Science in Christian Perspective
Science Falsely So-Called: Evolution
and Adventists in the Nineteenth Century
Department of the History of Medicine
University of Wisconsin
Madison WI 53706
From: JASA 27
(March 1975): 18-23.
Historians of science in America have known for some time now that within two decades of the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 large numbers of educated Americans had embraced some theory of organic evolution.1 They have also known that the nineteenth-century debate over evolution did not focus on the question of Scriptural authority, like the fundamentalist controversy the following century, but rather centered on the possibility of successfully harmonizing biological development with the popular doctrines of natural theology.2 Yet scarcely anything is known about the response of the larger segment of the population with little or no formal education, that element of the citizenry which several decades later filled the ranks of the fundamentalist army. Did these people, if indeed they had any knowledge of evolution at all, share the concerns of their better educated countrymen? Or were their attitudes more like those of the twentieth-century fundamentalists? In hope of finding a partial answer to these questions, I have investigated the literature of the Seventh-day Adventist church, a denomination active in the crusade against evolution in the 1920s.3
Seventh-day Adventists trace their origins hack to the Millerite movement of the 1830s and early 1840s. Following the failure of Christ to appear either in 1843 or 1844, a number of disappointed Millerites returned to their Bibles to search for new light. They concluded that the Second Coming was truly imminent, but that it would not occur until the world had been warned of the importance of keeping the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week. In 1863 this group, led by James and Ellen White and Joseph Bates, formally organized itself as the Seventh-day Adventist church. At the time of organization the church consisted of about 3,500 members and twenty-two ordained ministers, concentrated cast of the Missouri River and north of the Confederacy. Headquarters were set up at Battle Creek, Michigan. By the end of the century the church had a worldwide membership of over 75,000, with more than 500 ordained ministers .4 Only a handful of these members had been exposed to higher education.5
Unlike most of the leaders of the mainline Protestant churches of the nineteenth century, who even before 1859 had abandoned belief in the literality of the Mosaic story of creation, Adventist writers defended both the historical and scientific accuracy of the first chapters of Genesis. Their primary concern was not harmonizing science with natural theology but preserving the authority of the Scriptures. Ellen White, a prophetess with approximately three years of elementary' schooling and the most influential voice among early Adventists, consistently relegated scientific knowledge to a position much subordinate to that of revealed knowledge. 'The Bible is not to be tested by men's ideas of science," she wrote, "but science is to he brought to the test of this unerring standard." Since Moses had written his account of creation "under the guidance of the Spirit of God," any theory contradicting it was to be rejected out of hand. So far as she was concerned, Moses had left no doubt that the days of creation were six in number and of twentyfour hours' duration, and that the mode of creation had not involved the use of natural laws.6
The editors of the official church paper, the Review and Herald, shared Mrs. White's views on the relationship between science and religion. Early in 1859, several months before the publication of the Origin of Species, they reprinted an excerpt from a non-Adventist source claiming that "while the Bible does not teach science, when it does refer to science it is always correct." In support of this claim the author ironically cited Biblical allusions to the earth's rotundity.7 A couple years later the same periodical carried an article by a youthful Adventist evangelist, J. N. Loughborough, affirming the superior role of revealed knowledge. God's will must be understood through a written revelation, argued Loughhrough, because reason and nature are untrustworthy.8 This was a theme frequently repeated in Adventist' literature.
The consequences of giving up one's belief in the literality of Genesis seemed to be immense, because the reliability of the entire Bible rested upon the truth of the creation story.
