Show DR PARKS PARK 18 SECOND REPLY WE give place today to day to another letter just received from dr john R park which we ask our readers to digest before perusing this article the doctor at first acquits us of intentional injustice which is kind and proper because we had no intention to do him or any one injury but only to correct what we considered errors likely to be injurious but to toward ward the close of the letter the doctor attempts once more to make a personal matter of our criticism and to denounce it as an unjust attack this we again disclaim and also deny that the institution which he brings in as in danger from our remarks is likely to be hurt thereby in any way far more injury is likely to occur from the theories projected in the report of ilia his lecture than from what we have said in their refutation the explanation now given that the life which precedes organization is an endowment ot of the creator is for the first time definitely presented as coming from the lecturer let the present statement be compared with the report which the lecturer admitted was in the main correct as such reports go eo I 1 I 1 and the wide difference will be palpable to evera intelligent mind after giving this explanation the doctor remarks what there is a of t tendency in these statements or what objection the most orthodox can have to facts that have been proved by ocular demonstration on I 1 fail to see just so but the objections we advanced were not made a against these statements but against the ideas advanced in the mainly correct report of the lecture neither were they offered against anything that has been proved by ocular dem demonstration on 11 and it is not very ingenuous to defend new statements under pretence predence pre tence of refuting arguments against former and different assertions we might enlarge on this but we do not dot wish to be severe weare we are very glad to see the doat doctor or come out plainly and squarely aud and attribute life and all its phenomena and powers to the gift of god and if our criticism accomplishes nothing more than the eliciting of this avowal it will produce an excellent effect but at the same time it will cause a feeling of wonder in the minds of tile the investigating public how bow the report of the lecturer and the statements now advanced by the doctor can be fully harmonized moni zed however we are gra gratified titled at his announcement and do not wish to dwell on the other matter except as we are compelled to by the doctors remarks the numerous hypotheses put forth by dr park as aa something that perhaps 16 believe 1 7 I we or perhaps we object to or perhaps we will say or may bl be ell we will claim we pass by as puerile in a purported ted reply to what we have claimed and said and objected to only remarking that to presume on what we nay may perhaps say or think or claim I 1 is it a queer style of answering something tuat we have stated and published will not the acute reader conclude that such reasoning is to be classed with the method of claiming exemption from a charge of atheism for a theory that excludes deity because of another theory newly advanced that admits deity the quotation from agassiz has not the slightest application to our argument because in our claim of a creator we did not ignore agnore creatures nor the physical laws by which the creator manifests his wisdom and power but while recognizing those things that are seen we simply insisted upon the recognition of the power that is i unseen and which was entirely excluded from the report of the lecture that we criticized in the doctors present endeavor to show that charges and insinuations I 1 have been made against him he resorts to the same game method of diverting attention from tile the real question which we have bentiv touched upon above he asks the reader not to compare our remarks with the report to which they applied but to his summary written after our arg argument u was published and then to say whether he has been misrepresented 11 to use his own language I 1 any child who can put pat his syllables together can readily see how evasive and unreasonable that is we are sorry htmat the doctor has become so cont confused used as he intimates that he cannot perceive the application of the quotations we made from from distinguished scientists he complains about our citations irom from webster and steele and sets up lip a very fine distinction thit that is between the word organized gani zed as used anatomically and the same word as used physiologically sio logically Is not knot tills this very nearly allied allied to that dis which is said to be without a difference ference but he be has claimed all alons along that his lecture was not delivered with scientific precision but in a homely common sense way now in a homely common sense way is not dot unorganized matter that which is without wit hout arrangement design or fitness of part to part and is it good homely common sense to say that a creature mat lives moves feels contracts improvises a temporary stomach seizes and digests food and rejects the refuse and exhibits the essential qualities of mind is unorganized matter the doctor in his first reply calls it which in a homely way has the same meaning as the other term li it is amusing to read the doctors complaint complain against us when it is so applicable to himself he says had you observed these distinctions etc if the doctor had observe observed d them in the lecture instead of instituting them now 1 he would not have exposed himself to so 80 much criticism if he had explained e as he does now that matter is organized when it performs the functions of life and that the term is thus used in a physiological sense he would have made the matter clear and there would probably have been little left for objection but no such distinction or explanation or hint of it appeared in the report which we criticized As to the doctor will find on an closer investigation that he be is a little I 1 mistaken concerning those creatures and that they are organized orAni zed both in an anatomical and physiological sense but this is not of so much consequence as the notion that all organized goeings can be traced for their origin to self cell producing unorganized matter that is what misleads and that was the basis of our objections for that precludes any necessity lor for an aa organizer the spontaneous generation idea chica we understand the doctor now DOW to disclaim was conveyed to the ordinary reader deader by the statement that unorganized protoplasm put forth a blister which formed into a cell ant and that cells self multiplied arranged themselves into all forms of life jur objection to that remains and will remain without further light which we have no reason to believe will be forthcoming and how the lecturers description 16 of protoplasm as unorganized can be as well supported by our quotations as he claims is something we have not been able to discover it seema that after all the doctor has had to remark that he finds it difficult to say what was wrong and what not in our treatment of the question but he simply charges the article with misrepresentations concerning the I 1 lecture which a comparison compari soa now will make apparent A comparison of our article with the report of the lecture both of which went to the public together will snow show that this charge is utterly groundless and the comparison wanted now DOW is S with what he has written since the th lecture electure which the most ordinary mind can see would not affect the question lu estion of misrepresenting the lecture in the smallest r mal lest degree the doctors error now is in trying ta keep up this discussion in that kind of spirit we are willing to give him all the opportunity he can reasonably ask to explain his true position but we are not t willing to allow him to attribute improper motives to us or attempt to place us in a false position without reply we are glad aglid to he agneas w with ith us in recognizing a supreme being as the author and ruler kuler of all things for to promote the ac of our eternal father in this position was the true aim and object of our efforts on this important im suba subject act |