I believe this was posted by Michael Roberts several months ago, but it may
help you out in figuring the time-line.
<quote>
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) as mentioned above. The suggestion that God
had written on the earth’s rock a superfluous lie hit a sour note with most
of Gosse’s fellow Christians. Though his book stirred some interest at
first, it soon fell into disfavor.
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 alleged ape-dom 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 favor - 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 ape-dom would
destroy Christianity. The evangelical Canon H.B. Tristram of Durham was a
migratory bird 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
synonymously.
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. However, it is best seen as "a storm in
a Victorian tea-cup" exaggerated for polemical purposes.
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.
<quote/>
Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
The PanTerra Group
http://panterragroup.home.mindspring.com/
================================
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:27 PM
To: asA@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Response to: What does the Creation lack?
But the question I was addressing in the post to which you responded was,
Is God the "agent responsible" for causing each one of these events to occur
at some specific location and time? There is a theological tradition that
appears set on ascribing to God both the power and desire to be in absolute
CONTROL of each event, one by one. In the context of that view of God, it
would appear that God was the "agent responsible" for choosing to cause the
Lisbon earthquake and the death of Darwin's daughter. It's that picture of a
micromanaging and controlling divine agency to which Darwin was, I believe,
reacting with revulsion.
---I will confess that I have not studied about Darwin, not even to see the
short bio on the recent PBS miniseries, but I find this rather interesting.
Could someone direct me to a reference about this incident, preferably
on-line?
However, I would like a sneak peek at a clue…did these events occur before
he began his work in Naturalistic Evolution, or after?
I am just trying to figure out the possible motivations of the major players
in this conflict.
Norm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 09 2001 - 16:01:14 EST