Show IN REGARD TO unorganized MATTER lf thi the EVENING of wednesday we published a letter from dr john R park in which lie he essays to reply to our article reviewing a lecture delivered by the doctor before the summer institute he seems to led feel hurt at the critic tem and to make of it a personal matter something that we studiously avoided not even mentioning ane gent lemans name he complains that the report was only a summary of the lecture this we explained to our readers and repeatedly referred to the report in order not to blame the lecturer but lie says from such a report it is not likely that the sentiments of the lecturer could be fully or properly communicated either in their spirit or intent that is something which we tail to see we can caa understand that in a synopsis injustice may be do done ne to a speaker and we so intimated in our criticism but if a speakers sentiments cannot be properly communicated either in spirit or intent in a summary the sooner all summaries are abolished the better lor for the public 0 but the doctor does not point out the portions of the report that are incorrect his fault is is found with tile article in the MEWS which he says abounds in gross errors yet ne lie tana fails to cite a single error that anat we advanced therein we can readily understand der blaud stand his irritation under tilt the circumstances particularly if tie lie was mis misapprehend misapprehended eu or misrepresented but we wish it to be understood that tile the fault if any was with tue tile report and not with the lae news the report was official lt it was not taken by a newspaper man but was furnished f urnis lied by the secretary ot or tile the institute and it ii it was so erroneous as now intimated would it not have been better to point out the errors which must have been so pal paole in tile before tile the fallacy ot of its assertions were exposed in our columns it the lecturer was wab so greatly misrepresented there was wab ample time for luli full correction long before we attempted any comments on the subject and y yet t according to the doctors Doctor own admit ision the report was wa 81 in the main correct as aa reports of this kind go 1 and the deductions are said to be incorrect first farat the complaint Is against the report on the ground t thai h at such a report could not properly prop eily rep tile spirit spine or mient intent ol of the me lecturers meaning and then it 16 1 is 1 4 admitted that tile the report was in tile the main correct and the lault is put pat upon me lae deductions we that n noth 0 ing appeared in tile the NEWS but what was the luc logical and inevitable outcome ot of the and theory given in tile the official report leport of the le lealure lec iuie cLure and we consider me lae report a well written and succinct synopsis every point touched on being clearly stated in simple 81 1 au language but here is the doctors explanation the object of the lecturer in referring to protoplasm was to place mind before belore his hearers in its sIM simplest known medium of matter organized or not being unessential to the purpose in view that they might perceive there the same general character that la is sensibility aion and ana will tuat that are wand lound in the higner higher and more complicated forms ut of animal lite life and thus snow that mind is ib an endowment from the creator and the cause of organization and not the result of it RUU and that the hig higher her the organization of the matter e enveloping av eloping the mind the greater Is its power powei 01 m manifestation inife station how can be anything in this we answer there is nothing in that which silo shows wd tuat that mind is an endowment from the creator out but unfortunately no such idea was conveyed either directly or 01 by implication in the report ot tile the lecture almost every point in it earned carried a contrary imports hion aion it made unorganized matter slime 11 protoplasm 4 existing independent dependent iu ot at or 01 unassociated with organized matter tue tile foundation and source of all organisms it gave the unorganized matter matte r to form a eel cell 1 that anat cell to form other cells those cells to arrange themselves until all the forms of animal life and the won ders ot of mind were produced aud and that without a hint of anything auy taing above beyond or outside of tile the unorganized matter or us its wonderful products li IL the Lae lecturer intended to convey the idea of the works of a creator Cie ator the reporter must have studiously expunged theider the idea andio and so arranged ne he speakers argument as to establish tile the very opposite awe we tail lail to see how unorganized matter containing the essential elements of mind can show that mind is an endowment from the creator if a bit of unorganized I 1 unassociated with organized matter is where all organized mat ter originates and it is in that that some of the great problems ot of life and mind are solved does it not appear as if a creator is ia thus dispensed with and the extreme doctrines ol of evolution sustained we are sorry borry to see that notwithstanding his disclaimer dr park still holds to this unorganized matter theory if he was not properly reported ormedia in the synopsis tie he certainly does s not no misrepresent himself yet he speaks in his letter of development from the amoeba this tais brings us back to the gist of our whole argument and as we view it the fundamental f und error of tile the lecture structure means arrangement of parts or of constituent particles in a substance or body webster that is has no arrangement of parts it is unorganized gani zed we have already sno shown wn that the itte amoeba are not tuat they are organized animals and that they are something more than mere protoplasm but that dos att affect this vital question if amoeba are unorganized and yet contain all the es essentials s e a i ia is 0 of f m mind in d and d them the h higher t g ii t r fo forat r ms 0 of f an life if e are developed by cells that arrange themselves vea into