cj.23
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,827
This actually arose as an aside on another thread, discussing something totally unrelated. As that thread appears to have died I have started a new thread to see if anyone is interested in discussing it, as it seems to be counter-intuitive to a lot of very educated and intelligent individuals... It's one of those questions which can be placed in History or Religion, so I have placed it here...
Another poster (and excellent one) stated that Evangelicals were pretty much always Creationists, though agreeing that they were not YEC before 1961 (so far we agree) and that they opposed from the beginning Evolution. I argue quite the opposite is true - at a time when the scientific community were still intensely sceptical of Evolution in the Darwinian model, many Evangelicals played an important role in supporting and accepting evolution, and that very few opposed it in the period say 1850-1920...
So here are my posts, edited together for ease - feel free to tell me i am nuts, or argue agaiinst me...
This is where we will have to disagree. Age Gap, Framework and Age Day theories were the Evangelical consensus before Darwin - a fact reflected in the massive contribution of Evangelicals and Anglican churchment to the geological breakthroughs of the early 19th century. Catastrophism and flood geology was an extreme minority position, and only one Evangelical newspaper, The Record, appears ot have much time for it.
Evolution was pioneered in America by the devout Evangelical Asa Grey, writing Darwinia (1876) which reconciles his Evangelical beliefs with orthodox Darwinianism, and indeed being the only non-British member of the Darwin circle who saw Origin of the Species (1859) prior to publication. He dedicated much of his life to publicising and popularising Darwinian Evolution. A good bibliography is here-
http://www.huh.harvard.edu/libraries/asa/asabio.html
As I stated, a large number of Evangelicals were already evolutionist, just not Darwinians - but many of the objections raised like those of Soapy Sam Wilberforce were primarily scientific not theological -- Darwinian Evolution was at that point completely impossible in terms of our understanding of the laws of physics (see Kelvin) and a theory not substantiated by any empirical evidence: indeed it ran contrary to much. It was of course correct,but that was not to be establsihed for many decades to come. Despite this the Evangelicals response was extremely positive.
Now, who accepted evolution in those first years? It's a who's who of Evangelicals.BB Warfierld, AH Strong, Van Dyke, Landey Patton, AA Hodge, WT Shedd, James McCosh -- all hard core Evagelical leaders. (Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders, Scottish Academic Press, 1987). Let us not forget Frederick Farrar, James Orr, Charles Kinsley and Henry Drummon, who Henry Morris castigates for misleading Christians - the father of YEC fully accepted what he percieved as the dreadful failures of his Evangelical forebears in acepting Darwinism or other form of Evolutionary theory.
These Evangelicals critique the science from time to time, but accepted fully its theological compatability with their Evangelical beliefs. Others like Rev.Macloskie, JD Dana, GF Wright, JW Hulke etc were evangelicals who fought hard for the scientific NOT just the theological acceptance of evolution - one could go on, but many historians of science and religion have already surveyed this territory and found that on both sides of the Atlantic works in favour of Darwin in Christian circles far outnumbered the minority oppositionof opposition.
Now you mention Fundamentalism, and The Fundamentals. I am immediately minded of Chapter 69 - The Passing of Evolution.
(online here - kudos to the chap who undertook this herculean task! -
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fund69.htm )
As you can see, this limited acceptance of Darwinism and objections based upon scientific principle is not quite what one might be led to expect from the very founding document of Fundamentalism.
Orr's chapter 18 contains a resolute defence of evolution, though he was Lamarckian and here disparages Dariwnism. You can read it fo ryourself here
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fund18.htm
Yet Orr accepted Lamarckian evolution, or at least appears to.
I could go on and on - I probably will, it's what I do - but I suspect that the "meme" of Evangelical refusal of evolution has developed quite recently, and part of the "conflict between science and religion" woo one sees so much of these days. The popularity of the idea is simple -- it appeals to both hard atheists wishing to disparage religion as an opponent of reason, and to devout YEC types who wish to claim this was always the Christian faith. Few voices speak out against it - few people bother to check the facts, despite the mountains of printed material available, and modern studies like those of Marsden and Livingstone.