John Harvey Kellogg
One of the few warnings against an unreasoning dependence upon the Bible in matters of science came from a member of the small educated minority in the church, a physician named John Harvey Kellogg, recently graduated from the Bellevue Hospital Medical College in New York City and serving as professor of physics in the denomination's newly founded Battle Creek College. Writing in 1879 in a small volume entitled Harmony of Science and the Bible, Kellogg (better remembered by Americans as the inventor of peanut butter, corn flakes, and other dry cereals) listed as one of the chief factors responsible for the recurring conflict between religion and science the habit of religionists of "Holding the Bible as unimpeachable authority on all subjects, as the universal test of truth, and attaching all importance to a particular interpretation of its language." Though Kellogg apparently believed in a special creation, he expressed a willingness to recognize the legitimacy of science within its own sphere. "Science deals chiefly with one sort of truths, religion with another class of truths." If only this division were honored, all conflict would cease.9 The leaders of the church, especially Mrs. White, did not look favorably upon the ambitious physician's habit of thinking and operating independently, and eventually Kellogg and the Adventists parted ways.10
Geology and Uniformity
As we have already mentioned, Adventists placed their faith in the Bible rather than science because of a deep suspicion of human reason. And nothing tended to confirm this suspicion better than the science of geology, which depended so crucially on the assumption of uniformity. Thus, while the leaders of American thought were discussing the merits of Darwinism, Adventists were often preoccupied with the real or imagined fallacies of geology, which they saw as providing a foundation for organic evolution-both theories going "hand in hand to destroy faith in the word of God.11 Seldom did they pass up an opportunity to point a scoffing finger at "the dreamy, incoherent utterances of geologists ."12 Uriah Smith, editor of the Review and Herald, occasionally led the attack himself. Though he had never attended college, he had no fear of doing battle with the Goliaths of the scientific world. Who, he asked, had "ever proven or tried to prove" the validity of the uniformity principle? "Nobody" was the obvious answer. "Usually it is either 'presumed that the reader will he convinced' of the matter, or certain results are 'supposed to have been effected by such causes as are operating at present.' "13 The numerous controversies and lack of consensus within the geological community seemed to lend credence to Smith's charges of unreliability. Even the foremost geological authors of the day-William Buckland, Hugh Miller, Charles Lyell, and Edward Hitchcock frequently contradicted one another. 14
Quite naturally Smith opened the pages of the Review and Herald to other critics of geology. The titles adequately reveal the recurring message: "The Blunders of Geologists," "The Uncertainty of Geological Science," and "False Theories of Geologists."15 Typical is the comment of George W. Amadon, the 28-yearold editor of the Youth's Instructor, a periodical for Adventist young people: "No class of scientific men are more hasty and rash in making assertions than some geologists." "As a science it is not demonstrative, and its oracles are contradictory and clash with each other."16 Likewise, the secretary of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, C. M. Stone, warned that "the guess-work of geologists is a very' unsafe foundation on which to build theories that go hack of the record of Moses," and then went on to deny the validity of the principle of uniformity.17
The editors of the Review and Herald regularly reprinted what they considered to he devastating examples of the "extravagant pretensions" and the "absurdity" of geology. In one of these a Reformed Presbyterian minister in Chicago, Robert Patterson, observed that to construct the earth's history from processes currently going on was like measuring "a youth of six feet high, and finding that he grew half an inch last year, [concluding] thence that he was a hundred and forty-four years old."18 In another, President Joseph F. Tuttle of Wabash College was said to have scored "a capital bit on that popular farce and prime minister of skepticism, geological guess-work," when he suggested that fossils-particularly human ones-found in geological formations much lower and earlier than usually assigned to men had probably dropped to that level during earthquakes.19 On a third occasion, an article in the Scientific American estimating the age of the earth to be six hundred million years elicited the following critique:
The reader will see at once the basis of this wonderful conclusion: first, an "estimate," then a "probability,"
then an "assumption," then a fact which is available only if the assumption is correct, then another "assumption," then the grand "conclusion." And having thus positively proved Moses to he five hundred and ninetynine millions, nine hundred and ninety-four thousand sears from the truth, they are happy! How nice it is to have such clear and positive knowledge about these things 20
Alonzo T. Jones
