Pre-Darwin Religion
From History of Evolution
The Range of Religious Positions
To understand the role of religion in the controversies surrounding the theory of evolution one must distinguish among a range of positions held by theists and look at the possible forms of relations between religion and science . Eugenie C. Scott provided an excellent summary of the range of religious positions with respect to science, and we follow her taxonomy here, using extracts from her essay. (The image is used by permission.) Then further below we look at the possible forms of relations between science and religion.
Scott outlines nine positions that theists have taken with respect to science in general and evolution in particular. Her descriptions are italicized below.
1. Flat Earth Creationism
- Members of the Flat Earth Society believe that the shape of the earth is flat because a literal reading of the Bible demands it (Schadewald, 1991). Charles K. Johnson is the head of the International Flat Earth Society, headquartered in Lancaster, CA, and he is very serious about the planet´s shape being as the ancients perceived it: circular and flat, not spherical. The earth is shaped like a coin, not a ball. References in the Bible to the "four corners of the earth" refer to the cardinal directions; more relevant are references to the "circle of the earth", implying a 2-dimensional, flat plane. The International Flat Earth Society has only about 200 members (Schadewald, 1980) and is insignificant in the antievolution movement. However, it represents the most extreme biblical literalist theology: the earth is flat because the Bible says it is flat. Scientific views are of secondary importance.
There are very few flat-earthers left, as Scott says, but they're not completely extinct. After Charles K. Johnson died in 2001 the Flat Earth Society he headed stumbled along, but now appears to be nearly defunct. There is new flat earth web forum that apparently succeeded one that went dark during the summer of 2008. The BBC had a recent story on flat earthers.
2. Geocentric Creationism
- Geocentrists accept that the earth is spherical, but deny that the sun is the center of the solar system. Like flat earthers, they reject virtually all of modern physics and chemistry as well as biology. Geocentrism is a somewhat larger, though still insignificant constituent of modern antievolutionism. At the Bible-Science Association creationism conference in 1985, the plenary session debate was held between two geocentrists and two heliocentrists (Bible-Science Association, 1985). Similarly, as recently as 1985, the secretary of the Creation Research Society was a published geocentrist (Kaufmann, 1985).
Geocentrists, while also very rare, are more common than flat earthers. The Association for Biblical Astronomy is headed by Gerardus D. Bouw who has a Ph.D. in astronomy from Case Western Reserve University. The Association asserts:
- This site is devoted to the historical relationship between the Bible and astronomy. It assumes that whenever the two are at variance, it is always astronomy—that is, our "reading" of the "Book of Nature," not our reading of the Holy Bible—that is wrong. History bears consistent witness to the truth of that stance.
3. Young-Earth Creationism (YEC)
Called by some -- e.g., Kurt Wise, a YEC who got his degree under Stephen Jay Gould -- "Young-Age Creationism".
- The term "Young-Earth Creationism" (YEC) is usually reserved for the followers of Henry Morris, founder and recently-retired president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and arguably the most influential creationist of the late 20th century. Few classical YECs interpret the flat-earth and geocentric passages of the Bible literally, but they reject modern physics, chemistry, and geology concerning the age of the earth, and they deny biological descent with modification. In their view, the earth is from 6 to 10 thousand years old.
The main organizations promoting Young Earth Creationism in the U.S. are the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Answers in Genesis (AIG). ICR was founded in 1970 by Henry Morris, a Ph.D. hydrologist and with theologian John C. Whitcomb, author of The Genesis Flood, an attempt to account for the appearance of the earth in terms of a recent global deluge (the Biblical Flood). Whitcomb recently (2005) wrote an evaluation of the impact of the book.
Answers in Genesis was originally an Australian ministry. In 1986 Ken Ham moved to the U.S., and organized Creation Science Ministries with help from Henry Morris of ICR. Subsequently that organization morphed into Answers in Genesis (AIG-US), headquartered in Kentucky. AIG-US operates a creationist museum in northern Kentucky. Recently AIG-US had an acrimonious split with its Australian parent organization, AIG-Australia (now known as Creation Ministries International), and that split is being litigated in Australian courts Some of the communications between the two organizations are public. (Latest update on that dispute.)
Video of a contemporary YEC on the age of the earth. Notice the persistent denigration of science and scientists. That's a consistent theme in YEC publications.
4. Old Earth Creationism (OEC)
- That the earth is ancient was well-established in science by the mid- 1800´s, and was not considered a radical idea in either the Church of England or the Catholic Church (Eiseley, 1958). From the mid-1700´s on, the theology of Special Creationism has been harmonized with scientific data and theory showing that the earth was ancient.
OECs accept the scientific view of the old age of the earth, but reject common descent in favor of special creation of at least humans. There are several sub-varieties of OEC that depend on how the first verses of Genesis are interpreted. The main subvarieties of OEC are:
Gap Theory: The position that there was an indeterminate length of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. During that 'gap' all the evidence of an old age of the earth was laid down, and then God produced a second creation, described in the subsequent verses of Genesis, to produce the modern world. Living things were specially created, not evolved.
