The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1889-10-31
SHUTTING DOWN on SCIENCE.
Brother Woodrow Boycotted by the Semi
nary Faculty.

SHUTTING DOWN ON SCIENCE.
Brother Woodrow Boycotted by the Semi.
nary Faculty.
Southern Presbyterian, Octo5s4 II.
The opening of the present session of
the Columbia Theological Seminary has
been signalized by the renewal of the
"boycott" which was instituted year
before last by the faculty, then consist.
ing of Profs. Tadlock, Girardeau and
Hersman. Last year, so far as we know,
no case arose to test the views of Drs,
McPheeters and Beattie, w.hu were then
associated with Drs. Paddock and Girar-
deau. But this year, as we have learned
from different sources, an event has
occurred which shows that the present
faculty unanimously con ours as to the
"boycott" with the faculty which insti-
tuted it.
A young gentleman who had recently
graduated at the University of South
Carolina, where he had studied geology,
astronomy, physiology and physics,
under Prof Woodrow, presented himself
before the faculty of the Seminary, desir.
ing admission to the junior class. There
were present Profs. radlock, Girardeau,
McPheeters and Beattie. During his ex-
animation lle stated that he desired to pur
sue the study of mineralogy at the
University under Prof Woodrow, and
asked whether he would be allowed TO
do 40. To this DR., Girardeau replied.
urging him not to press that request as
it would be opposed that permission
would be readily given to attend the
instructions of any other professor in the
University, but not DR.. Woodrow's. To
this statement no objection WAS made by
any one present, all by their silence Civ
ing their assent. The student, seeing
the state of affairs, forebote to urge his
request, and so the matter ended-the
faculty unanimously acquiescing in this
ending and thereby becoming parties to
it.
Thus the war is continued. Some had
supposed that the originators of the infa
nous "boycott" had repented of their
act, and that it would be allowed to fall
into state of "innocuous desuetude;"
and that especially that Drs. McPheeters
and Beattie would not allow themselves
to be drawn or driven into. participation
in it. But such persons did not appreci-
ate the fidelity of the "Old Guard" who
for years hsd been pursuing his intended
victim. Their longing for peace have
misled them. They ought to have known
what is so plain, that the only peace pos
sible to them consists in abject submission
to the will of the originators of the war
and their followers, not merely 10 regard
to this outrageous boycott" but with
regard to all the vastly more important
matters involved.
We confess that we are not little sur.
prised at the course of Drs. McP Pheeters
and Bsattie in failing to repudiate the
sentiments of DR.. Girardeau. when acting
as members of the faculty upon the
students application for admission. By
their silent acquiesence when their col
league informed. the applicant that be
might attend the classes of any universi.
ty professo. except DR.. Woodrow they
have vindicated their right to share with
Drs. Tadlook and Girardeau in the honor
or the disgrace, which ever it may be, of
the boycott" and of keeping the Semi
nary in its narrow partisan course.
While we do not know much as to their
opinions, we have been inclined to
respect them, and had expected better
things of them. We did not suppose
they could by any possibility share the
feelings of their active colleague, and had
not supposed they could be cowed into
silent submission.
The "boycottn has been strongly con-
demned by the Synod of South Carolina.
Last year the question was thoroughly
discussed by this Synod in the case Of
Mr.. w. W. Elwang, student in the Sem.
mary in 1S87-S8. The following resolu.
tions were adopted by Synod by a large
majority:
II. Touching this matter, your com.
mittee recommend to Synod the adop-
l tion of the following resolutions
IL. Resolved, That this Synod disap-
proves Of the action of the faculty in or
dering Mr.. W. W. Elwang to cease
attending upon the lectures of the Rev.
Prof. Woodrow, in the South Carolina
University {; and also of the action of the
board of directors in sustaining and con-
firnling this interdict.
"2. This Synod disavows the interpreta.
tior placed on its previous orders touch
ing the Perkins professor, upon which
/ the faculty and the board claim to base
their late action"
1 This "boycott' certainly seems coward
ly. The faculty are evidently afraid of
something-eitber of what is taught or
ofthe teacher. Perhaps the apprehended
danger lies in the thing taught. What,
then, is mineralogy? It is "the science
which teaches the properties, composition
and relations Of mineral bodies, and the
art of distinguishing and describing
them" What danger can the faculty
see in this science and art? Are they
really afraid of all science and art. Will
| it hurt a student of the Bible to know
| the chemical composition of mineral
To be able to distinguish dimetric from
an isometric crystal? To learn, how to
tell gold from iron pyrites or fools
gold?" Isignorance essential to piety
and success in the ministry? Do they
reason thus Ah, but it is science, and
science is dreadful thing! Mineralogy
may seem harmless, but trust it not
Beware !-for are not minerals the
| materials of which the earth con-
sists, and are they not the constitu,
ents of the rocks, and are not the rocks
the foundation stones Of the science of
geology, and is not geology that bugbear
that all good men must be made to fear {?
Alas, it is too true, and therefore, we
must at all hazards shield our precious
charges, our tender lambs, from the
malign influences of your insidious min
eralogy
Perhaps it is the teacher they fear.
But why? Are they not four to one?
Are they afraid that incidentally Prof.
Woodrow may show to his students that
science is not such bugbear after all,
and that the reverent study of Gods
works is not 6. sin in the sight of the Most
High? Do they fear lest some chance
word Of his may topple over all structure