Darwinism and Fundamentalism

Article

Darwinism, Fundamentalism, andR.A.Torrey

MichaelN.Keas

R.A.Torrey(1856–1928),aleadingworldevangelistattheturnofthetwentieth century,playedaprominentroleintheemergenceoffundamentalism,which aimedtodefendChristianityagainstliberalism.Thewritersof TheFundamentals (1910–1915),includingTorrey,proposedharmonybetweenscienceandChristianitybyacceptingthestandardgeologicalagesandbyofferingsomecriticisms ofDarwinism.Torreyadvancedtheworkof TheFundamentals beyond1915 throughthemonthlyperiodicaloftheBibleInstituteofLosAngeles, TheKing’s Business (1910–1970).AlthoughTorreyofferedoccasionalcriticismofDarwinism in TheKing’sBusiness andhisotherpublications,heurgedevangelicalsand fundamentaliststofocusonbiblicalinerrancyandarepudiationofnaturalism morebroadly.Thereismuchtobeemulatedfromearlyfundamentalismbeforeit flungitselfintothehumiliationofthe1925Scopestrial—adisastrousmovethat Torreydidnotsupport.R.A.Torreyisworthrememberingin2010,thecentennial yearof TheFundamentals .

Historicalandphilosophical analysisofscienceandreligion canimproveourunderstandingofhowscienceandreligion have relatedandhowthey should relate. Onthelastpageofhisinsightfulbook aboutAmericanfundamentalism,historianGeorgeMarsdenwrote, SinceGod’sworkappearstous inhistoricalcircumstanceswhere imperfecthumansaremajor agents,theactionsoftheHoly Spiritinthechurcharealways intertwinedwithculturallyconditionedfactors.1

FollowingMarsden,Ishallanalyze someofthe“culturallyconditioned factors”ofscienceandfundamentalism intheearlytwentiethcentury(howscienceandreligion have related),largely leavingthematterofhowthey should relatetoanotherstudy.Evenso,historicalknowledgecaninformphilosophical inquiry.

TheBibleInstituteofLosAngeles (hereafter,Biola)playedaprominentrole intheemergenceoffundamentalismin theearlytwentiethcentury,particularly throughtheworkofR.A.Torrey— Biola’sdeanfrom1912to1924.Ifthe twenty-first-centuryreadercanlook beyondtheharmfulconnotationsofthe termfundamentalismtodayandrecognizeitsbeneficialfeaturesbeforethe 1925Scopestrial,suchreflectionmight inspireabetterrelationshipbetween scienceandChristianity.Presbyterian

ASAFellow MichaelN.Keas earnedaPhDinthehistoryofsciencefrom theUniversityofOklahoma.Heexperiencedsomeofthelasthistoricmoments behindtheBerlinWallasaFulbrightScholarinEastGermany.Heisprofessor ofthehistoryandphilosophyofscienceattheCollegeatSouthwesternin FortWorthandanadjunctprofessorinBiolaUniversity’sM.A.programin ScienceandReligion.Heteachesphysicalscience,biology,philosophy,logic, hermeneutics,rhetoric,intellectualhistory,andthehistoryofscienceand religion.Hisscholarlyandcurricularworkhasreceivedfundingfromagencies suchastheJohnTempletonFoundation,theNationalScienceFoundationand theAmericanCouncilofLearnedSocieties.Hehascontributedarticlesto severalscholarlyjournalsandanthologies,includingtheAmericanChemical Society’s NobelLaureatesinChemistry and Darwinism,Designand PublicEducation publishedbyMichiganStateUniversityPress.

MichaelN.Keas

Darwinism,Fundamentalism,andR.A.Torrey

millionaireLymanStewart(1840–1923)fundedsome importantearlystepsofthefundamentalistrenewal ofevangelicalChristianity,includingfounding Biola(1908)2 anditsmonthlyperiodical TheKing’s Business (1910),financingaseriesofpamphletscalled TheFundamentals (1910–1915),andhiringTorreyto takeuptheeditorialtorchofthesepublications whileservingasBiola’sdean.Tobetterunderstand earlyfundamentalismanditsrelationshiptoDarwinism,wewillfocusonthelifeofTorrey.3

Evangelicalism’sScholarly Revivalist:ReubenArcher

Torrey(1856–1928)

R.A.Torreyembodiedthescholar-evangelistideal ofevangelicalChristianity,thoughtoalesserdegree thantheprincipalAmericanfoundingfatherof evangelicalism,JonathanEdwards(1703–1758). 4

Torrey’sfirsttwoyears atYaleCollege(where Edwardshadalsoattended)weredevotedto theclassicalliberalarts.

