The History of Creationism and what it can tell us about science and faith

Page 2 of 5

Christianity and Darwinism

Historically some of the most conservative Christians did not react to Darwin or evolution like today’s creationists. In 1855, four years before Origin of the Species was published, Charles Darwin was assiduously refining his arguments and collecting data in support of his theory. Darwin's key idea was that all life was descended from a common ancestor. Natural selection was the means by which life descended into its multiplicity of forms. In gathering his evidence, Darwin sought the assistance of Harvard University's professor of botany, Asa Gray. Gray is now regarded as America's foremost botanist of the nineteenth century. Few people were granted a preview of Darwin's explosive (and secretive) theory prior to publication. So it is a measure of Darwin's respect for Gray that he sent him an abstract in 1857. Gray was born in upstate New York and raised in a Christian home. However in early adulthood his spiritual outlook had drifted into an agnostic rationalism then popular among north-easterners. But when Gray moved to Harvard in 1842 he chose not to join the spiritualistic, unorthodox Unitarian chapel services which most of his colleagues attended. Instead, Gray transferred his membership to an evangelical Congregational church in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  His return to an evangelical faith was steadfast. Gray became a leading defender of Darwinism in America. He corresponded with Darwin at length, often turning to a Congregational minister, G.F. Wright (also an advocate for evolution) for theological expertise when dealing with Darwin's agnosticism. Despite his best efforts Gray never resolved Darwin's doubts. But this did not cause Gray himself to waver on either the scientific case for Darwinism, or its compatibility with orthodox Christianity. Gray was not a lone voice. Others including Princeton theologian James McCosh, James Iverach and Audrey Moore defended Darwinism in Britain as well as America. Indeed by 1867 the phrase 'Christian Darwinism' was already in use to describe the vigorous defense of the theory by prominent conservative Christians.

Historically some of the most conservative Christians did not react to Darwin or evolution like today’s creationists

Beyond conservative Christianity, Darwin found other supporters in the liberal wings of the church. The Anglican clergyman Frederick Temple (b. 1821) accepted evolution and revised doctrine in its light. The liberal Congregationalist Henry Ward Beecher (b. 1818) extolled evolution and made it a core principle of his theology. A little later the French Jesuit, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (b. 1881) went further, re-casting all theology in combination with evolution.

There were, besides these, many Christian critics of Darwinism as well. The Roman Catholic church was initially hostile towards Darwinism, not revising its official position until the 1960’s at Vatican II. It is worth noting however that these critics, unlike today’s creationists, frequently responded to Darwinism with mainstream scientific arguments. For example, Anglican clergyman George Henslow wrote scientific works critiquing Darwinism such as The Origin of Floral Structures (1888) and The Origin of Plant Structures (1895). In the years prior to the 1930’s Darwinism faced a number of scientific challenges and uncertainties. For example, Darwin’s theory suited an earth-age much longer than 19th century estimates of 40 – 100 million years. Unlike today, fossil evidence was at the time sparse and inconclusive. While Darwin had established organic evolution as the best explanation for the formation of life, other scientific theories were competing with Darwinism to explain the precise mechanism behind evolution. Alternatives to Darwinism became increasingly marginal until the 1930’s when Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics was synthesized with Darwinism (forming 'neo-Darwinism') and the competing theories essentially disappeared.  Prior to the modern consensus on Darwin, Christian leaders who questioned his theory were able to legitimately point to mainstream scientific reservations.

by 1867 the phrase 'Christian Darwinism' was already in use to describe the vigorous defense of the theory by prominent conservative Christians

Philosophical and theological responses to Darwinism

Scientific reservations were, however, certainly not driving anti-evolutionary feeling. Deep philosophical and theological concerns existed. The Princeton University theologian Charles Hodge (b. 1797) wrote a comprehensive critique of Darwinism and his arguments are still popular among creationists today. First, Hodge stated that Darwin's theory eliminated recourse to supernatural intervention to explain the origin of life. He charged it with actively attempting to deny divine intervention. This made Darwinism materialistic, atheistic and anti-Scriptural. Second, Hodge argued that Darwin's natural selection was philosophically indefensible in that it attributed design to unguided natural forces. The view Hodge took is known in philosophy as the ‘argument from design’ for the existence of God (or gods).  It was classically expounded in the 18th century by William Paley (a work Darwin was very familiar with). Hodge, like Paley and many others, found it difficult to envisage that mere ‘laws of nature’ had power to create de novo or produce ‘design’. And as mentioned earlier, Hodge also stressed the scientific uncertainties of Darwinism. This led him to deduce that Darwinists were motivated by humanistic ideology. Hodge asserted this point even though many devout and conservative Christians accepted Darwinism, including many in the British and American scientific communities.

