Download Nora Watson (Hughes)

Nineteenth Century Responses to Darwin Challenge the Dichotomy between
Evangelical Faith and Darwinism that Is Perceived Today
In the summer of 2005, TIME magazine asked a panel of scientists and
theologians to respond to the question: “Can You Believe in God and Evolution?”
President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler decisively replied,
“Evangelical Christianity and evolution are incompatible beliefs that cannot be held
together logically within a distinctly Christian worldview” (Biema, 2005, 2). Due to this
widely held conviction, a great chasm separates believers from secular academics. The
evangelical holds back from engaging himself in the secular theories of the university
classroom. Similarly, the Darwinist avoids any Sunday school classroom where the
authority of Scripture is emphasized. Although Mohler’s position represents many
modern evangelicals, his evangelical predecessors did not universally share his dogmatic
conclusion. In fact, when Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species was first published,
evangelical scientists, ministers, and theologians of the nineteenth century commonly
accepted and defended Darwinism. Those who objected to Darwinism most often
sympathized with the age-old idea of evolution but rejected Darwin’s mechanism of
natural selection. Although no uniform reconciliatory response to Darwin’s work stands
out in church history, the nineteenth century evangelical tradition clearly begins an
important dialogue between evangelical and academic communities. The diversity of
nineteenth century responses to Darwinism within the evangelical churches establishes an
important precedent for present-day members of the evangelical community.
Before discussing the various defenses, interpretations, and objections to
Darwin’s work, it is important to understand the man behind the theory. Born to an
affluent and accomplished family, Charles Darwin enjoyed a privileged upbringing. A
bright and restless young man – Darwin morosely contemplated careers as a surgeon and
a clergyman before finding his true academic heartbeat. After giving up on going into
medicine and the ministry, young Darwin began working with botanist John Henslow – a
man who saw great potential in the young scientist. It was because of Henslow that
Darwin received the invitation to serve as naturalist on the survey voyage of the HMS
Beagle (Livingstone, 1987, 36). Darwin’s voyage on the HMS Beagle opened his eyes to
undiscovered truths of the natural world. Three key observations led Darwin to his
groundbreaking theory. Darwin observed that different species in the same region of the
world were more similar to each other than closely related species in different parts of the
world. He found a high degree of similarity between species on oceanic islands and
continents nearby. Lastly, he discovered that the finches of the Galapagos Islands
possessed a wide range of behavioral and structural adaptations that assisted them in their
ability to find food. David Livingstone writes, “Gradually Darwin came to see that the
problem would become much less intractable if the received wisdom about the
permanence of species turned out to be wrong” (Livingstone, 1987, 37). Convinced that
variations must occur within species to allow them to adapt to the changing conditions of
their environments, Darwin proposed his theory of natural selection: “If variations useful
to any organic being ever do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the
best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of
inheritance, these will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of
preservation, or the survival of the fittest, I have called Natural Selection” (Darwin, 1859,
168).
Darwin never recognized any inherent conflict between theism and acceptance of
his evolutionary model, but he freely admitted his disapproval of the simultaneous
scientific adherence to design and natural selection. In his correspondence, he wrote, “I
had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do,
as I wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us” (Darwin Project).
Theologians and scientists who worried that Darwinism would be dismissed because of
its challenge to design sought to further develop Darwin’s theory to achieve a
reconciliation. These reconcilers worked to formulate a mechanism that would allow
them to see God’s hand guiding natural selection. Writing about the advent of Christian
Darwinism, Edward Pfiefer summarizes, “Christian evolutionists interpreted evolution as
a process attesting to God who, they felt, intervened in Nature to endow man with a soul”
(Pfiefer, 1957, 109). Though these scientists and theologians would not accept a version
of Darwinism that took away a need for God, they defended Darwin’s model because
they believed that it was the best explanation of the natural world.