Yalejuniorsstudied physics,astronomy,GermanorFrench,inadditiontocontinuingtheir earlierworkinmathematics,rhetoric,logic, Greek,andLatin.The eighteenorsorequired coursesofTorrey’ssenior yearincludedchemistry, geology,anatomy,andphysiology(fourbrief courses),aswellascourseswithYale’sconservative evangelicalpresidentNoahPorter(1811–1892). ThestudiesunderPorterconsistedofChristian apologetics,naturaltheology,andthreephilosophy courses.5 Torreygraduatedin1875withageneral BAdegree.

AroundthetimeTorreybeganhisstudiesatYale in1871,thedailychapelserviceswerereportedly drearyanddislikedbystudents.CompulsorychapelattendanceattheSundayafternoonservicewas liftedin1872.“Theintentwasnottounderminethe chapel,buttoaidinitsappeal.Forthenextseven years,theCollegePresident[NoahPorter]andvarioustutorsfilledthepulpit.”6 AnEnglishmanvisitingYalein1869reported,

Allthestudentsarecompelledtoattendthe dailymorningservice,whichtakesplaceat eightAM.Thechapelisafrightfulbuilding fittedupinthecoldestandmeanestmeetinghousestyle…Butcoldandmeanasisthe chapel,theserviceiscolderandmeanerstill. Anymoreheart-chillingandprofaneperformancecouldscarcelybeimagined.Thestudents,onentering,eithercommencedaconversationwiththeirfriends,orappliedthemselves, withgreatdiligence,tothesubject-matterof thelectureswhichweretofollowaftertheservice.Innoinstancedidanyoneengagein privateprayer…Theairofuttercarelessness andirreverence,whichwasuniversal,was chillingtowitness.Ifthecongregationhad disbelievedintheexistenceofGod,itcouldnot havebeenworse.Suchbeingthespiritualfood whichPuritanismhastooffertohersonsin herownchosenhome,whocanwonderatthe unbeliefandunboundedimmoralitywhichis makingNewEnglandabywordeveninthe UnitedStates?7

AlthoughPorterworkedhardtobolsterChristianity atYaleafterhebecamepresidentin1871,someof thisdepressingreportprobablydescribeswhat TorreyexperiencedinhisyearsasarowdyYale undergraduate(1871–1875).Inoneofhispublished sermons,TorreydescribeshisYaleundergraduate experience,beginning“asaboyoffifteen,”asa descent“intodissipationandsin,”until …oneawfulnight[inthesenioryear],amere boystill,withallhopegone,withlifedesolate andbare,lifesobarrenthattherewasjustone stepbetweenmeandhell,infact,thatverynight Istartedtotakethatawfulstep,totakemylife bymyownhand.Isprangoutofbedanddrew openadrawertotakeouttheinstrumentthat wouldendmylife.Forsomereasonorother Icouldnotfindit.Goddidnotletmefindit, andIdroppeduponmyknees,andsaid,“Oh God,ifyouwilltakethisawfulburdenfrom myheart,IwillpreachtheGospel”;andGod notonlyremovedtheburden,Ifoundajoy Ihadneverdreamedofinthisworld,andallthe yearssinceithasgoneonincreasing,withthe exceptionofashorttimewhenIfellunderthe blightingpowerofscepticismandagnosticism; alltherestofthetimealltheseyearsthejoyhas grownbrighter,brighter,brightereveryyear.8

ReubenArcherTorrey (1856–1928).Courtesyof BiolaUniversityArchives.

MichaelN.Keas

Porter,apivotalfigureinthehistoryofAmerican highereducation,9 playedanimportantroleinthe formationofTorrey’sworldview.Torreylikely heardPresidentPorter’sinauguraladdress,which hedeliveredinthefallof1871,whenTorreywas afreshman.Inthisaddress,thenewcollegepresidentarguedthatChristiansdonotneedtofear modernscience,which,atitsbest,iscommittedto anopeninquirythatleadstotruth.10 Porteronother occasionswarnedofthe“atheistictendenciesof muchofmodernscience,literature,andculture.” Heincludedhereacautionaboutthe“ill-disguised materialismofHuxley”andthe“evolutionismof HerbertSpencer,withitsdemonstratedimpossibilityofapositivetheism.”11 Indeed,GeorgeMarsden tellsacompellingstoryof TheSouloftheAmerican University:FromProtestantEstablishmenttoEstablishedNonbelief (OxfordUniversityPress,1994),in whichPorterisoneofthemostimportantcharacters—attemptingtoprotectAmericaneducationfrom theuniversalacidofmaterialism.Wehearechoesof PresidentPorterinTorrey’swork.

