy Hall David Gourley j LaPreal Straw A. It. Ovcrlade jAlmlc Taylor Mary Kill A. T. Itasmussen B. F. Larson |