Asa Gray was one of the first Evangelical Christians in America who took a stand
to defend Darwin’s theory. As a prominent Harvard professor and the leading American
botanist, Asa Gray was a widely esteemed scientist, but he was also known for his
adamant faith in God. Livingstone writes, “To study nature, he felt, was to probe the
designs of God” (Livingstone, 1987, 62). When Darwin first published the Origin of
Species, Gray recognized a need to reconcile natural selection and design so that
Darwinism would “[receive] a fair hearing” among evangelicals (Livingstone, 1987, 63).
Gray believed that without accounting for the possibility of design, Darwinism would be
damned. For this reason, he worked to develop “a right evolutionary teleology” that
would give God a role in Darwin’s model (Livingstone, 1987, 66). In a review of Origin
of Species, Gray labored to convince evangelicals that Darwin’s account of natural
history did not exclude possibility of special creation by offering a metaphor that
considered the evolution of boats. To explain natural selection, he imaginatively wrote of
a world where boats could make minor changes to themselves such as adapting a better
rudder or rig. The boats with the changes that were most suitable to their environment
would persist while the boats without these changes would be “worn out or wrecked”
(Gray, 1860, 4). He then explained that a revolutionary change such as the invention of
steam-navigation represented specific creation. Concluding his metaphor, he asserted,
“Variation and natural selection may play their part, and so may specific creation also.
Why not?” (Gray, 1860, 4). In his correspondence with Darwin, Gray never received
Darwin’s approval for his design-friendly interpretation of evolution by natural selection.
However, Darwin was grateful to Gray for his efforts to promote Darwinism in
evangelical circles.
Another important reconciler, George Frederick Wright was a Congregationalist
minister who spent his life defending and explaining science to the evangelical
community. As an avid student of geology and glaciation, Wright was excited by
Darwin’s model, and he took up the mission of helping his congregation as well as other
evangelicals understand and embrace Darwin’s explanation of the natural world
(Livingstone, 1987, 65). Wright collaborated with Gray to produce a teleological
foundation for Darwinism; however, he did not believe that it was the responsibility of
theologians to verify God’s exact method of creation. In Wright’s opinion, theologians
“should be extremely careful to abstain from acting as umpires between scientific
disputants” (Numbers, 1988, 627). He believed that “the first and true causal origin” was
the appropriate concern of theologians, and scientists, on the other hand, were justified in
investigating “the sequence of secondary causes” (Numbers, 1988, 627). Although
Wright was committed to defending Darwinism, he entertained the idea that humans were
entirely separate from the rest of the natural world. He wrote, “the miraculous creation of
man might no more disprove the general reign of natural selection than an ordinary
miracle of Christ would disprove the general reign of natural law” (Numbers, 1988, 628).
Even though he saw fit to modify Darwin’s model, Wright, indeed, viewed Darwinism as
the most adequate explanation of the natural world. Throughout his life, he remained
dedicated to the reconciliation of Darwinism and creation.
Although many defenders of Darwinism attempted reconciliation, some scientists
and theologians found no inherent conflict between Darwin’s theory of evolution by
natural selection and Evangelical Christianity. Yale-educated geologist James Dana
maintained that there was nothing inherently atheistic about accepting natural selection.
William Sanford writes, “For Dana, evolution in no way denied or obscured God’s
purpose” (Sanford, 1965, 546). Dana simply believed that natural selection was the
mechanism through which God created the world. Because he could hold fast to the idea
of God’s continuing presence in the world as well as his involvement in sustaining all of
life, he could remain a devout Evangelical Christian and a Darwinist. Speaking of the
relationship between science and faith, he famously wrote, “Let Science dig, and dredge,
and work her laboratories. She is searching for God’s truth” (Livingstone, 1987, 76).
Confident that God was the ultimate author of life, Dana found no need to interpret
Darwinism to account for design. He objectively accepted evolution by natural selection
and trusted that studying science would ultimately reveal God’s presence in the unfolding
story of the natural world.
Presbyterian minister and Princeton theologian, Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield
was another defender of Darwinism who saw no conflict between evolution by natural
selection and Evangelical faith. Even while accepting Darwinism, Warfield never
doubted the inerrancy of Biblical scripture. He stated, “I am free to say, for myself, that I
do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of
creation…that need be opposed to evolution” (Livingstone, 1987, 118). Warfield
maintained that as long as a Christian’s understanding of the natural world included the
possibility for divine intervention, there was nothing contradictory about embracing both
evangelical faith and Darwinism. For Warfield, natural phenomena could be explained in
“terms of a religious cause or a scientific cause” (Livingstone, 1987, 117). This duality of
explanation allowed for flexibility that permitted firmly believing in the authority of
Scripture and objectively accepting scientific theories that appeared to give sound
explanations.
Some advocates of Darwinism related Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural
selection to the tenets of Christian doctrine. In addition to helping Gray reconcile
Darwinism and design, Congregationalist minister George Frederick Wright found many
similarities between the tenets of Calvinism and Darwinism. His first observation was
that Calvinism teaches the depravity of man and that Darwinism does not teach
“inevitable progressive development,” or the idea that humanity improves with time
(Livingstone, 1987, 67). Also, he found that Calvinism and Darwinism both teach that all
of humanity shares the same origin. Additionally, he discovered that Calvinism describes
a relationship between predestination and free will while Darwinism describes a
relationship between chance and pattern. He observed that both Calvinism and
Darwinism approached a priori reasoning with caution. Lastly, he recognized that the
“sovereignty of law” made evident through Darwinism is similar to divine sovereignty. In
this way, Wright concludes that Darwinism is “the Calvinistic interpretation of nature”
(Livingstone, 1987, 67). Wright often attempted to demonstrate that students of science
and students of Scripture possessed many common qualities. He writes that scientists and
theologians both practice inductive reasoning “to [seek] the deeper meaning of the facts
which they observe” (Livingstone, 1987, 67). Wright hoped that by showing the scientific
and evangelical communities what they shared in common, he might encourage both
communities to engage in meaningful discussion to further knowledge of God and the
natural world.
Relating Darwinism to the tenets of the Methodist church, Alexander Winchell
was a geologist and professor who emphasized that one could be a Darwinist and have a
personal relationship with God. Winchell believed that Darwinism in no way removed
the role of a creator God from the natural world; instead, he was convinced that Darwin’s
model lent support to the belief that God created the world through secondary causes
(Livingstone, 1987, 88). For Winchell, Darwinism did not directly pose a threat to the
church, but he wrote that it was the church’s job “to embrace [evolution] and convert it to
[its] own uses” (Livingstone, 1987, 88). Winchell recognized that Darwinism could be
embraced within an evangelical Christian worldview or an atheistic worldview. Because
of this, he urged the church to find a place for Darwin’s model or risk “[earning] the
contempt of those who are really on the side of truth” (Livingstone, 1987, 88). In
Reconciliations of Science and Religion, Winchell wrote of God’s tendency to reveal
himself through nature. In this work, he explained that studying the natural world can
lead “the candid mind to a reverent knowledge of God and an implicit faith in the most
mysterious utterance of his Sacred Word” (Livingstone, 1987, 88).
Analogizing Darwinism to the tenets of the Presbyterian church, George
Macloskie was professor of biology and minister who served as another great mediator
between the scientific and evangelical communities. Macloskie emphasized in his
writings that Darwinism should be judged on scientific grounds and not compared to
Scriptural accounts of creation. Macloskie did not believe that all of Scripture should be
read literally. For example, he wrote that there was no need “to fix a rigorous meaning to
any of the ‘days’ in Genesis” (Livingstone, 1987, 95). Instead, the ‘days’, he said, should
be regarded as “rhetorical marks” such as chapters, sections, periods, or ages
(Livingstone, 1987, 95). Observing that some theologians in opposition to Darwinism
were assuming what they were attempting to prove, Macloskie wrote that the church “is
not at liberty to erect our science upon the Scripture and then to turn round and prove the
Scripture by our science” (Livingstone, 1987, 94). Macloskie vigorously defended an
objective view of science and a flexible understanding of Scripture. In the late nineteenth
century, he published an article under the name “Theistic Evolution” to interpret
Darwinism within a Christian worldview by bringing together elements of Scripture and
Darwinian evolution (Livingstone, 1987, 94).
In the early twentieth century, the rise of fundamentalism brought about a
dogmatic stance against Darwinism that became widespread among evangelical Christian
churches. Between the years of 1910 and 1915, several theologians contributed to a
paperback series entitled The Fundamentals. The theologically conservative series was
written in opposition to the modernist movement that many feared would undermine the
integrity of Christian faith. Interestingly, early volumes contained both pro-Darwin and
anti-Darwin articles; however, the series increasingly moved toward an anti-Darwin
stance (Livingstone, 1987, 147). Reverend Henry Beach published several anti-evolution
articles that specifically ridiculed Christians who accepted Darwinism. In his article
“Evolution in the Pulpit,” Beach wrote that evolution was wrong because it contradicted
Scripture and that any minister who accepted Darwinism should leave the Christian
church. He wrote, “Far better would it be for all concerned if these ministers had the
courage of their convictions, and sense of honor enough to compel them to leave the
Christian church” (Livingstone, 1987, 154). As evangelical theologians backed away
from Darwinism, the evangelical community welcomed George McGready Price’s
creationist account of the natural world (Livingstone, 1987, 157). Throughout the
twentieth century, evangelical churchs adopted an anti-Darwin, anti-evolution, and procreationism position.
The early twentieth century movement that separated evangelical Christianity
from science continues to influence evangelical churches today. Throughout evangelical
communities today, many maintain Albert Mohler’s position that evolution can have no
place in a Christian worldview. To many Evangelical Christians, the acceptance of
Darwinism is synonymous with the rejection of God. However, history may present
evangelical communities today with a fresh perspective on the relationship between
science and faith. As this paper has demonstrated, many evangelical leaders of the
nineteenth century did not believe that atheism is the inevitable and obvious consequence
of Darwinism. Nineteenth century evangelical leaders set a precedent for members of the
evangelical community to engage in a thoughtful conversation with the academic
community instead of committing to a dogmatic stance against Darwinism. There were
some who sought to modify Darwinism to account for design, some who saw no inherent
conflicts, and others who sought to relate Darwinism to the tenets of various Christian
denominations. This diversity of ideas suggests that the evangelical community should
continue to consider Darwin’s model instead of hiding from scientific truth.
Bibliography
Biema, David Van. 2005. “Can You Believe in God and Evolution?” Time. Online.
Available from Internet, http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles
/media/2005_08_07_time.html, accessed April 21, 2008.
Croce, Paul J. 1998. “Probabilistic Darwinism: Louis Agassiz vs. Asa Gray on Science,
Religion, and Certainty.” The Journal of Religious History 22 (February): 35-59.
Accessed from Academic Search Premier Database.
Darwin, Charles. 1998. The Origin of Species. New York: Modern Library.
Darwin Project. Darwin and Religion. Online. Available from Internet,
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/, accessed April 21, 2008.
Gray, Asa. 1860. Darwin on the Origin of Species. The Atlantic Ideas Tour. Online.
Available from Internet, http://www.theatlantic.com/ideastour/science/grayfull.mhtml, accessed 19 March 2008.
Livingstone, David N. 1987. Darwin's forgotten defenders: the encounter between
evangelical theology and evolutionary thought. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B.
Eerdmans.
McGrath, Gavin B. 1999. James Orr's Endorsement of Theistic Evolution. The American
Scientific Affiliation: A Fellowship of Christians in Science. Online. Available
from Internet, http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1999/PSCF6-99McGrath.html,
accessed 19 March 2008.
Moore, James R. 1979. The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A study of the Protestant
struggle to come to terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870-1900.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Numbers, Ronald L. 1988. “George Frederick Wright: From Christian Darwinist
to Fundamentalist.” Isis 79 (December): 624-645. Accessed from JSTOR
Database.
Pfeifer, Edward J. 1961. “The Reception of Darwinism in the United States, 1859-1880.”
Church History 30 (March): 109-110. Accessed from JSTOR Database.
Sanford, William. 1965. “Dana and Darwinism.” Journal of the History of Ideas 26
(October): 531-546. Accessed from JSTOR Database.