TorreyreturnedtoYalein1875forthreeyearsof seminaryeducation.DuringhisfinalyearatYale, TorreyattendedD.L.Moody’s(1837–1899)campus andNewHavencommunityrevivalmeetings.He alsovolunteeredforsixweeksinMoody’s“inquiry room,”leadingmanypeopletoJesus. 12 Moody,the mostinfluentialrevivalistofthelatenineteenthcentury,hadbecomeoneofPorter’sstrongestalliesin thecauseofdistinctivelyChristianeducationinthe faceofattacksfromliberaltheologyandscientific materialism.Thiswasanabout-faceforPorter,who mid-centuryhaduncriticallyassumedthathigher educationwouldinevitablyadvanceChristianity, andwhohaddownplayedtheimportanceofcampus-sponsoredrevivals.13

Porter’smostcontroversialdecisionasacollege president,whichtookplaceshortlyafterTorreyhad graduatedwithhisseminarydegreein1878,was toforbidYaleprofessorWilliamGrahamSumner toadoptHerbertSpencer’stextbook TheStudyof Sociology,especiallybecauseofthisassessmentof Spencer’sbookbyPorter:

Andsoheendsthislongdiscussionwiththe assumptionwithwhichhebegins,thatinsocial phenomenawecanonlyrecognizenatural causation,becauseforsooth,ifSociologyisa scienceitcannotadmitanyotheragencies.14

Porterrecognizedthatsuchmethodologicalnaturalismwoulddistortthefindingsofsociology,because itwouldprecludethedetectionofdivineagencyin humanaffairs.Torreydemonstratedsimilarinsight inhislaterwork.

AfterfouryearsofpastoralworkinOhiopunctuatedbyoccasionalrevivals,Torrey(accompanied byhiswifeClaraandinfantdaughterEdith)studied theologyinLeipzigandErlangen.MostofTorrey’s GermanprofessorsbelievedthattheoriginalmanuscriptsoftheBiblecontainederrors—aviewTorrey rejectedattheendofhisyearinGermany.15

Torrey,whosesermonsreflectedasubstantial YaleeducationandtheinfluenceofMoody,became oneofthemostinfluentialevangelicalsnearthe turnofthetwentiethcentury.Afterreturningfrom Germanyandservingaspastoratseveralchurches inMinneapolis,Torrey,in1889,acceptedMoody’s invitationtobecomethefirstsuperintendentofthe newBibleInstituteofChicago(laternamedMoody BibleInstitute,hereafter,MBI).GeorgeMarsdenhas identifiedMBIastheleadingBibleinstituteamong thenearlydozenthathadoriginatedby1910,particularlybecauseoftheleadershipofMoodyand Torrey.16

Torreyworkedundertheuneducated (butgifted)MoodytocreateanexemplaryBible institutecurriculumforcommonpeopletoachieve biblicalliteracyandlayministryskills—muchof whichTorreylateradaptedforBiola.Marsdenhas concludedthatearlytwentieth-centuryBibleinstituteslikeMBIandBiolawereattheleadingedgeof

TheBibleInstituteofLosAngeles(BIOLA)washousedinLos Angeles’tallestbuildingwhenitwascompleteenoughforstudents tooccupyitin1914.17 Thishistoricbuildingwasdemolishedin 1988.18 CourtesyofBiolaUniversityArchives.

Darwinism,Fundamentalism,andR.A.Torrey

amiddlepositionamongevangelicalsinregardto therelationshipbetweenChristianityandculture. Theyadvocatedbothrevivalismcenteredonthe messageofthecrossandsocialreformthrough urbanministry.“Theyshouldseeinthecitiesnot onlytheirsin,butalsotheirsuffering,andattempt toeliminateboth,”accordingtoMarsden’sdistillationoftheirrallyingcry. 19 Althoughsuchabalanced perspectiverepresentedthetypicalevangelicalorientationinthenineteenthcentury,20 ithadbecome increasinglyrareafter1910.Liberalsturnedtothe socialgospel(includingeugenicsanditsforcedsterilizationofthe“feebleminded”)21 andconservative evangelicalspaidlittleattentiontothematerial needsofthepoor.