Day-Age theory: The position that each 'day' of the creation week described in the first 27 verses of Genesis was actually a very long time, so that the creation stretched out for the length of time that geologists say the earth (and universe) has been in existence. However, living things were specially created, not evolved.
5. Progressive Creationism (PC)
- Although some modern activist antievolutionists may still hold to Day-Age and Gap views, the view held by the majority of today´s Old Earth Creationists is some form of Progressive Creationism. The PC view blends Special Creationism with a fair amount of modern science. Progressive Creationists such as Dr. Hugh Ross, of Reasons to Believe ministries, have no problems with scientific data concerning the age of the earth, or the long period of time it has taken for the earth to come to its current form. Astronomer Ross, a University of Toronto Ph.D., cites the Big Bang as evidence of the creative power of God. Although modern physical science is accepted, only parts of modern biological science are incorporated into PC.
- PCs generally believe that God created "kinds" of animals sequentially; the fossil record is thus an accurate representation of history because different animals and plants appeared at different times rather than having been created all at once. PCs reject the inference that earlier forms are genetically related to later ones; kinds are separate creations: descent with modification does not occur. The definition of kinds is inconsistent, but usually refers to a higher taxonomic level than species. Most PCs accept that God created creatures containing at least as much genetic variation as a Family (such as Felidae, Canidae, etc) and then considerable "evolution within a kind" occurred. A created cat kind thus would have possessed sufficient genetic variability to differentiate into lions, tigers, leopards, pumas, bobcats, and house cats, through the normal microevolutionary processes of mutation and recombination, natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation. The "basic body plans" of major phyla which appear in the Cambrian "explosion" are seen by most OECs as evidence of Special Creation. In PC, God is seen as acting through natural law (i.e., microevolutionary processes) but also as an active creator.
6. Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC)
- Intelligent Design Creationism is a lineal descendent of William Paley´s Argument from Design (Paley, 1803), which asserted that God´s existence could be proved by examining his works. Paley used an analogy: if one found a watch, it was obvious that such a thing could not have come together by chance; the existence of a watch implies a watchmaker who has designed the watch with a purpose in mind. Similarly, the finding of order, purpose, and design in the world is proof of an omniscient designer.
- ...
- In the PC tradition, IDC allows for a fair amount of microevolution, but supporters deny that mutation and natural selection are adequate to explain the evolution of one kind from another, such as chordates from echinoderms, or humans from apes. Major body plans and the origin of life are phenomena supposedly "too complex" to be explained naturally, thus IDC demands a direct role for the "intelligent designer" -- God.
Intelligent design proponents intensely dislike being called "creationists," but their advocacy of intermittent supernatural (Divine) interventions in the process by which modern organisms came to be as they are is diagnostic of creationism.
7. Evolutionary Creationism (EC)
- Despite its name, evolutionary creationism is actually a type of evolution. Here, God the Creator uses evolution to bring about the universe according to his plan. From a scientific point of view, evolutionary creationism is hardly distinguishable from Theistic evolution, which follows it on the continuum. The differences between EC and Theistic evolution lie not in science, but in theology, with EC being held by more conservative (evangelical) Christians.
There are several EC blogs of interest written by evangelical Christians. For example, Steve Matheson, a biologist at Calvin College, has a blog called Quintessence of Dust on which he and other evangelicals attempt to work out the theological and scientific issues associated with evolutionary creationism. Denis Lamoureux at St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta has an overview of EC. Keith B. Miller, a geologist at Kansas State University, has also written on evolutionary creationism.
ECs differ from the various forms of creationism in not invoking direct Divine interventions in the processes of the natural physical world.
8. Theistic Evolution (TE)
- Theistic Evolution is the theological view that God creates through evolution. Astronomical, geological and biological evolution are acceptable to TEs They vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene -- some come pretty close to Deists. Other TEs see God as intervening at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans), and they in turn come closer to PCs. In one form or another, TE is the view of creation taught at mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church.
Some prominent evolutionary biologists are accurately characterized as theistic evolutionists. For example, Kenneth Miller of Brown University, a Roman Catholic, prolific author of texts for secondary school biology courses, and lead scientific witness for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in late 2005, is a theistic evolutionist. Francisco Ayala, a leading evolutionary theorist and author, and a former Dominican, is also probably appropriately classified as a TE.
9. Materialist Evolutionism (ME)
- Theistic Evolution is followed on the continuum by a nonreligious view, Materialist Evolutionism. It is important to distinguish two ways that "materialism" is used. One is in science, which is described as a "materialist" enterprise, focusing on matter and energy and their interactions. Modern science operates under a rule of methodological materialism that limits it to attempting to explain the natural world using natural -- matter and energy -- causes. Science in and of itself is neutral to religion: by definition, it lacks the ability to hold constant supernatural forces. It is neither antireligious nor pro-religious: it is neutral because supernatural forces are outside of what it can consider as causation. MEs go beyond the methodological materialism of science to propose that the laws of nature are all there is: the supernatural does not exist. This is a form of philosophical materialism (naturalism or scientism), which is distinct from the practical rules of how to do science.
