White's History of the warfare is fundamentally unreliable in details and in
overview. Yet it is often the first cited on the relationship of science and
religion. I append something I write for Victorian Religion students to warn
them off the cowboys-n-injuns approach to science and religion.
If you want to check White simply look up his references, but dont do it if
you have high blood pressure. I dont think many Creationists exceed his
skill in misquotation! I once followed up his treatment of Sam Wilberforce
on Darwin. White quoted Wilberforce's review of the Origin 7 times; some
were untracable, 3 were misquotes and only was almost as Wilberforce gave
it. There are other examples.
There are plenty of decent books on the topic, see below. Ted Davis may
provide more.
Micheal Roberts
Was there really warfare between Science and Christianity?
The classic TV portrayal of conflict between science and religion is the
reconstruction of the Huxley-Wilberforce encounter shown in the last episode
of the 1970s series the Voyage of the Beagle. Wilberforce is portrayed as a
scientific ignoramus and Huxley as a cool scientific orator. In many places
it is assumed that Orthodox Christianity means accepting creation in six
days and any departure from that is a shift in a liberal direction. In 1999
this was repeated by Melvin Bragg on his series on Christianity and A.N.
Wilson in God's Funeral.
Geology and Genesis, 1790 to 1860
To put it simplistically Geology took off as a science in the 1790s under
Hutton in Scotland, Smith in England and Cuvier and Brogniart in France when
conclusive evidence was found for ordering strata and showing a vast age of
the earth. Hutton's chief spokesman was the Rev John Playfair and Smith's
the Revs B.Richardson and J.Townshend. Most educated people accepted the new
findings and even the church press showed little opposition. From 1810 there
was much geological fieldwork and in 1815 Smith produced the first
geological map of England and Wales. Geologists came from various
backgrounds with a considerable number of clergy, often Evangelical. The
1820s was the heyday of clerical catastrophic geology of Buckland and
Sedgwick, who held that strata were deposited over a long period of time
(millions of years) in a succession of catastrophes or deluges, the Noachian
being the last. In his Principles of Geology (1830) Lyell took over their
methods and timescale and replaced catastrophism with uniformitarianism.
Lyell has become a mythic figure with claims that he introduced notions of
an ancient earth. That is bunk and has been discredited by such historians
as Rudwick and Gould. As the vast of age of the earth was widely known in
1790 it cannot be the case as Lyell was born in 1797, unless miracles can
happen!
Not all was smooth sailing and from the mid-twenties a vocal group, the
Anti- or Scriptural Geologists, tried to show that geologists were mistaken
and that Creation took place in 6 days. This disparate group included clergy
and laity with a Dean of York, an Oxford Professor and Brande, Faraday's
colleague at the Royal Institution. Scientifically their writings were
worthless by the standards of the day and were attacked by such orthodox
Christians as Conybeare, Buckland, Sedgwick, Sumner and Pye Smith. Lyell
mocked from the sidelines. To give an idea of numbers, during this period I
can name at least six Deans of Cathedrals, a dozen Bishops and half a dozen
clerical Oxbridge professors, who actively supported geology. In the period
1825-1850 the vast majority of Christians accepted geology, but a small and
noisy minority did not. It is vital to get it in proportion. Andrew White in
History of the warfare of science and theology claimed that the
Anti-geologists were the Orthodox Party thus distorting our understanding.
By the 1850s the Anti-geologists were a spent force and even such an extreme
Evangelical as J.Cumming accepted geology. Almost the only exception was
Phillip Gosse in Omphalos (1857)
The Dawn of Evolution 1859
The Origin of Species was the seminal work of the decade and attracted
great interest. The popular perception is that it was violently objected to
by the Christian Church as it "questioned both the literal accuracy of the
first chapters of Genesis and the argument from design for the existence of
God". The first part of this quote from Altholz is simply untrue as no
educated Christians believed in 4004 BC in 1860, except a few ex-Plymouth
Brethren. Design in the strict Paleyan sense may have been killed by Darwin,
but many kept to some kind of Design; Kingsley, Gray, Temple, Birks, and
Hensleigh and Julia Wedgwood (Darwin's Cousins). The main religious concern
was whether our apedom would destroy our morality as Wilberforce made clear.
The responses to Darwin are fascinating and varied and no simple answer can
be given. Initially some scientists were in favour - Huxley and Hooker, some
not sure - Lyell, and many against, notably the leading physicists and
geologists. Of Anglican and Scottish Presbyterian clergy (some of
considerable scientific ability) none were literalists, and of 30 or so
responses I have studied they are equally divided between being for, against
or undecided. All 30 accepted geological findings and a scientific outlook.