Asaleaderwithinthebalanced,historicevangelicaltradition,TorreyspentmostofhistimeatMBI developinganddeliveringcurriculumforlaypeople toreceivetheologicaltraining,sometimeswithattentiontothemethodologicalsimilaritiesbetween theologyandscience.Hepublishedhisnotesfor aMBI(andlaterBiola)doctrineclassinthe1898 textbook WhattheBibleTeaches.Theprefaceexplains that,inthisbook,“themethodsofmodernscience areappliedtoBiblestudy—thoroughanalysisfollowedbycarefulsynthesis.”Histextbookwas “anattemptatacareful,unbiased,systematic,thorough-going, inductive studyandstatementofBible truth.”22 Suchavisionofthemethodologicalsimilaritiesoftheologyandscience,withanemphasis onasharedBaconianidealofinductiveinquiry, hasbeencommonamongevangelicalsoverthepast fewcenturies.23

Torrey’scharacterizationofthescientificmethod wassimilartowhatNobelPrizewinnerRobert Millikan(1868–1953)wouldwritein1923:“Thepurposeofscienceistodevelopwithoutprejudiceor preconceptionofanykindaknowledgeofthefacts, thelaws,andtheprocessesofnature.”24 Nevertheless,TorreyandMillikansawreligionquitedifferently.Inthenextsentenceofthesamepamphlet publishedbytheUniversityofChicagoDivinity School,Millikanwrote:“Theevenmoreimportant taskofreligion,ontheotherhand,istodevelop theconsciences,theideals,andtheaspirationsof mankind.”Torreywasacriticalrealistinreligious25 (andscientific)matters,whileMillikan—following thespiritofmodernism—reducedreligiontothe culturallyconstructedyearningsofhumanity.HistorianEdwardDavishasinvestigatedthisliberal

Americanwayofreconcilingscienceandreligionin the1920s.Hehasfocusedonthewidelycirculated seriesofChicagopamphlets,includingMillikan’s, whichabandonedhistoricChristianityinthename ofmodernization.26 Torrey,whiledefendingChristianity,recognizedcommonmethodologicalground betweenscienceandtheology—providedthatone rejectsthenaturalisticphilosophy(miracleprohibition)assumedbymanyscientistsandtheological practitionersofhighercriticism.27

Whileactualscientificpracticecontainsmore diversemethodologicalpracticesthaneitherTorrey orMillikanarticulated,theybothrecognizedthe idealofobjectivitythathasinspiredmanyscientists. Philosophersandhistoriansofsciencesincethe 1950shavemadeitimplausibletobelieveina unique“scientificmethod”thatalmostalwaysleads usclosertothetruth.But,thereisstillreasonto believethatweknowmuchmoreaboutnaturenow thaninthepast.Mostscientistsarecriticalrealists likeMillikan(andTorrey),andactualscientificwork reflectsavarietyofmethodologicalorientations— mostnotablyhypothetico-deductiveapproachesand theinductiveprocedureof“inferencetothebest explanation”(comparativeexplanatoryandpredictivepower).28

Fundamentaliststatementsaboutscientific methodwerenotthatmuchdifferentfromwhat leadingscientistslikeMillikanwereexpressing. Thus,wemustrethinkGeorgeMarsden’softenrepeatedargumentthattwentieth-centuryfundamentalistsweremethodologicallyinferiorrelative tothescientistsoftheirday,inthattheyinvoked anaiveBaconian-inductivistcharacterizationof science.29 Ascientificargumentshouldbeevaluatedevidentially,regardlessofthemethodological characterizationofferedbytheargument’sproponent.Evenso,abriefsurveyofprominentearly twentieth-centurystatementsaboutscientificmethodologyisinstructive.

F.R.Moulton,knownforcoauthoringwith geologistThomasC.Chamberlina“planetesimal” mechanismfortheoriginofoursolarsystemthat temporarilyreplacedLaplace’snebularhypothesis, declaredthatastronomy“isascience”because“the factswhichhavebeenacquiredbyobservations andexperimentsareclassifiedonthebasisoftheir essentialrelationstoeachotherandtothefacts andprinciplesofothersciences.”30 Thisresembles

MichaelN.Keas

Torrey’sfactual“analysis”followedby“synthesis.”