For a somewhat different view of the range of views see the analysis by Loren and Deborah Haarsma. The Haarsmas are physicists with Ph.D.s from Harvard and MIT, respectively, and are on the faculty of Calvin College in Michigan, a relatively conservative Christian college in the Reformed tradition. The Reformed tradition, with its roots in the Swiss Reformation of the 16th century, is home to a number of evolutionary creationists.
Methodological and Philosophical Naturalism
At this stage it is very important to keep in mind that distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a pragmatic rule of thumb that says 300 years of success demonstrates that science is best done by seeking natural causes for natural events. It makes no statement about whether that's all there is, but only that it's all science can profitably or usefully deal with.
Philosophical naturalism is the view that matter and energy is all there is; there are no non-material entities or processes. While philosophical naturalism necessarily entails methodological naturalism, the reverse is not true. Many scientists who are theists of one variety or another do their science according to the constraints of methodological naturalism while holding religious beliefs that contradict philosophical naturalism.
For more see this essay by Wilkins and for a conservative Christian view see Loren Haarsma's essay.
Kinds of Relations between Religion and Science
Science and religion can have one of two basic relationships: harmony or conflict. Either they can get along or fight.
Harmony
Dowe (2005) suggests that within 'harmony' there are two sorts of accommodations, independence or interaction. Independence is what Stephen Jay Gould called Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). Gould argued that science and religion address different sets of questions. Science addresses questions about how the material world works and seeks naturalistic explanations for phenomena, while religion addresses questions of values and ethics. A critical difference is that they are said to use different methodologies to justify their knowledge claims. Science evaluates its proposed explanations by means of empirical testing against observed reality in the physical world, while the Abrahamic religions with which we are concerned here employ revelation, appeal to authority, and (to a greater or lesser extent) reasoning from intuitive 'common sense' premises.
Interaction, in Dowe's analysis, is the case where science and religion are not in conflict and are not compartmentalized or separate, but rather one or the other feeds into the other, supporting it. For example, religion is said to contribute to science. Early scientific inquiry of the sort advocated by Francis Bacon and echoed by some contemporary theists is that taking Judeo-Christian religion seriously is (or was) an important stimulus to science -- science is a way of knowing about God's work and thus is valued and encouraged because it informs religious believers about God's creation.
On the other hand, intelligent design proponents and their predecessors in Natural Theology (see below) assert that science supports theism in general and the existence of God in particular by finding evidence of complex structures that point to an intelligent designer, understood almost universally in that movement to be the Christian God. This latter view characterized Newton (though his Unitarian theism was on the fringes of his contemporaries), and by the much more orthodox William Paley in his 'Natural Theology. Darwin read a good deal of Paley during his studies for the Anglican priesthood at Cambridge University, and in fact attributed his own relatively high academic standing among those who did not take honors degrees to his mastery of Paley. Modern intelligent design proponents offer different specific examples than Paley (e.g., the bacterial flagellum rather than the mammalian eye), but the form of the argument is the same, an analogy from human-designed artifacts.
Conflict
Conflict between science and religion is where one or the other claims hegemony over the other. On the one hand, philosophical naturalism (materialism) asserts that to the extent that religion makes causal claims about the physical world it is an empty vessel -- there are no supernatural entities intervening in the material world. On the other hand, what Dowe calls "religious science" is characteristic of movements like so-called "scientific creationism," where it is assserted that if there are conflicts between the claims of science and those of religion, the religious claims trump science: religion controls science. The Foundations and Principles of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) illustrate religious science:
- The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.
and
- All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false. All things that now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.
The bolding is added to highlight the core claim of religious science: revelation trumps empirical evidence. That does not stop so-called creation scientists from offering what they deem to be empirical evidence in favor of their position, but that is incidental. Their efforts are mostly directed at discrediting scientific explanations, which requires them to ignore, misrepresent, or explain away the evidence. ICR has a long history of attacking the methods, findings, and inferences of scientific disciplines ranging from physics through geology to biology in order to discredit the evidence for an old universe, an old earth, and especially the evidence for common descent. On the other hand, there are some theists who are willing to accept essentially all of the scientific evidence and explanations for evolution except that bearing on the evolution of modern humans, which they reject: if nothing else was, humans at least were specially created. That range of acceptance leads to some interesting internecine battles among theists of the various persuasions, with, for example, Answers in Genesis complaining about intelligent design proponents for conceding too much to science, or Henry Morris, the former head of ICR, criticizing the modern ID movement for failing to give proper credit to traditional YECs for ideas that Morris says IDists adopted from creationists.
With those considerations in mind we can consider the state of affairs in the half century before Darwin published Origin.
Natural Theology
Natural Theology, the view that science studies and illuminates God's creation, was the dominant religious position in the first half of the 19th century. See the linked page for a discussion of Paley's Natural Theology and The Bridgewater Treatises.
Summary
The religious context of the early 19th century in Great Britain was mainly governed by the view expressed in Paley's Natural Theology: science was a means of illuminating God's work, and gave evidence of the power and providence of (the Christian, Anglican) Deity. In Dowe's terms, science and religion were in harmony; they were mutually supportive.
(REFERENCES AND RESOURCES TO BE ADDED)
