Science and Christianity (Part 6)

At the beginning of the Enlightenment, the Genesis record was considered factual. Living creatures exist as much today as they were created a few thousand years ago. Science was still influenced by Thomas Aquinas, who believed that discovering a purpose for a given object or phenomenon was an integral part of studying the physical world. Several things were about to change.

David Hume (1711-1776) was responsible for one of the most significant changes in modern science. He believed it was inappropriate to attribute purpose to anything that could be studied by the scientific method. This challenged the religious schema of science and opened the possibility of natural selection and naturalism.

One of the most important books of the early nineteenth century was William Paley’s “Natural Theology,” published in 1802. Paley’s study made the case that we can learn about God by studying the natural world. Part of his thesis was the adaptation of various species depending on God’s purposes.

During the seventh and eighteenth centuries, biologists were discovering species at an overwhelming rate. Taxonomies constantly changed as scientists sought to make sense of the new data. Even so, the fixity of species remained the assumption of the day. When Zoologist Jean-Baptiste Antoine de Monte, Chevalier de Lamarck, published his “Zoological Philosophy” in 1809, he made the case that there was a continual drive by life toward complexity, improvement, and progress, thus challenging the notion of fixity. Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin, was one scientist who shared this opposition to fixity.

At the end of the eighteenth century, and especially in the early nineteenth century, several geologists (many of them clergy) were concluding that the Earth was significantly older than anyone previously believed. The realization that the distribution of fossils in different geological strata had a consistent pattern based on species began to raise several questions. Most geologists at the time believed in catastrophism, which, for them, meant that a catastrophic flood had altered the Earth. As scientists began to find and catalog fossils, particularly at high elevations, some anti-Church types downplayed the discoveries fearing it would give credence to a universal flood perspective. A major change to geology came when Charles Lyell published his “Principles of Geology” in 1830; he made a case for a uniformitarian versus a catastrophic perspective. This is the idea that the material world functions the same now as it did throughout the past.

Then, in 1851, Herbert Spencer wrote his “Social Statics,” which argued that every biological form of life, including human systems, followed evolutionary rules. Spencer was more of a social theorist than a scientist. Nevertheless, his writing both reflected and inculcated an evolutionary line of thinking.

Therefore, by 1851, science had moved away from the Genesis record as traditionally understood. The Earth was believed to be millions of years old. Science had become focused on finding only natural causes for physical events. Fixity was being abandoned, and the possibility of species adaptation was being considered. A belief that there was some innate sense of progress “programmed” into life was taking root. Uniformitarian perspectives were winning the day. Some perceived an evolutionary model to be at work in a myriad of ways, even in human behavior.

All that remained was for someone to bring this all together.

[Index]

Comments

[will spotts]

A couple observations:

"David Hume . . . believed it was inappropriate to attribute purpose to anything that could be studied by the scientific method."

There is an irony in this -- as it is purpose that is said to drive evolutionary mechanisms. Well -- people would not choose to use this word, but that is what it amounts to. Adaptations are passed on BECAUSE they serve a purpose that confers benefit in the sense of making successful reproduction more likely. Thus a lot of study is focused on what benefit a particular thing confers -- e.g. what is its purpose?

Also, catastrophism seems to play a greater role than most in the 19th and early 20th centuries believed. (i.e. periods of mass extinction, and sudden, inexplicable (i.e. dramatic and unforseen) change. These changes are too complicated for the gradual, one mutation at a time notion -- each of the individual mutations would not convey advantage, and would more likely convey liability -- thus, not being passed on.)

Uniformitarian perspectives do not reflect observable reality. (Most especially in social spheres.) Take the development of language for example. This perspective would dictate that older, more "primative" languages were less complex than more recent, developed languages. This is observably not the case.

This perspective also was used for the late dating of John's Gospel. The assumption was that it demonstrated a more sophisticated, and thus later theology. Yet archeological evidence, such as it is, suggests an eariler date of composition. (This perspective also would insist that this was not a product of divine revelation, but of growing human development.)

[Denis Hancock]

The discovery of fossils representing extinct creatures was a problem to those who believed in the fixity of species. This problem was compounded when the first human fossils were recognized beginning in the mid 1800s.

It was one thing to learn that odd creatures were once on Earth, but no longer. It was quite another to see fossils of humans that were noticeably different from people today.

This gave rise to all sorts of explanations intended to reconcile what was being found in the geological strata and the testimony of Scripture. Were all the fossils deposited by the Flood? Did God put them in the Earth to "test" us?

Or did they result from natural processes? In any event, the paradigm of a recent earth and the fixity of its species became more and more untenable.

[Michael Kruse]

Will, I think you are tapping into one of the key tensions that I see repeatedly. I think a scientific method requires a uniformitarian perspective. Research would be absurd with out. It is more or less a tool of research. The problem comes when this tool is transformed into a ideological absolute about all of existence. I think that is what is bothering you. I know it bothers me.

All of this touches on the larger question of how God interacts in the world. I have some thoughts to share in furure posts but I am counting on you all to straighten me out.