Thank you for this most enlightening article, but I wasn’t talking about
THAT (non-)conflict. I was talking about the bigger one, as in the “’Gott
ist tot…’- Nietzsche; ‘Nietzsche is dead…’-God” variety.
Did Darwin’s daughter die before or after he snatched Creation from the
Creator? Yeah, THOSE major players.
Will be gone for a long weekend. I will look forward to your response when
I get back.
Norm Woodward
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen J. Krogh [mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 4:02 PM
To: asA@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Response to: What does the Creation lack?
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 - 16:59:09 EST