Interestingly though, conservative Christians were far from united with Hodge on his philosophical and theological attack. This much is clear from one of Hodge’s most eminent students at Princeton, Benjamin B. Warfield.

Benjamin Warfield was born on his family's farm near Lexington, Kentucky in 1851. The Warfield family were cattle breeders and just prior to entering Princeton in 1873, Warfield had been livestock editor for the Lexington Farmer's Home Journal. He contributed much to his father's cattle breeding book which drew heavily on Darwin's theory of natural selection. Warfield later remarked that he had met Darwin's theory ‘in the feed lot’ as it were, and not merely as an academic question. He was a lifelong supporter of evolution, and apart from some relatively minor equivocations, largely agreed with Darwinism.

Yet Warfield's lasting significance as a theologian does not involve evolution. His most influential legacy is his refinement and promotion of a doctrine of Scripture known as inerrancy. Inerrancy says that Scripture is entirely without error in every part. This particular doctrine has emerged as central to creationist interpretations of Scripture. Creationists argue that since Scripture cannot contain error on any matter, references to a recent global flood and the formation of life over six literal days must be scientifically valid. Hence the task of ‘scientific creationism’ is to find scientific evidence in support of such views. For creationists and the majority of American Fundamentalists, the inerrancy of Scripture logically denies evolution and vice versa. If Scripture was found to be in error, it would be as if God had lied. If God lied then the entire Christian notion of God collapses.

no religious interest is imperilled by a theory of evolution viewed simply as a method of creation

B.B. Warfield contributed to the early 20th century essay series called ‘The Fundamentals’ from which ‘Fundamentalism’ gained its name. It would therefore come as a shock to many of today’s Fundamentalists to hear that he supported evolutionary theory. But Warfield was not alone. G.F. Wright and James Orr were also ‘Fundamentalist evolutionists’ (a modern oxymoron). When asked to contribute to the Fundamentals, Orr had already published his view that evolution seems ‘extremely probable, and no religious interest is imperilled by a theory of evolution viewed simply as a method of creation.’ How did Orr, Wright, Warfield and others maintain inerrancy and evolution? They applied other doctrines to Scripture such as ‘concursus’. Concursus says Scripture is a fully human product as well as fully divine. Thus, it may be true that from the perspective of the writer of Genesis life was created in six days. But according to concursus the text is divine truth about the formation of the earth adapted into the finite comprehension and culture of an ancient society. Unlike Charles Hodge these Fundamentalists regarded organic evolution as a natural mechanism which no more excluded God than other natural forces such as gravity or magnetism.

The initial period of response to Darwinism by the church reveals a complex picture. Even among the leaders behind modern Fundamentalism, there were those who believed in evolution. Yet as inerrancy emerged as a defense against ‘higher Scriptural criticism’, and as the debate polarised the protagonists, careful balances of doctrine were lost. Fundamentalists saw evolution as a threat to the faith because it seemed to contradict inerrancy. This was just one of a series of factors which led conservative American attitudes to become receptive to today’s creationism. Philosophical reasoning played a role. Theological developments played a role. But perhaps more significant than either was evolution’s association with the dramatic changes sweeping society.

Page 1|2|3|4|5

14-Aug-2009 01:08 AM Dannii
"no religious interest is imperilled by a theory of evolution viewed simply as a method of creation" Why was there no mention of death as a punishment for sin? Romans makes it completely clear that human death (and I think all animal death is implied too) is a direct punishment and consequence of human sin. Evolution requires death. I cannot see how they can be reconciled.

Copyright © 2008 Centre for Public Christianity | Privacy Policy | 15-Jan-2010 01:30 PM | Powered by Business Catalyst