Wilberforce's objections were largely geological, but felt our apedom would
destroy Christianity. The evangelical Canon H.B. Tristram of Durham was a
migratory bird and a competent ornithologist. He accepted and applied
natural selection to birds in 1858, after reading Darwin's Linnean Society
paper. He went to Oxford in 1860 an evolutionist but after hearing
Wilberforce and Hooker (Huxley spoke too quietly to be heard) he changed his
mind. A year or so later he became an evolutionist again and used creation
and evolution as synonymous.
Well. was there conflict? There was not CONFLICT, but there was conflict.
The reviews and the meeting at Oxford show that there was controversy both
religious and scientific. The only example of ecclesiastical prejudice I can
find is the sacking of Prof Buchman of Cirencester Agricultural College,
whose evolutionary ideas offended the Anglican management. By 1866 even the
Victoria Institute were tolerating evolution, even if some members objected.
Within two decades most educated Christians accepted some kind of evolution,
even if, like Wallace, limited evolution to non-humans.
Whence Conflict between Science and Religion?
The idea that there has been a serious conflict is widely held but recent
studies have challenged this,whether they focus narrowly on Huxley and
Wilberforce or look more widely. The conclusion by Lindberg and Numbers,
Gould, Brooke and Russell is that the conflict thesis comes from a reading
back into events by some of the protagonists of the 19th century. Huxley and
Hooker embellished their controversies with the church, Edmund Gosse in
Father and Son made his father to be typical of Christians, Andrew White's
massive The Warfare of Science with Theology (1896) is so flawed as to be
worthless, despite its massive documentation which often cannot be followed
up, Darwin's claims that at Cambridge he did not "doubt the strict and
literal truth of every word in the Bible" are not true, Leslie Stephen's
concerns with the historicity of the Ark has been shown by Sir Owen Chadwick
to be the product of a lively imagination and many evangelicals had come to
Colenso's conclusions about Noah some 30 years before 1860. Most of these
examples are referred to in serious works of history but a little historical
research refutes them. This does raise a few questions on Altholz's
assertion that for Huxley and others "Truthfulness had replaced belief as
the ultimate standard." The conflict thesis in its classic form needs to be
consigned to the bin, BUT there is an opposite danger - the total denial of
any conflict whatever and the claim that there was harmony. That is as
erroneous. The other danger is to ignore popular perception as this did and
still does reckon there is a conflict. To conclude, there was some conflict,
which has various causes; the wish of some scientists to break away from
church involvement, the concerns of some that evolution may eliminate God.
There was also conflict of re-adjustment. But it is best seen as "a storm in
a Victorian tea-cup" exaggerated for polemical purposes.
Finally there was no serious battle of Genesis and Geology, but a few
Christians objected to geology. By 1860 biblical literalism was virtually
extinct but was revived in the USA in 1961 in the form of Creationism.
Neither was there a battle royal over evolution. In 1860 hardly any educated
people were still literalists. Until this is firmly grasped it is impossible
to assess the relationship of Christianity and Science and to consider
exactly what were - and are - the problems.
References; J.H. Brooke, Science and Religion, some historical perspectives,
Cambridge, 1991,
Lindberg and Numbers, God and Nature 1986
R Numbers, Darwinism comes to America (Darwin never crossed the pond
though!!)
Michael Ruse The evolution Wars 2000
S.J.Gould, try historical essays in his various Penguins, which are always
well-argued
anything by Peter Bowler
Brooke and Cantor, Reconstructing Nature, T&T Clark, 1998
Marston,P and Forster, G. Science, Reason and Faith, Monarch 1999
Michael Roberts, August 2000
----- Original Message -----
From: <PHSEELY@aol.com>
To: <tdavis@messiah.edu>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: Bryan and Scopes trial
> Ted,
>
> << I don't share Bill Payne's point that Bryan died "in humiliation" a few
> days
> after the Scopes trial. He died, yes, but after what most
fundamentalists
> regarded as a victory for their side: ETC>>
>
> This raises a question I have been wanting to ask you. I am hypothesizing
> that whenever the Church has gone up against modern science on a
particular
> scientific issue, i.e, modern science says, "X", but the Bible says, "not
X"
> that the Church has at least over time lost the battle. Would you agree
with
> this or can you tell me of exceptions?
>
> Also, I agree with you that White's A History of the Warfare... is not
> trustworthy, at least in the details; but, would you say it is
fundamentally
> reliable? And, is there a substitue book(s) that covers the same ground
more
> soundly? And, if not, is there some source(s) where one could check on
> White's presentations?
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 14 2001 - 17:55:58 EST