Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1873-02-13
Let the Truth be Known.


on geology, through this part of the
!country, is an avowed intidel. That his
theological lectures show him to be an
lenthusisst of the strongest kind, and I'M
der the guise of lecturer on geology.
his prime purpose is to found lnfidel So
IcietIes,, IN the accepted terms of "a soci-
ETY. for the promotion of natural knowl-
edge. as opposed to supernatural" The
following, to any posted mind, ought to
be proof. 81 will tell you now, what
have not revealed I have letter of in
production, and am going to Indianapo-
LIS TO founu society for the development
OF natural knowledge, as opposed to the
supernatural" Revelation is no author
ity whatever, compared to geology.*
Remarks to- the subscriber Feb. Sd, 1879, on tte
rostrum of the ME- Church.
Further let it be known, that this man
was represented by one of the subscribers
| to be as much of a'churchman as any
{ You" That the lecture room of the
NJ, .thodist church was procured by c. H.
Zee We. on the affirmation shas Professor
Carl Ies lectures were to be of a purely
sci en- titic character" end tnat this affir
nation was reiterated several times in
the pres C uce of the subscriber, to the
trustee Oh Naid church, whose duty it was
to rent the c'hurch for lecturing purposes
of only a St Ientific, literary, or moral
character.
Let it be know ! that some of the sub
scribers who called the said lecturer to-
Plymouth, un der tn introduction of Mr.
! Reeve, were members of the various
churches of plymouth. That on the
close of the frs t lecture Mr. Reeve asked
said Clarke if II would bring his lee
lures within the comprehension of COM
mon minds, and if he was open to ques-
tons on the subj, ct he presented" Thai
said Reeve rem, rked that there were
church people her who had conscience
on their peculiar b, lief, and asked if he
would SO guide his remarks as not to give
offense. After this uncalled for apology
for christian ignoran ce, Prof. Clarke af-
firmed he would not. saw anything bearing
Npon theology. Tia he could not, for
good reasons, have ar II hing to do with
/ t.+
tBy theology, is meant III bible revelatian as
well as christian teaching. toi used the terms in
terclangedly in connection, u one, and uvered
after. (when his attention was Led to t ''revela-
ton is no authority whatever
Let it be known that in he first lecture
he told his audience they would have to
give up the accepted chro ology Of the
bible; and advanced as is proof the
great antiquity of the earth S taught by
geology.
In his second, that " he ", Id not dis
parage Moses, but thought \ ses ought
to bere-re;ri. l. (Truly, by h. mself he
ought)
In subsequent remark, that II violation
was no authority compared witt eology.
In his lecture on the delta Of ti Mis-
sissippi and the Nile, he quoted fir I'm S.
c. Lyle, PIP. 43, a, and 300, IN eff renee
to the skeleton found in sinking til gas
pit st New Orleans, and the \ al chez
skeleton found in 1915 And durii lg the
lecture he remarked" now is the Il me to
ask questions; unless they are asked be
lectures will not prove so INTEREST," 1g. !"
The writer essayed to ask the questio n
was it not possible that the skele on
could have been deposited in the dr lift
period, at n. O.-and that if 1900 yea RS
would not be sufficient. instead of tx
great antiquity Dr. Doyl and S. C. Lyl d
gave it? This question was put with "a
deduction as to the time it would take to
cover it by drift, or deposit of sediment.
allowing for descent and length of the
Nile, and the usual calculation of amount
OF sediment deposited per century in the
delta of the Mississippi The subscriber
was berated for asking it, by one of the
committee, and he afterwards called Prof.
Clarke as witness to prove it was a lie.
climate question.
After this no questions were asked, but
Get up ones, though ii was suggested that
committee ought to be appointed who.
dare assume enough sense to ask a oues-
, ton for information, whether self-consti-
, tuted or not. The next to the last lecture
the audience were surprised with the ques-
ton from c. H. Reeve" viii there be a
chance given to know the views of geol-
, ogists respecting the doodg'
This question the Prof evaded. but
counting rightly on his host, and having
previously affirmed in an open lecture
3 there was no deluge"-he answered
There is nothing but tradition to argue
deluge." :" No geologist finds any evt-
. dence of deluge." = have never yet
heard of any one geologist who thinks
there was deluge." The audience can
. but remember his inidel revilings, to the
disgust of every man of christian con-
seriousness, il. the closing remarks of his