Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew

197 Pages·2007·2.05 MB·English

by  Numbers, Ronald L

Science and
Christianity
in Pulpit and Pew
ronald l. numbers
1
2007
3
OxfordUniversityPress,Inc.,publishesworksthatfurther
OxfordUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellence
inresearch,scholarship,andeducation.
Oxford NewYork
Auckland CapeTown DaresSalaam HongKong Karachi
KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Nairobi
NewDelhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
Withofficesin
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile CzechRepublic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
SouthKorea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Copyright#2007byOxfordUniversityPress,Inc.
PublishedbyOxfordUniversityPress,Inc.
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NewYork10016
www.oup.com
OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,
electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recording,orotherwise,
withoutthepriorpermissionofOxfordUniversityPress.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Numbers,RonaldL.
ScienceandChristianityinpulpitandpew/RonaldL.Numbers.
p. cm.
ISBN978-0-19-532037-4;978-0-19-532038-1(pbk.)
1. Religionandscience—History. 2. Churchhistory—Modern
period,1500– I. Title.
BL245.N862007
261.5'5—dc22 2006030675
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
onacid-freepaper
To the three teachers who influenced me the most:
Ray Hefferlin (Southern Missionary College)
Maurice M. Vance (Florida State University)
A. Hunter Dupree (University of California at Berkeley)
Contents
Introduction, 3
1. Science and Christianity among the People:
A Vulgar History, 11
2. Science without God:
Natural Laws and Christian Beliefs, 39
3. Reading the Book of Nature through
American Lenses, 59
4. Experiencing Evolution:
Psychological Responses to the Claims
of Science and Religion, 73
5. Charles Hodge and the Beauties and
Deformities of Science, 93
6. ‘‘The Most Important Biblical Discovery of Our Time’’:
William Henry Green and the Demise
of Ussher’s Chronology, 113
7. Science, Secularization, and Privatization:
A Concluding Note, 129
Notes, 137
Index, 191
Science and Christianity
in Pulpit and Pew
Introduction
Onceuponatime,notsolongago,thehistoricalrelationshipbetween
scienceand Christianity, indeed betweenscienceand religion gen-
erally,seemed simple.Prominent nineteenth-century scholars such
as Andrew Dickson White(1832–1918) and John William Draper
(1811–1882) assured their readers thatscienceand religion existed
in astateof perpetualopposition. White,in his earliest polemicon
‘‘TheBattle-Fields ofScience’’ (1869), depicted thereligiousstrug-
gle againstscienceas ‘‘a war continued longer—withbattles fiercer,
withsiegesmore persistent, with strategy more vigorous than in
any of thecomparatively petty warfaresofAlexander,or Cæsar, or
Napoleon.’’ Inhis Historyof the Conflict between Religion and Science
(1874),Draper identified theprimary aggressor as theRoman Cath-
olic Church,whose ‘‘mortal animosity’’ toward science had left its
hands ‘‘steeped in blood.’’Despite the efforts of less bellicosehisto-
riansduringthepastquartercenturyorsotocraftamoreaccurateand
less prejudicialnarrative, thenotionof warfare betweenscience
and religion continues tothrive, particularly at both ends of the
politicotheological spectrum. Secularists, ever fearful of religious en-
croachment, tend to see religion as the primary provoker ofconflict;
religious conservatives, dismayed by theallegedly corrosive effects
of science onbelief,identify hostile scientists astheassailants.
It istruly, inthecatchyphrase ofthehistorian JonH.Roberts, ‘‘The
Idea That Wouldn’tDie.’’1
4 science and christianity in pulpit and pew
In part, the warfare metaphor lives on because there have been so many
actual conflicts over science and religion. Everyone knows about the trials of
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) in seventeenth-century Italy and of John Thomas
Scopes(1900–1970)intwentieth-centuryTennessee.Andonlyareclusewould
be unfamiliar with the current religiously charged controversies over intelli-
gent design, stem cells, and global warming. Many of the bitterest conflicts
oversciencehavetakenplacewithinreligiouscommunities,wheredifferences
easily mutate into heresies. The historical problem is not so much the claim
thatscienceandreligionhavegeneratedconflictsbuttheunwarrantedgener-
alizationsmadeaboutthenatureoftheencounters.Proponentsofthewarfare
thesis have typically failed to recognize that religious people and institutions
haveoftencultivatedthestudyofnature.DuringtheMiddleAges,asDavidC.