A quick addendum to my previous post -- My contention is that YEC only dates from 1961 and Henry Morris - certainly OEC was common, but that looked at an earth many millions of years old (though limited by Kelvin's calculations on the sun which gave the Earth an age of not more than 25 million years - http://www.me.rochester.edu/courses/ME2 ... kelvin.pdf - which led to his and many other physicists rejection of Darwin as physically impossible.) The debate between physicists and geologists over the age of the Earth was ongoing, until the understanding of the actual processes involved in the sun showed the geologists were right. Physicists however probably were greater opponents of Darwinism in the early years (as pseudo-science that defied our understanding of physical law) than Evangelicals? Dunno!
The Creationists as we know them are very modern - the Seventh Day Adventists, who gave Americans many interesting doctrines almost unique to that continent did much to support the rise of OEC, and McCready Price in the 1920's was the first major anti-evolutionist who went for seven literal days I can think of? Willliam Jennings Bryan for example (he of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial) favoured one of the two main Evangelical theories --, Age/Day, where a Day represented millions of years not a 24 hour period, and the famous Schofield Refence Bible of 1909went for the other - Gap theory, where there was a Gap of millions of years between DAy 1, and Day2, and possibly between other Days. Both arguments preserve inerrancy.
The myths were already building fast even by then, indeed before the end of the 19th century, one of the most famous being about the debate between Huxley and Wilberforce over the Origin of the Species. Superb essay on the history of this by JR Lucas here, well worth reading (honestly it is!) --
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html
As you can see, this encounter is one of the most common stories almost everyone knows, but the truth is shall we say a little more obscure? Legendary indeed!
Inerrantists has long accepted Gap Theory, Framework Theory or Age/Day by Darwin's period - many leading geologists were devout evangelicals, so the age fo the Earth was known to be exceedingly ancient, and as Augustine and Origen both accepted the reading of this passage as non-literal as did theologians all through the ages, it is not surprising really they had cheerfully gone with the new science. It was a reaction to be expected in light of the dominant Baconian "Two Books" paradigm?
Anyway, one does not have to be stupid ot be a Christian, it's entirely optional - then as now.
A few of us still possess brains, and a cynical scepticism about how susceptible we are to modern myths, no matter how much we can see the problems with ancient ones...
Hope my historical whitterings have not bored to death. You see teaching me Religion at school has not done me any real harm, apart from rendering me insomniac!
cj x
Another poster (and excellent one) stated that Evangelicals were pretty much always Creationists, though agreeing that they were not YEC before 1961 (so far we agree) and that they opposed from the beginning Evolution. I argue quite the opposite is true - at a time when the scientific community were still intensely sceptical of Evolution in the Darwinian model, many Evangelicals played an important role in supporting and accepting evolution, and that very few opposed it in the period say 1850-1920...
So here are my posts, edited together for ease - feel free to tell me i am nuts, or argue agaiinst me...
This is where we will have to disagree. Age Gap, Framework and Age Day theories were the Evangelical consensus before Darwin - a fact reflected in the massive contribution of Evangelicals and Anglican churchment to the geological breakthroughs of the early 19th century. Catastrophism and flood geology was an extreme minority position, and only one Evangelical newspaper, The Record, appears ot have much time for it.
Evolution was pioneered in America by the devout Evangelical Asa Grey, writing Darwinia (1876) which reconciles his Evangelical beliefs with orthodox Darwinianism, and indeed being the only non-British member of the Darwin circle who saw Origin of the Species (1859) prior to publication. He dedicated much of his life to publicising and popularising Darwinian Evolution. A good bibliography is here-
http://www.huh.harvard.edu/libraries/asa/asabio.html
As I stated, a large number of Evangelicals were already evolutionist, just not Darwinians - but many of the objections raised like those of Soapy Sam Wilberforce were primarily scientific not theological -- Darwinian Evolution was at that point completely impossible in terms of our understanding of the laws of physics (see Kelvin) and a theory not substantiated by any empirical evidence: indeed it ran contrary to much. It was of course correct,but that was not to be establsihed for many decades to come. Despite this the Evangelicals response was extremely positive.