Among the sizable group of Adventists to comment on geology, not one had any first-hand acquaintance with the science and few gave any evidence that they had read more than popular accounts of what geologists did. A notable exception was the West Coast minister Alonzo T. Jones, a self-taught ex-soldier converted while stationed at Fort \Valla Walla, Washington. Unlike many of his colleagues, Jones took geology seriously-at least seriously enough to read Archibald Geikie's Text Book of Geology, one of the most authoritative works in the field, three times through. All this study, however, merely convinced him of the total unreliability of geology, a theme he developed at length in a series of lead articles for the Review and Herald in 1883.21 Here he accused geologists not only of beginning their reasonings with an assumption, but of using circular arguments. The most blatant instances of the latter were two statements by Geikie on dating. "One of these says that the relative age of the rocks' is determined by the fossils. The other says that the relative age of the fossils is determined by the rocks." "What is this but reasoning in a circle?" asked Jones. This example and others like it forced him to conclude that "the only certain thing about [geological science], is its uncertainty."22
Science Falsely So-Called
Seventh-day Adventists were understandably reluctant to admit having any hostility toward what they liked to call "true science," that is, science based upon "facts" and in agreement with the Bible. Their criticisms were directed solely at "science falsely so-called," hypothetical science in conflict with revelation.23 Scientific theories and hypotheses regarding the history of the earth were acceptable only under the severest restrictions. In formulating them, scientists were not to "assume any condition of the world, the existence of any agents, or the occurrence of any events, the reality of which they cannot demonstrate; and all their assumptions and reasonings must be consistent with all the facts, and all the laws of nature, which the question affects."24 It did not disturb Adventists that these stipulations also ruled out as unscientific all supernatural explanations of the creation of the world. They were happy to remove the entire question of origins from the sphere of science to the realm of faith. "It is by faith and not by exploration and observation, that we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God," wrote R. F. Cottrell, an Adventist author and minister. "The believer walks by faith, not by sight. In those things which are beyond his own observation he takes the word of God, simply believing what God has said."25
In defending their extreme Baconian view of science, Adventists revealed a deep-seated anti-intellectual prejudice, not uncommon among overly-democratic and under-educated Americans. In 1872 the Review and Herald reprinted an address by the Presbyterian minister John Hall, in which he warmly thanked scientists for collecting so many useful facts, then denied them an exclusive right to interpret what they had discovered. "When they come to reason upon these facts," he said,
they use just the same kind of mind that God has given me; and I endeavor to use my mind upon these facts aright, just as truly as they claim to use their minds upon the facts. Hence . . . I claim the right to reason upon them just as truly as they can claim it; and I do not think the less of myself it in many instances I draw conclusions from the facts that have thus became common property that are not the conclusions that they venture to draw!26
Adventists could not have agreed more .27
Conflict with Revelation
The heart of Adventist opposition to developmental theories, both organic and inorganic, was not the uncertain status of these ideas; it was their apparent conflict with revelation. The Bible clearly stated that the world was made in "six natural days," and Adventists rebelled at the thought of sacrificing this divine truth "ml the altar of geological speculation."
Ellen White consistently relegated scientific knowledge to a position much subordinate to that of revealed knowledge.
The consequences of giving up one's belief in the literality of Genesis seemed to them to be immense, because the reliability of the entire Bible rested upon the truth of the creation story'. Few spelled out the implications more sharply than David Nevins Lord, a New York millenarian and former editor of the Theological and Literary Journal. Genesis and geology, he asserted, are mutually contradictory. If the geologists are correct, the Mosaic record is false and God is a liar. And "it is impossible that God should not have spoken the truth," The decision to accept or reject
geology thus took on tremendous theological significance. "If founded n just grounds, [geology] disproves the inspiration, not only of the record in Genesis of the creation, but of the whole of the writings of Moses, and thence, , . . of the whole of the Old and New Testaments, and divests Christianity itself of its title to be received as a divine institution."28
Compounding the difficulty of harmonizing any developmental view with the Bible were the statements of Ellen White. Writing in Spiritual Gifts in 1864, she claimed to have seen in vision the actual creation of the world. Specifically, she was shown "that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week ."29 For many Adventists, the rejection of her testimony would have been tantamount to repudiating God's own word.
A Threat to Seventh-Day Sabbath
Adventists were especially fearful of anything that might weaken their arguments for observing the seventh-day Sabbath as a memorial of a six-day creation. And theories of evolutionary development threatened to do just that, According to Ellen White, "the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment."30 Her husband, James, a founding father of the denomination and president of the General Conference, also warned that any deviation from the traditional view of creation would undermine the doctrine of the Sabbath along with the rest of the Bible. If the days of creation were assumed to be long, indefinite stretches of time, then
the period of man's toils and cares before a day of rest, is also immense, covering millions of years. And if the last day of the first week, the day no which Jehovah rested from his work, was another immense indefinite period, the weekly Sabbath of the Old and New Testaments, which was made for man and commanded in the moral laws to be kept holy, is also an immense period of time.
Equally distressing was the thought that
if the six days of creation, as we are told, were six indefinite periods, each
covering millions of years, Adam, created so the early part of the
period, and dying at the age of nine hundred and thirty, leaving
millions of years
to reacts to the close of that sixth period, died without keeping a
Such ideas, making the Bible seem absurd, obviously could not be tolerated.31
The only accommodation to natural history Adventists were ever willing to discuss was the possibility of allowing an extended period of time between an initial creation of inorganic matter 'in the beginning," depicted in the first verse of Genesis 1, and a later six-day creation about 6,000 years ago. In the opinion of at least one Adventist, a midwestern minister named J. P. Henderson, this view did "no violence to a single statement in the Bible."32 Yet, despite its innocuousness, this idea never gained much popularity among Adventists. The prevailing attitude was that expressed by the French-Canadian evangelist D. T. Bourdeau. "Mark! the Bible says that God made the heaven and earth, as well as all that in them is, in six days," he wrote in the Review and Herald. "It is in the beginning of the first day, therefore, that God created the heaven and the earth, as spoken in Gen. i, I".33
Literal Reading of Genesis
Their strict adherence to a literal reading of Genesis prevented Adventists from adopting even the most theistic of evolutionary ideas and thus separated them from the mainstream of American thought. Well before 1859 educated Americans had reinterpreted Genesis to make room for the advancement of science. During
Among the sizable group to comment on geology, not one had any firsthand acquaintance with the science and few gave any evidence that they had read more than popular accounts of what geologists did.
the l830s and 1840s Edward Hitchcock of Amherst College influenced many to embrace a view similar to that advocated by Henderson above, with the significant difference that Hitchcock's disciples allowed for the appearance of a succession of plants and animals prior to the Mosaic creation. In the following decades the educated often found it more reasonable to assume that the six days spoken of by Moses were not twenty-four hours in length but long intervals, a
compromise advocated by scientific notables like Yale's Benjamin Silliman and James Dwight Dana and Princeton's Arnold Guyot. Either of these interpretations permitted the orthodox to adopt a theistic brand of evolution without seeming to depart from the intended revelation.34
Intervention vs Providence
Adventists also ran counter to prevailing theological currents in their insistence upon miraculous special providcssces as the mode of creation. By the second half of the nineteenth century the religious leaders of America were placing less emphasis on supernatural interventions in the natural order and more on God's general providence through the secondary laws of nature. Thus they could without difficulty explain evolution simply as God's way of creating with natural lavs.35 The Adventists, however, saw evolution as restricting, if not altogether abolishing, God's role in the work of creation. It "is the last and most plausible attempt of infidelity to vote the throne of the adorable Creator vacant," wrote one author in the Review and Herald.36 Another described it as "only an attempt to eject God, and to postpone him, and to put him clear out of reach."37
Because of its impious tendencies, evolution was commonly labeled "atheistic" or "infidel," and its founders and supporters fared no better. The Review and Herald, for example, unapologetically published Thomas Carlyle's description of Darwin as an unintelligent atheist, and reprinted a statement that "All the leading scientists who believe in evolution, without one exception the world over, are infidel."38 The fact that theistic evolution was widely held in the Christian world-"almost all-pervading in the orthodox and evangelical churches, schools, and colleges"-carried
no weight with the Adventists. It was merely additional evidence of the apostasy afflicting the nation's leading churches, explained W. H. Littlejohn, the blind president of Battle Creek College.39
Of special concern to many Adventists, as well as to twentieth-century fundamentalists, was the possible effect of evolutionary theories on the spiritual lives of their children. "This is a very serious matter," warned J. 0. Corliss in a Sabbath-afternoon sermon to the Adventists of Battle Creek in 1880.
We are forced to see our children, before they are old enough to carefully weigh these matters, and become enabled to discriminate between truth and error, imbibe sentiments from text books at school, that, despite time religious influence at home, ripen them into skeptics and infidels at an early age.40
To guard against this eventuality, Adventists turned increasingly to the protection of denominationally run schools, from the first grade through college.