Lindbergandothermedievalhistorianshaveconvincinglyshown,churchmen
were the most ardent supporters of natural philosophy and natural history;
during the early modern period, argues the Berkeley historian John L. Heil-
bron, ‘‘the Roman Catholic church gave more financial and social support to
the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient
learningduringthelateMiddleAgesintotheEnlightenment,thananyother,
and, probably, all other, institutions.’’2
Another popular ‘‘just-so’’ story about science and Christianity portrays
the latter—or one of its subdivisions, such as Protestantism or Puritanism—
asthefountainheadofmodernscience.Thisinterpretationreceivedaboostin
1925, when the theistic philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), in
Science and the Modern World, argued that Christianity, by insisting that na-
turebehavesinaregularandorderlyfashion,allowedsciencetodevelop.Un-
derstandably, many Christians have found this self-congratulatory view more
attractivethan thenarrativeofconflict.Despitethemanifestshortcomingsof
theclaimthatChristianitygavebirthtoscience—mostglaringly,itignoresor
minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it,
too,refusestosuccumbtothedeathitdeserves.ThesociologistRodneyStark
atBaylorUniversity,aSouthernBaptistinstitution,isonlythelatestinalong
lineofChristianapologiststoinsistthat‘‘Christiantheologywasessentialforthe
rise of science.’’3
Bereftofmasternarrativesfeaturingconflictorabirthingrole,historians
of science and religion have turned increasingly to what has been called the
complexitythesis,thenotionthattherecordofthepastistoochaotictoreveal
asimplepattern.NoonehasadvancedthisviewmoresuccessfullythanJohn
Hedley Brooke, who has identified a wide range of interactions between sci-
entific and religious impulses. At times, religion has stimulated the investi-
gation of nature; on other occasions it has inhibited it. To my knowledge, no
introduction 5
reputable historian of science and religion now doubts the truth of this tan-
gledviewofthepast.However,becausethisviewtendstostripthesubjectof
itspolemicalvalue,ithasfoundcomparativelylittlefavorwithpresent-daycul-
tural warriors fighting one another in the trenches.4
Complicating matters further, even among historians who stress con-
tingency, isthe lack ofconsensus aboutthemost importanthistorical factors
influencingtherelationshipbetweenscienceandreligion.Take,forinstance,
thedebatesoverevolution,oneofthemostcloselystudiedepisodesinthehis-
toryoftheencounter,wherevariousexpertshavehighlightedtherolesplayed
notonlybytheologyandgeographybutbybirthorder,class,race,andgender
as well. In The Post-Darwinian Controversies (1979) a young James R. Moore
underscored the importance of theology in determining individual responses
toevolutioninGreatBritainandNorthAmerica.Heinsistedthatonly‘‘those
whose theology was distinctly orthodox’’—that is, Calvinist—could swallow
Darwinism undiluted. (Contrast this with David L. Hull’s equally hyperbolic
claim ‘‘that almost all the early proponents of Darwinism were atheistic
materialists—or their near relatives.’’)5
SubsequentstudiesbyJonH.Roberts,DavidN.Livingstone,andmehave
undermined Moore’s sweeping claim about the uniqueness—or even the
salience—of Calvinism, though none of us denies that distinctive theological
convictions sometimes influenced how people viewed Darwin’s theory. In a
new introduction to his meticulously researched Darwinism and the Divine in
America (1988), Roberts argues that ‘‘the great majority of American Protes-
tantthinkerswhoremainedcommittedtoorthodoxformulationsofChristian
doctrine actually rejected Darwinism; indeed, they denounced the theory of
organic evolution in any guise that described speciation in terms of natural-
istic agencies.’’ The ‘‘crucial determinant,’’ he maintains, ‘‘was their convic-
tion that the theory of organic evolution could not be reconciled with their
views of the origin, nature, and ‘fall’ of man, the nature and basis of moral
judgment,andanumberofotherdoctrines—allbasedontheirinterpretation
of the Scriptures.’’ My own research bears this out. I have also found that al-
thoughmainstreamProtestantsoftenusedinterchangeableargumentsincri-
tiquingDarwinism,asonemovesfromtheProtestantcentertotheperiphery
occupiedbysuchgroupsasPentecostalsandSeventh-dayAdventists,onefinds
unique theological teachings taking on greater significance.6
Given the theological heterogeneity of Protestantism, it is not surprising
tofindarangeofresponsestoevolution.ButeveninthehierarchicalRoman
CatholicChurch,whereonemightexpectrelativeuniformity,wealsofinddi-
versity.Catholicshaveagreedonlittleotherthanthebeliefthatevolution,ifit
occurred,hasbeenguidedbyGodandhasnotincludedtheoriginofhumans
6 science and christianity in pulpit and pew
(especially thesoul)by purely natural means. Inan early essayon ‘‘varieties’’
of Catholic reactions to Darwinism, Harry W. Paul contrasted ‘‘the power
CatholicismwasabletoexertagainstDarwinisminSpain’’withitsvirtualim-
potenceinItaly.Evenmoretelling,however,aretherevelationscomingoutof
the recently opened Vatican archives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
theFaith,whichholdtherecordsoftheoldCongregationsoftheHolyOffice
and of the Index. In researching their book, Negotiating Darwin: The Vatican
ConfrontsEvolution,1877–1902(2006),MarianoArtigas,ThomasF.Glick,and
Rafael A. Martinez discovered six instances in which the Vatican dealt with
complaintsaboutCatholicevolutionists,withtwooftheaccusedcomingfrom
Italy,twofromEngland,andoneeachfromFranceandtheUnitedStates.These
complaints resulted in no official condemnation of evolution, though some
individual works were proscribed and placed on the Index of Prohibited Books.