Now, who accepted evolution in those first years? It's a who's who of Evangelicals.BB Warfierld, AH Strong, Van Dyke, Landey Patton, AA Hodge, WT Shedd, James McCosh -- all hard core Evagelical leaders. (Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders, Scottish Academic Press, 1987). Let us not forget Frederick Farrar, James Orr, Charles Kinsley and Henry Drummon, who Henry Morris castigates for misleading Christians - the father of YEC fully accepted what he percieved as the dreadful failures of his Evangelical forebears in acepting Darwinism or other form of Evolutionary theory.
These Evangelicals critique the science from time to time, but accepted fully its theological compatability with their Evangelical beliefs. Others like Rev.Macloskie, JD Dana, GF Wright, JW Hulke etc were evangelicals who fought hard for the scientific NOT just the theological acceptance of evolution - one could go on, but many historians of science and religion have already surveyed this territory and found that on both sides of the Atlantic works in favour of Darwin in Christian circles far outnumbered the minority oppositionof opposition.
Now you mention Fundamentalism, and The Fundamentals. I am immediately minded of Chapter 69 - The Passing of Evolution.
(online here - kudos to the chap who undertook this herculean task! -
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fund69.htm )
As you can see, this limited acceptance of Darwinism and objections based upon scientific principle is not quite what one might be led to expect from the very founding document of Fundamentalism.
Orr's chapter 18 contains a resolute defence of evolution, though he was Lamarckian and here disparages Dariwnism. You can read it fo ryourself here
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fund18.htm
Yet Orr accepted Lamarckian evolution, or at least appears to.
I could go on and on - I probably will, it's what I do - but I suspect that the "meme" of Evangelical refusal of evolution has developed quite recently, and part of the "conflict between science and religion" woo one sees so much of these days. The popularity of the idea is simple -- it appeals to both hard atheists wishing to disparage religion as an opponent of reason, and to devout YEC types who wish to claim this was always the Christian faith. Few voices speak out against it - few people bother to check the facts, despite the mountains of printed material available, and modern studies like those of Marsden and Livingstone.
A quick addendum to my previous post -- My contention is that YEC only dates from 1961 and Henry Morris - certainly OEC was common, but that looked at an earth many millions of years old (though limited by Kelvin's calculations on the sun which gave the Earth an age of not more than 25 million years - http://www.me.rochester.edu/courses/ME2 ... kelvin.pdf - which led to his and many other physicists rejection of Darwin as physically impossible.) The debate between physicists and geologists over the age of the Earth was ongoing, until the understanding of the actual processes involved in the sun showed the geologists were right. Physicists however probably were greater opponents of Darwinism in the early years (as pseudo-science that defied our understanding of physical law) than Evangelicals? Dunno!
The Creationists as we know them are very modern - the Seventh Day Adventists, who gave Americans many interesting doctrines almost unique to that continent did much to support the rise of OEC, and McCready Price in the 1920's was the first major anti-evolutionist who went for seven literal days I can think of? Willliam Jennings Bryan for example (he of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial) favoured one of the two main Evangelical theories --, Age/Day, where a Day represented millions of years not a 24 hour period, and the famous Schofield Refence Bible of 1909went for the other - Gap theory, where there was a Gap of millions of years between DAy 1, and Day2, and possibly between other Days. Both arguments preserve inerrancy.
The myths were already building fast even by then, indeed before the end of the 19th century, one of the most famous being about the debate between Huxley and Wilberforce over the Origin of the Species. Superb essay on the history of this by JR Lucas here, well worth reading (honestly it is!) --
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html
As you can see, this encounter is one of the most common stories almost everyone knows, but the truth is shall we say a little more obscure? Legendary indeed!
Inerrantists has long accepted Gap Theory, Framework Theory or Age/Day by Darwin's period - many leading geologists were devout evangelicals, so the age fo the Earth was known to be exceedingly ancient, and as Augustine and Origen both accepted the reading of this passage as non-literal as did theologians all through the ages, it is not surprising really they had cheerfully gone with the new science. It was a reaction to be expected in light of the dominant Baconian "Two Books" paradigm?
Anyway, one does not have to be stupid ot be a Christian, it's entirely optional - then as now.
A few of us still possess brains, and a cynical scepticism about how susceptible we are to modern myths, no matter how much we can see the problems with ancient ones...Hope my historical whitterings have not bored to death. You see teaching me Religion at school has not done me any real harm, apart from rendering me insomniac!
cj x
Last edited:
