SUPPLEMENT 251 



brings in no extraneous Jesuitical arguments. We 

 should have a right to complain of such, if he had 

 substituted dogmatic opinions for scientific reasoning, 

 but, as far as I can judge, he has not done this, and 

 has, on the contrary, brought forward sufficient 

 evidence of a kind that would not suggest the idea of a 

 religious conflict to any unprejudiced person, suppos 

 ing as is daily the case it were a Protestant 

 scientist who adduced it in support of his views. 

 Therefore, I repeat, what is fair for one, should be 

 permissible to the other. 



All that Professor Plate adds in this connection 

 seems to me equally prejudiced, and not free from an 

 inadmissible misinterpretation, if not an actual setting 

 aside of Father Wasmann s arguments. 



It was not surprising that Plate s polemical 

 speech was applauded by a public that was incapable 

 of forming a judgment, being already prejudiced in 

 his favour such a public always applauds what 

 takes its fancy. It is all the worse in my opinion 

 there is a suggestion of something not quite straight 

 forward about the proceedings, and this does not please 



Dr. Senff passes on next to the subject of bad 

 metaphysics. He analyses Professor Plate s views 

 and finds them very vague and contradictory, for 

 at one moment Plate acknowledges that behind the 

 laws of nature there must be a lawgiver, and at the 

 next moment he assumes that matter and the laws 