(Inone casethepopevetoeda prohibitionagainstevolutionrecommended by
thecardinals.)Thehistoriansdetectednocommonresponse,no‘‘fixedagenda.’’
The strongest opposition to Darwinism came not from the Vatican itself but
fromLaCivilt`aCattolica,anunofficialbutinfluentialCatholicjournal.7
After studying the reception of evolution in the predominantly Catholic
cultures of Latin America, where the church hierarchy widely regarded Dar-
win as the ‘‘great enemy,’’ Glick identified ‘‘centralization of power’’ rather
than cultural isolation as the ‘‘crucial variable’’ in determining how various
countriesrespondedto evolution.Incontrastto thelargelyProtestantUnited
States, where church and state remained constitutionally separate and Prot-
estant sects competed openly, the more centrally controlled Latin American
countriespresentedanenvironmentrelativelyinhospitabletonewideas.Nev-
ertheless, Pietro Corsi has warned historians discussing Catholicism not to
let the hierarchy’s opposition to evolution lead to a view of Roman Catholic
theology as ‘‘a monolithic structure of doctrines and beliefs, free from con-
flicts and tensions.’’ In the Catholic countries of Italy and France, he argues,
‘‘the official voice of the Church—or its silence—did not prevent individual
Catholics or groups of Catholic intellectuals from holding strong views that
differed from those of the keepers of the dogma.’’8
InrecentyearsthegeographerandhistorianofscienceDavidLivingstone
has also undermined assumptions of theological uniformity by pointing to
significant localvariations.IncontrasttoMoore,who insistedonthepositive
influenceofCalvinismintheDarwiniandebates,Livingstonehasshownthat,
evenamongCalvinists,responsestoevolutionvariedmarkedlyfromonelocale
to another. Irish Calvinists in Belfast, for instance, strongly resisted Darwin-
ism, in large part, it seems, because of John Tyndall’s (1820–1893) infamous
1874 presidential address to the British Association for the Advancement of
introduction 7
Scienceinthatcity, inwhichhe arrogantlyannouncedthatall‘‘religious the-
ories,schemesandsystemswhichembracenotionsofcosmogony...must ...
submit tothe control ofscience,and relinquishall thoughtof controlling it.’’
In the Calvinist stronghold of Princeton, New Jersey, religious leaders re-
sponded much less defensively. James McCosh (1811–1894), longtime presi-
dent of the College of New Jersey (as Princeton University was then called),
embraced theistic evolution, as did Benjamin B. Warfield (1851–1921), a pro-
minent professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and, surprisingly, a pro-
ponent of biblical inerrancy. Finding that Calvinists elsewhere had also been
influenced by local circumstances, Livingstone began trumpeting the virtues
of ‘‘putting science in its place,’’ the title of one of his books. ‘‘I don’t want
toclaimthateverythingaboutscienceisreducibletonothingbutsocialspace
orphysicallocation,’’heexplained.‘‘ButIdowanttosaythatissueslikegen-
der, or political empire, or whatever, always work themselves out through
spatiality—inparticularspaces,atparticulartimes,inparticularlocalcultures.’’
Historians, he wisely urged, should quit speaking ‘‘of the encounter between
scienceandreligioninageneralized,decontextualized,delocalized way.’’9
Foryears—atleastsincethepublicationofGlick’sTheComparativeRecep-
tionofDarwinism(1974),whichfeaturedparallelessaysonEngland,Germany,
France, Russia, the Netherlands, Spain, the United States, Mexico, and the
Islamic world—historians of evolution have been exploring the role of place
atthenationallevel.WenowpossessentirebooksonDarwinisminEngland,
France,Germany,Italy,Spain,Russia,China,theUnitedStates,Mexico,Cuba,
Chile, and Argentina. Edited collections explore the fate of evolution in a
numberofEuropeancountries,inseveralEnglish-speakingnations,andinthe
Iberian world. Unfortunately, this plethora of national studies has obscured
more localizeddifferences andyielded fewer convincinggeneralizationsthan
onemighthavewished.ThusDavidL.Hull’sdecades-oldobservationthatno
one had yet demonstrated a correlation ‘‘between the reception of Darwin’s
theory around the world and the larger characteristics of these societies,’’ in-
cluding their religious cultures, still largely holds.10
What these national studies have revealed is enormous complexity. Not
only did Darwinism mean different things in different countries, but its
meaning varied even within national settings. Suzanne Zeller, for example,
has shown that the struggleof Canadians to survivein aharsh physical envi-
ronment predisposed some to see a measure of plausibility in a Darwinian
viewofnature,butthedividebetweenthelargelyEnglish-speakingProtestants
andtheFrench-speakingCatholicsmakesithazardoustospeakofaCanadian
response to evolution. Similarly, John Stenhouse has drawn attention to the
waysomeNewZealandersdrewonDarwinismtojustify,intermsof‘‘survival