Moultonofferedthischaracterizationofscientific procedureinhis1906astronomytextbook,which passedthroughseveraleditionsinthefirstquarter ofthetwentiethcentury.Moultonlatersummarizedthetriumphandmethodsofscienceinhis leadessayofthegeneralsciencetextbookof1926, whichhecoauthoredwithfifteenotherUniversity ofChicagosciencefaculty.Moultonstated, Withinafewdecadestheworldhasbeen revolutionizedbyscienceanditsapplications. Thesuccessesofscienceinviteattentiontoits methods.Thatsciencedependsuponobservationsandexperimentsisknowntoeveryone, butthosewhohavenotbeenengagedinits pursuitcannotfullyrealizethescrupulouscare withwhichobservationsandexperimentsare made,thefaithfulnesswithwhichtheyare recorded,thevarietyofconditionsunderwhich theyarerepeated,andthecautionwithwhich conclusionsaredrawnfromthem.Sciencedoes notbowdownbeforeprecedentnorcustom nordogma;itexaltsthetruthandhonestly seeksit.Thefactthatscientifictheorieshave oftenbeenalteredjustifiesnoreproachtoscience,fortheyaresimplythemostcoherent organizationsofitsdatathatarepossibleat agiventime.Thefactthatchangesarenecessarymeansthatknowledgehasbeenincreased. Newdiscoveriesdonotcontradictearliertruth, butincludeitasaspecialcase,orasanimperfectstatementofsomelargertruth.31

Whatwereleadingphilosopherssayingaboutthe methodsofscienceinthetimeofTorrey?TheEnglish economistandlogicianWilliamStanleyJevons (1835–1882)authoredaninfluentialassessmentof scientificmethodthatappearedintwoeditionsand numerousreprintsfrom1874(whenTorreywas anundergraduateatYale)to1920.Hewrote, Inacertainsenseallknowledgeisinductive. Wecanonlylearnthelawsandrelationsof thingsinnaturebyobservingthosethings. Buttheknowledgegainedfromthesensesis knowledgeonlyofparticularfacts,andwe requiresomeprocessofreasoningbywhich wemaycollectoutofthefactsthelawsobeyed bythem.Experiencegivesusthematerialsof knowledge:inductiondigeststhosematerials, andyieldsusgeneralknowledge.32

PhilosopherBertrandRussell(1872–1970)voicedan amusinglysimplisticdepictionofinductionasthe essenceofscientificmethodin1931:

TheconflictbetweenGalileoandtheInquisition isnotmerelytheconflictbetweenfreethought andbigotryorbetweenscienceandreligion; itisaconflictbetweenthespiritofinduction andthespiritofdeduction.Thosewhobelieve indeductionasthemethodofarrivingat knowledgearecompelledtofindtheirpremisessomewhere,usuallyinasacredbook. Deductionfrominspiredbooksisthemethod ofarrivingattruthemployedbyjurists,Christians,Mohammedans,andCommunists.33

Russell’sviewpoint—includinghisfaultywarfare viewofscienceandreligion—hasinfluencedmore recentscienceeducation.Forexample,EricRogers approvinglyquotesRussell’snaivemethodological pronouncementin PhysicsfortheInquiringMind, whichwasaphysicstextbookthatemergedfrom a1950scourseatPrincetonUniversity.34 Roger’s workasascienceeducatorwascelebratedsoonafter hisdeathin1990,inamemorialpublication.35

R.A.Torrey:TheHarmonyof ScienceandChristianityinthe TraditionofJamesDwightDana

IfTorrey’scharacterizationofscientificmethod sharedmuchincommonwiththepronouncements ofleadingscientists,whatabouthisopinionofbiologicalevolution?“Whatevertruththeremaybein thedoctrineofevolutionasappliedwithinlimits totheanimalworld,itbreaksdownwhenapplied toman,”Torreyassertedin WhattheBibleTeaches.36 Likemanyotherevangelicalleaders,headvocated whatwaslatercalledprogressivecreationism— theviewthatGodmiraculouslycreatednewtypes oforganismsatdifferenttimes(interspersedwith limitedevolutionandmassextinction)throughout millionsofyearsinearthhistory.37 Torreyprobably acquiredprogressivecreationismfromhisfavorite Yaleprofessor,geologistJamesDwightDana(1813–1895),whohadadvocatedthisviewinvariousforms throughouthiscareerasoneofAmerica’sleading scientists.38

