Roseburg review. [volume] (Roseburg, Or.) 1885-1920, 1885-11-06
HUNTERS REPLF.
Inforn.ation Wanted.

MR.. EDITOR. sEVOiuClOnlSt Ill an
swer to my query as to the meaning he
to certain words, refers me to
Webster and says he accepts the mean
ing of those words as given by him SO
there is no issue on that point between
us. We are together there He |
quotes, theology" Webster says sis
the science which treats of the things |
of God" meaning | accept. Now |
with this moaning let us go ba;k to his
first article We ask him to show
where "theology" (the science which
treats of the things Of Cody sis tender
to feel" and to show the time when it
'cries ouch at the smallest pressure
from the advancing step of science"
and 'sis fearful Of the destruction of
the holy faith" This we wish to know
We ask him to show when or how
Theology" (the science which treats
of the things of Cod combats evolu-
ton with zeal not unlike that
against astronomy in the days Of Ga,
lileo and Bruno.
We ask him to cite to rs the tine
when, the place where and the eircum-
stances under which ''Tneolosy7 (the
science which treats of the things of
GodD "plaYs upon the words diifercn-
tiations, protoplasm and the survival
of the ftest with the flippancy of
child with the words papa and mamma
and as little understandings"
Give us the book, chapter, section
aud paragraph; we want to read these
charges for our self. We wish him
to bring his intelligent and, truthful
witness upon the stand and prove the
unprovoked charges he has made
against Theology" (the science which
treats of the things of God.
"Evolutionist" like all that class of
writer's which he represents, in present
ing their favorite topics or theories,
Unnecessarily seek to slur or ridicule
''t:le science which treats Of the things
of God" Hear him again ssThe
differentiation Of the lower protoplas-
tic life into the higher order of senti-
ent beings is riddle to some, espe-
cially to theologians" Now | ask is
not this something ''riddle' to law
yers, merchants, doctors, mechanics
and even to scientists as we'll as to
theologians. If 50 then why specify
theologians as separate specific class
as though all others understood this
"riddle' except theologian, and there
fore must be esteemed inferior, becau Sc
of their ignorance and obtuseness.
There must be some reason in he mind
of "Evolutionist" or some inharmony
in his theory, which leads him to spe-
eify this class TO the exclusion Of all
other classes and professions. AS a
thinker and observer I am always led
to mlstrust any cause or theory, which
requires thrust at Theology" to
sustain it and commend it to the pub
lie favor. Now let us see. A short
time since short article appeared in
the REVIEW, Evolution Set Back"
This furnished "Eyolutionist" al occa-
sion to come to the support Of his IA
vorite theories; this he had right to do;
no one objected to this But why
speak of his theory as GA riddle to
some, especially to theologians." Was
this not reflection on the Editor of
the REVIEW and through him upon
the whole school Of theologians. This
conclusion is logical. Why speak as
he did Of Theology" (the science of
the things Of GoD if 1T was not to re-
feet on allsswho believe in Theology
(the science of the things of God.)
Again we ask "EYolutionist" what
meaning he attaches to certaiu words.
which he used after referring US to
| Webster as orthodox with him. He
gives us nearly column in connection
with his belief and then winds up by
inviting us to sight our game in the
jmgles, fire and see what we will bring
down. Here he mistakes, we are not
hunting for game, we are hunting for
truth, truth is science, truth is history,
truth is theology, and we wish him to
turn the light on, especially upon those
points where we have asked so respect
fully for the confr nation Of his state