Non-sociological considerations played a secondary, but significant, role its the Adventist resistance to organic evolution. Human vanity rebelled at the prospect of relinquishing an honored position at the head of created beings, only to be herded together "with four-footed beasts and creeping things," over which man had formerly had dominion. Darwinism, complained one unhappy critic, "tears the crown from our heads; it treats us as bastards and not sons, and reveals the degrading fact that man in his best estate-even Mr. Darwin-is but a civilized, dressed up, educated monkey, who has lost his tail."41 For those who believed they had been created in the image of God himself, the demotion was indeed humiliating. The descendants of baboons are certainly not entitled to pride, wrote Adolphus Smith, an Adventist layman from Grand Rapids, Michigan.42
Though Adventists seldom took the scientific basis of evolution very seriously, they always welcomed the opportunity to point out its supposed shortcomings in this area. After all, Darwinism, like geology, had to he exposed as "science falsely so-called." The objections raised by P. H. Russel, whose writings were reprinted in the Reeietv and Herald, are representative. He maintained that the present existence of lower forms of life was "fatal to the whole theory," because if evolution had been occurring for millions of years, all life would inevitably "climb the ladder of progress and pass into men," leaving nothing but humanity on the face of the earth. Somewhat inconsistently, he also regarded the absence of intermediate links as a weakness of Darwinism, If the theory is true, he argued, "monkeys are naturally, gradually, and surely passing into men," and the transitional forms should be seen everywhere.43
The Flood as Solution
Those who rejected the evolutionary history of life necessarily had to provide an alternative explanation of the fossil record, and Adventists invariably turned to the Noachian flood for virtually all solutions to their geological and paieontological problems. Encouragement to do this came from Ellen White, who wrote that if individuals would only recognize "the size of men, animals and trees before the flood, and . . . the great changes which then took place in the earth," they would have no trouble accepting the "view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old." She believed that the recent findings of earth scientists were providential, designed by God to "establish the faith of men in inspired history."44 Following her lead, the editors of the Recime and herald widely publicized any new discoveries that might conceivably corroborate the occurrence of the flood. When J. N. Loughborough ran across a hook that "successfully [met] the objections which are raised in regard to the flood," he had excerpts of it reprinted, together with the admonition to "preserve this article, for reference in case of an attack on this point."45 Occasionally a writer was hopeful enough to suggest the likelihood of scientific confirmation of the flood and thus of the Biblical story of creation. "A little further progress in [geology]," wrote one optimist, "will probably show
that its teachings wonderfully harmonize with the scriptural statements on the same subject.46 Unfortuuatelv, in this, as in their expectation of the Second Coming, the Adventists faced continued disappointment.
This brief look at the Adventist response to developmental theories reveals the extent to which the debate over evolution spread in nineteenth-century American society. It suggests that many uneducated Christians, sometimes ill-informed and not always very visible, were indeed aware of the challenges presented by evolutionary ideas to their traditional beliefs. Not surprisingly, these people reacted in much the same way as the fundamentalists of the early twentieth century.47 While the nation's more learned religious communities were attempting to reconcile organic evolution with the doctrines of natural theology, the less sophisticated were fighting to preserve the authenticity and literality of the Mosaic record and agonizing over the prospect of kinship with the apes. They, like the later fundamentalists, turned their hacks on worldly knowledge to defend divine revelation against the encroachments of science and to protect their children from its insidious influence. Clearly, the fundamentalist controversy of the 1920s was not, as one historian has recently claimed, "merely a continuance of the conflict first precipitated within theological circles after the appearance of Darwin's theory in the last half of the nineteenth century."48 It was rather a natural outgrowth of the much different debate begun in the nineteenth century by Adventists and other fundamentalist foes of "science falsely so-called."
I wish to thank Mr. Tom Gammon for his assistance ill the preparation of this study.
1Bert James Loewenberg, in his pioneering work on Darwinism in America, concluded that by 1873 evolution "was almost universally accepted as a working hypothesis" by American scientists; "The Impact of the Doctrine of Evolution on American Thought" (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1933), p. 274. More recently, Michael Giffert has emphasized "the remarkably rapid adjustment of substantial sections of Protestant thought to evolution"; "Christian Darwinism: The Partnership of Asa Gray and George Frederick Wright, 18741881" (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1958), P. 3. Another study of American attitudes toward Darwinism shows that the incorporation of Darwin's ideas ''into traditional patterns of thought- was accomplished within twenty years; Edward J. Pfeifer, "The Reception of Darwinism in the United States, 1859-1880 (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Brown University, 1957), p. 192. See also George Daniels (ed. ), Darwinism Comes to America (Waltham, Mass.: BlaisrIell Publishing Co.. 1968), 1). 95.
2Among those who have made this point are A. Hunter Dupree, Asa Gray, 1810-1888 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959), pp. 266-69; and B. J. Wilson (ed.), Darwinism and the American Intellectual (Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1967), pp. 3-4, 39-40.
3The Seventh-day Adventist teacher George MeGready Price was "the one scientific authority most frequently cited by anti-evolutionists, and other Adventist leaders, notably Francis D. Niehot and Alonzo L. Baker, participated in public debates; Willard B. Gatewood, Jr. (ed. ), Gontroersij in the Twenties: Fit iidallieiitelisin, Ttioderiiismn, and Evolution (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1969). mi. 141, 263. It should be noted, however, that on nonscientific issues other fundamentalists sometimes shied away from the Millerite Adventists; see Ernest R. Sandeco, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Milleniumism 1800-1931 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 150.
4Don F. Neufield.), Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia ''Commentary Reference Series," Vol. X; Washington: Review and herald Publishing Association, 1966), pp. 929-41, 1180-82.
5A study of biographical sketches of 315 prominent Adventists born between 1790 and 1870 yields the following data:
Ministers Educators Physicians Others
(203) (30) (23) (59)
Attended no college 68.5% 26.7% ---- 72.9%
Attended SDA college 27.1% 36.7% 4.3% 20.3%
Attended non-SDA college 4.4% 36.7% 95.6% 6.8%
If the lending Adventists had so little education, we can safely assume that the vast majority of the rank and file had no college experience whatever. And whether or not the nineteenth-century "proto-Fundamentalists were frequently men in high esteem in their own denominations and communities," as Ernest R. Sandeen claims ["Toward a Historical Interpretation of the Origins of Fundamentalism," Church History, XXXVI (March, 1967), 83], they certainly do not appear to have been well educated.
6Ellen C. White, "Science and Revelation," The Signs of the Times, X (March 13, 1884), 161; Spiritual Gifts: Important Facts of Faith, in Connection with the History of Holy Men of Old (Battle Creek, Mich.; Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1864), p. 93.
7Science and the Bible," Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, XIV (February 24, 1859), 107. This statement is attributed to a Dr. Gumming, probably Dr. John Gumming the Scottish divine known for his studies of Biblical prophecies, Hereafter the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, better known as the Review and Herald, will he cited as R&H.
8J.N. Loughborough. 'Guidance of Nature," R&H, XVIII (November 5, 1861), 177.
9J. H. Kellogg, Harmony of Science and the Bible on the Nature of the Soul and the Doctrine of the Resurrection (Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1879), pp. 10-11, 28-29. Later Kellogg seems to have become a theistic evolutionist. See Richard N. Schwartz, John Harvey Kellogg, M.D. (Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1970), p. 190.
10See Schwartz John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., pp. 174-92.
11A. T. Jones, "The Uncertainty of Geological Science," R&H, LX (August 21, 1883), 530.
12"Geolngy and the Bible," R&H XXVI (October 17, 1865), 157.
13(Uriah Smith], "False Theories of Geologists," R&H. LIX (September 5, 1882), 568. Smith had attended Phillips Exeter Academy for several years, but financial considerations had prevented him from going on to college.
l4(Uriah Smith), "Geology," R&H, XIII (December 16, 1858), 28.
15"The Blunders of Geologists," R&H, XXVI (October 24, 1865), 161-62; Jones, "The Uncertainty of Geological Science," p. 529; [Smith], "False Theories of Geologists," p. 568.
16[G.W. Amadon], "The Skeptic Met," R&H, XVI (September 4, 1860), 121.
17[C. MI. Stone], "A Coin Imbedded in a Rock," R&H, XLIX (March 1, 1877), 72.
18Geological Chronology, R&H, XXXV (February 8, 1870), 51. Reprinted, with an introduction, from an article by Patterson in the Family Treasury.
19"That Old Skull," /1&H, XXXVI (October 25, 1870), 146. Reprinted from a work by Tuttle.
20 "A Specimen of Knowledge," B&H, LIII (Slay 15, 1879), 156.
21T. Jones, "The Uncertainty of Geological Science," R&H, LX (August 7, 1883), 497-98; (August 14, 1883), 51314; (August 21, 1883), 529-30. The following year Jones published another series on '' 'Evolution' and Evolution,"R&H, LXI (March 11, 1884), 162-63; (March 18, 1884), 178-79; (March 25, 1884), 194-95.
22Jones, "The Uncertainty of Geological Science,` pp. 513, 531).