bone muscle nerve and ad also the organs of sense what need is there to dispute over the fact of a creator asks no more for the foundation of his godless creed we have found no fault with development we have not said there is any harm in in stating it the development of man or woman from the infant child has not been disputed that is not the question it is but an evasion ot tile the quest question ion rhe phe harm done Js is in asserting that any animal structure evolves or develops irom a substance we say it has never been done it has never been seen an unorganized substance never improvised a cell every organism has sprung from or is the production of an organism it is this thib claim of unorganized jelly as the basis babis of all lite lile and mind to which we object and it is set forth as directly but not so fully or clearly in the doctors letter as in the synopsis of his hia lecture tie lie asks what higher conception can we have of god and the human spirit than that he is the author of our being bi ing and we are his progressive children we answer that depends upon the meaning of that conception if 1 it means that we have sprung body and spirit from I 1 unorganized protoplasm even it il under the di direction re action of a supreme pow bower er there is a higher conception and that is that our oui spirits are the off spring of god gadaud and that our bodies nave have come from an eternal line of ancestry always of the ame lame L species that however degraded man may become from his own departure from divine law he is still the of deity I 1 ibe he doctor states that much of our criticism is taken up in an argument with darwin and huxley that it ib a most unfortunate assertion lor for him to make for we did not offer a single quotation from either darwin or 11 hurley aXley and every argument we used was in reference to tue tile theories advanced in the lecture as reported the connection of those theories with the heresies her esies of tile the noted agnostics is thus established by the doctor and he be must not blame us for the damaging association As to tue tile confounding of the senses with the organs of genbe the doctor claims to 10 have made the proper distinction 6 ion and says we can discover this by examining the notes taken by b any one present at the lecture we did examine the official notes furnished by tue tile secretary who was present at the lecture and found this confusion of terms in two separate reports of differ eit portions of the same dame lecture 1 and surely it is as a general proposition safer to rely on oil something that chat the institute has furnished for publication than on private notes taken by some one unauthorized to report but we are pleased to give the efficient preceptor credit for the mis takeoff lake of the secretary and also for hie bif indirect acknowledgment ot of the creator as the author ot our being and of the endowment of mind the difficulty is the incompatibility of that admission and the theory of life and mind in matter and anat unorganized mass being the source of development into all the higher forms of animate nature we cheerfully give prominence romi nence to this feature of dr br parks letter and wish that it had bad formed part of the report of the lecture when it would have given a different colorato co color lorto to the whole subject As to the alleged ridicule it if our friend will read the article without haste or irritation he be will discover very little that can be justly subject to that term and that little is simply a connected summary of the theories advanced in the lecture as reported we have no words approaching to 10 ridicule ridi iule of the gentleman himself himsel nor any feeling but one of kindness he has mistaken our motive in ia criticizing th the lecture electure we have personally and in this paper defended him and the excellent institution of which tie he is the principal from f roul hasty charges and insinuations and were calef careful ul in the article not to impeach him or his bis intentions and we remind him that all we had bad to comment on was the report which he be acknowledges was in tile the main correct as such reports go and could have no knowledge of or guide to his intentions except that which was furnished in that report the tendency of our article was to show that unorganized matter en dowed with wit all tile cosent al qualities of mind is an error and that matter cannot of itself put fortu a cell which developing others themselves in various forms laub constitute everything in nature through which mind is manifested but that there is a power beyond and superior to all things which gives lite life to and is the organizer of all things if the tendency to tills this appears to the doctor not good we are sorry for his failure to apprehend both our motive and the tendency of our criticism the report of the lecture had gone out iu in two popular newspapers it ii remained for several days uncorrected and objected to by the lecturer ec it had provoked comment as conveying erroneous ideas that were likely reported as coming from so eminent a public teacher to do great injury it became our duty to point out what we considered la incorrect correct aad ad we per formed that duty with as careful calef ua a regard as possible for the feelings f I 1 i and d reputation r e p u t a of the leel lere unde aou aurer r under r t ahe h e is same a m circumstances we should do the same again if ab leand do not that teat any one need make of it a personal matter it we have advanced gross errors of course they are open to ref refutation u batio n all we want is the truth and liberty to declare it and this we expect to strive to maintain according to co the motto which hits has been carried so long ion at tile the head of tills this paper we believe in development we believe in progress pro grese and we also believe in a god wha is to us all the author of life liht light truth and tue the power of advancement who is literally our father ad to whom we owe the highest allegiance as parent director and king |