TheDana-TorreyallianceprovedtobeanimportantvenueforpromotingtheharmonybetweenscienceandChristianityneartheturnofthetwentieth century.Danahadtherelevantscientificcredentials

Darwinism,Fundamentalism,andR.A.Torrey

andTorrey,arecognizedtheologian-evangelist, conveyedsomeofDana’sideastomillionsthrough revivalsermonsandrelatedpublications.AdetailedlookatDana’ssubtleviewsaboutevolution anddivineactionwillhelpustounderstand Torrey’sassessmentoftheseissues.Bythetime TorreystudiedunderDanain1874,Danahadjust announced,inprint,thathehadacceptedamore evolutionaryversionofprogressivecreationism whichheconsidered“mostlikelytobesustained byfurtherresearch.”Hetentativelyconcludedthat the“evolutionofthesystemoflifewentforward throughthederivationofspeciesfromspecies, accordingtonaturalmethodsnotyetclearlyunderstood,andwithfewoccasionsforsupernatural intervention.”39

From1871to1890,Danadeliveredaseriesof lecturesonevolutionatYaleCollegeinwhichhe concluded(inthelectureversionsthathebegan todeliverinthelate1870sandearly1880s)40 that Darwiniannaturalselectionhadonlysucceededin explainingthe survival ofthefittestspecies,notthe origin ofspecies.41 Danarecognizedtheexplanatory powerofnaturalselectioninmakingsenseofthe geographicaldistributionofspeciesinpastand presentflorasandfaunas—roughlywhatwenow callbiogeographyandecologicalsuccession.Inhis eighthandfinallectureinthisunpublishedseries, DanawroteconcerningDarwin’stheory,“Isee nothingheretosustaintheviewthat thesurvival ofthefittest satisfiesourinquiryasto theoriginof thefittest.”42 However,naturalselectionactingon variationsmighthelpexplainsomeofthesmaller “divergenceslikethatofthehorseandgiraffefrom otherspecies,”Danagranted.Hecontinuedhis assessmentofthelimitedefficacyofnaturalselectioninthenextparagraph:

Butitexplainsonlyinpart.The[sic]mostofthe highersubdivisionsofanimalswerealready developedverynearlyaswenowhavethem inPaleozoictime;allthegrandsubdivisionsof Radiates&MollusksandnearlyallofInsects andVertebrates;andmanyofthesewereout incompletedisplayintheCambrian[period ofthePaleozoicera];thusshowingthatinthis developmentoftheKingdomsofLifethere wassomemoreprofoundcauseatworkthan superficialnaturalselection.43

Danareaffirmedthisconclusioninthelasteditionof his ManualofGeology (1895)shortlybeforehisdeath,

whilealsoobservingthat“the origin ofvariationis notconsidered”inDarwin’stheoryandthatitis “forthemostpartthroughouttheKingdomsoflife,” aphenomenon“withoutexplanation.”44 Inbothhis 1895 ManualofGeology andhisearlierunpublished lectures,Danamaintainedthat“naturalvariations” originatedbymechanismsthatsciencehadnotyet adequatelydetermined.Heneverthelessconsidered suchvariationtobe“natural,”ratherthenmiraculous“creativeacts”ofGod,whichDana(correctly) recalledhadbeentheviewofLouisAgassiz(1807–1873)—America’sleadingzoologist,andfriendof Dana.45 Danaacceptedanaccountoflife’shistory thathecalled“evolutionbynaturalvariation.”46

Beforeweexaminethisviewpoint,itisimportant tonoteDana’sadvocacyofafewexceptionstothis generalstory.Heexcludedhumanoriginsandafew othercrucialpointsinlife’shistoryfrom“evolution bynaturalvariation”becausehethoughtsuchwere instancesofdetectableintelligentcausationofthe sortadvocatedbyLouisAgassiz(“interventionof anintellectualpower,”wasAgassiz’sexpression).47 In1890,DanapublishedalengthyYalelecture (differentfromhiseight-lectureevolutionseries) thatsurveyedevolutionandrelatedinterpretive issuesinGenesis.Herehespecifiedtwoofthe pointsofdivineinterventioninnaturalhistory priortoGod’screationofhumans:

Thereis,hence,reasonforbelievingthatthe powerwhichsocontrolsandexaltschemical forces,raisingthemtothelevelrequiredbythe functionsofaplant,cannotcomefromunaided chemicalforces;andmuchlessthatwhich carriesthemtoastillhigherlevel,thatofthe living,sentientanimal.48

Danaappearstorefertoapowerthatisbeyond theinherentcapacitiesofunaidedmaterialnature. Thisismadesomewhatclearbythecontextofthe abovepassage.Theoriginofplants(acategorythat includedmicrobesinDana’sterminology)representedtheoriginoffirstlife,ofwhich“science,as isuniversallyadmitted,hasnoexplanation;forno experimentshaveresultedinmakingdeadmatter alivingspecies.”49 SoDanaarguedthataspecial organizingpowerwasneededtoaccountforthe originof“plant”life,andyetagainfortheorigin of“sentientanimal”life.

Thiscontinuedinsistenceuponatleastsome interventionistactsofGodinprehumannatural

history,aviewthatDanaapparentlyheldthroughouthislife,woulditselfbesufficienttoregardhim asaprogressivecreationistratherthanatheistic evolutionist.However,thereareadditionalreasons forthisassessment.Asforthebulkoflife’shistory beyondsuchrareinterventionistexceptions,Dana distinguishedhisownview—evolutionbynatural variation—fromDarwinismintworespects.First, herejectedthesuggestionthatchancevariation (coupledwithnaturalselection)constitutesthe engineofevolutionarychange:“Itisofnoavail tospeakof chance variations.Theuseoftheword chance indicatespersonalignorance.Chancehasno placeinnature’slaws,andcanhavenoneinnaturescience.”50 Dana’slastassertionaboutthenatureof natureinhis1895 ManualofGeology furtherilluminateswhathemeantby natural (butnotrandom) variations,whichhethoughtfueledevolutionary progress:“thewholeUniverseisnotmerelydependenton,butactuallyis,theWillofoneSupreme Intelligence.”51 Putotherwise,Danabelievedthat Godguided(usuallyinanoninterventionistmanner)theproductionofthevariationsamongorganismsthatconstitutedmostofbiologicalevolution. Second,Danadistinguishedhisunderstandingof evolutionfromDarwin’sbyarguingthatnatural variationsmaketheirinitialappearancewithin themajorityofapopulation,nottheminorityas Darwinhadsuggested.Thefewpopulationmemberslackingsuchnewbeneficialvariationswould beeliminatedbynaturalselection. 52 Naturalselectionisaconservative,notinnovative,processin Dana’sviewoflife’shistory. 53

Danaconsideredtheprogressiveappearanceof increasinglycomplexlifeovermillionsofyears tobe“afact,whethercarriedforwardbyNatural CausesunderDivinepower&guidance,orby DivineIntervention.”54 Thisishowheexpressedit inthefirstofhiseightYalelecturesonevolution, whichhedeliveredtostudentsepisodicallyfrom 1871to1890.Dana’sdistinctionhereisbetween thosecasesinwhichGodworksthroughnatural processes(withoutarolefor“chance”)toachieve hisgoalsinnature,andthosecasesinwhich God’sinterventionistactscausenewentitiesto comeintoexistencebymomentarilysuspending naturallaw,asinthecaseofthefirstappearance ofplants,animals,andhumans.55

Dana’ssubtleviewsonbiologicaloriginshave notbeencapturedadequatelybyrecentsecondary

sources,56 whichisapointworthemphasizing beforewereturntoTorrey’sacceptanceofDana’s views.HereishowhistorianRonaldNumbers summarizesDana’sviewpoint:

Cametoaccepttheisticevolutioninthe1870s butcontinuedtoinsistthat“acreativeact” wasnecessaryfortheoriginofhumans; leanedmoretowardneo-Lamarckianthan Darwinianmechanisms.57

Contrarytothisassessment,Danaalsoinsistedupon atleasttwointerventionistactsofGodinprehuman history,andheconsideredtheoriginofvariation tobelargely“withoutexplanation,”atleastmore sothanLamarckianorDarwinianincharacter. HistorianDavidLivingstoneevenclaims(withonly minorqualification)thatby1883“Danahadclearly acceptedtheDarwiniancornerstoneofevolution— namely,naturalselection.”58