23O. Corliss, "Geologists vs. the Mosaic Record," R&H, LV (February 19, 1880), 116-17; Ellen C. White, "Science and the Bible in Education," The Signs of the Times, X (March 21), 1884), 177; Stephen Pierce, "Dues the Bible Agree with Science?" R&H, XXXVIII (October 3, 1871), 121 and Jones, "'Evolution' and Evolution,'' p. 195.
24[N. Lord], ''The Structure of the Earth," R&H, LV (February 12, 1880), 99. Lord was an evangelical editor, known for his writings on science and religion and on the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies.
Those who rejected the evolutionary history of life -necessarily had to provide an alternative explanation of the fossil record, and Adventists invariably turned to the Noachian flood for virtually all solutions to their geological and paleontological problems.
25R. F. Cisttrell, "The Antiquity of Man," R&H, XLV (January
21, 1875), 29. See also Jones, "The Uncertainty of Geological
26"Turning the Tables," R&H, XXXIX (April 9, 1872), 130. This article was taken from an address by the Rev. John Hall, a Presbyterian minister and writer.
27See, for example, "Too Knowing for Faith," R&H, LX (November 8, 1877), 148; and Corliss, "Geologists vs.
the Mosaic Record," p. 116.
28[Lnrd], "The Structure of the Earth," p. 98. Uriah Smith made an equally strong pronouncement in "Giving Way," R&H, LX (October 23, 1883), 664.
29Ellen C. White, Spiritual Gifts, p. 90.
30Ibid., p. 91. E. J. Waggoner, an Adventist physician and minister, repeats Mrs. White's views in The Literal Week
("Apples of Gold Library," No. 18; Oakland, Calif.: Pacific Press Publishing Cu., 1894), p. 2.
31James White], "The First Week of Time," R&H, LV (February 12, 1880), 104-105.
32J. P. Hendersusn, "The Bible.-No. 7," R&H LXIV (July 5, 1887), 419. In 1860 the editors of the R&H reprinted a passage from The Bible True by the Presbyterian minister William Plniner, advocating a similar interpretation; "Geology," Rhhl, XVI (July 3, 1860), 49. Dr. Kellogg, in his early years, also seems to have leaned toward this view; see Harmony of Science and the Bible, p. 20.
33 T. Bordeau, ''Geology and the Bible; Or, a Pre-Adamic Age of Our World Doubtful," B&H, XXIX (February 5, 1867), 98. See also "The Creation of Light," R&H, XXXIV (September 28, 1869), 112.
34See. Ronald L. Numbers, ''The Nebular Hypothesis in American Thought," (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1969), Ch. VII: "The Mosaic Account of Creation."
35Ibid., Ch. VI: "Design and Providence."
36 R, Russel, "Darwinism Examined," R&H, XLVII (May 18, 1876), 153.
37DeWitt 'Talmager, "Evolution: ,Anti-Bihslr', Anti-Science, Anti-Commonsense," R&H, LX( April 24, 1883), 261. Talmage was an immensely popular and controversial minister in the Presbyterian church
38Carlyle on Darwin,'' R&H, LI (January 17, 1878), 19; Talmagc, "Evolution," p. 261.
39W. H. Littlejohn, "The Temple in Heavens," R&H, LXII February 24, 1885), 116. Uriah Smith explained the "defection of leading Christians ... to the ranks of the evolutionists'' as being the result of Satanic influence; "Giving Way," p. 664. On the widespread teaching of evolution in American colleges, see ''Do Our Colleges Teach Evolution?" Independent, XXXI ( December 18, 1879), 14-15.
40 Corliss, "Geologists vs. the Mosaic Record," p. 116.
41 Russel, ''Dawinism Examined," p. 153.
42Adolphuss South, "Science, Falsely So Called (Judy 8, 1873), 31.
43Russell, ''Darwinisim Examined," p. 153.
44Ellenen C. White, Spiritual Gifts, pp. 92-9.5. See also Waggoner, The Literal Week, p. 3.
45 N. Loughborough, ''Scripture Account of the Flood, Vindicated," B&H, XVIII (October 29., 1861), 173. The recommended work was the first volume of Horne's Introduction of the the Study of the Bible.
46[Plummerr] , "Geology," p. 49.
47For a survey of fundamentalist attitudes toward evolution, see the "Introduction" to Gatewood, Controversy in the Twenties, pp. 3-4.}
48Lawrence W. Levine, Defender of the Faith: William Jennings Bryan: The Last Decade, 1915-1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), p. 261).