WehaveseenthatDanaconsiderednaturalselectiontobemorehelpfulinexplainingbiogeography andecologicalsuccession,ratherthaninexplaining theoriginofradicallynewlifeforms(whichalone wouldgiveit“cornerstone”statusintheDarwinian sense).AlthoughDanasometimesappearedtobe oneof“Darwin’sforgottendefenders”(thetitleof Livingstone’sbook),Danamoreoftenproclaimed thecongruenceofhisviewswiththoseofprogressivecreationistslikeLouisAgassiz(1807–1873)and ArnoldGuyot(1807–1884).59 AlthoughDanabelievedinfewerinterventionistactsofGodinnatural historythaneitherAgassizorGuyot,heagreedwith themthatGodguidedtheprogressiveappearance offundamentallynewtypesoforganisms.Theoriginofthemajorgroupsofspecieshadnothingtodo withchanceandalmostnothingtodowithnatural selection,Danaconcluded.Danawasnotatheistic evolutionist,atleastnotinthemostcommonand recentsensesofthisterm.60

Torrey’sassessmentofDarwinismwasstrikingly similartoDana’s.RecallwhatTorreywrotein1898: “Whatevertruththeremaybeinthedoctrineof evolutionasappliedwithinlimitstotheanimal world,itbreaksdownwhenappliedtoman.”In fact,Torrey’sdiarysuggestsvaguely how Darwin’s theory“breaksdownwhenappliedtoman.”61 Ina dozendiaryentriesdatedJulythroughSeptember of1882,TorreyreportsreadingDarwin’s Descentof Man (whichfirstappearedin1871—theyearTorrey beganhisYalestudiesandtheyearDanabeganhis

Darwinism,Fundamentalism,andR.A.Torrey

Yaleevolutionlectures).OnJuly17,heremarks, “Darwin’sargumentonthedevelopmentofthe moralfacultyseemsextremelyweak.”Thenextday hewrites,

ReadinDarwin’s“DescentofMan”&Mivart’s criticismofDarwinonLanguage,Duty&Pleasurein“LessonfromNature.”Mivartpoints out[twoillegiblewords]factsinDarwin’stheory,whichDarwindidnotsufficientlynotice orseemtoapprehendinhislatereditions.This portionofDarwin’sworklackstheacuteness anddiscriminationofotherparts.62

Torreyappearstohaverecognizedtheforceof St.GeorgeJacksonMivart’sargumentagainstDarwin’stheoryoftheoriginofmoralitybymeansof naturalselection.“Perceptionsofrightandwrong, andofourpowerofchoice,andconsequentlyresponsibility,areuniversallydiffusedamongstmankind,andconstituteanabsolutecharacterseparating manfromallotheranimals,”declaredMivartinhis thesisstatementplacedattheheadofhischapter on“DutyandPleasure,” 63—achapterTorreyapparentlyfinishedreadingonJuly18,1882.Although Mivart,aprominentCatholictheisticevolutionist, acknowledged“altruistichabitscanbeexplainedby ‘naturalselection,’”hemaintainedthatthisisbeside themainpointatissue,namely,

Noamountofbenevolenthabitstendevenin theremotestdegreetoaccountfortheintellectualperceptionof“right”and“duty.”Such habitsmaymakethedoingofbeneficialacts pleasant,andtheiromissionpainful;butsuch feelingshaveessentiallynothingwhateverto dowiththeperceptionof“right”and“wrong,” norwillthefaintestincipientstateofthe perceptionbeaccountedforbythestrongest developmentofsuchsympatheticfeelings. Likingtodoactswhichhappenedtobegood isonething;seeingthatactionsaregood, whetherweorotherslikethemornot,isquite another.

Mr.Darwin’saccountofthemoralsenseisvery differentfromtheabove.Itmaybeexpressed mostbrieflybysayingthatitistheprevalence ofmoreenduringinstinctsoverlesspersistent ones—theformerbeingsocialinstincts,the latterpersonalones.…

Mr.Darwinthenmeansby“themoralsense” aninstinct,andadds,trulyenough,that

“theveryessenceofaninstinctis,thatitis followedindependentlyofreason”([Descentof Man,]vol.i,p.100).Buttheveryessenceof moralactionisthatitisnotfollowedindependentlyofreason.64

Torrey’sevaluationofDarwin’s DescentofMan and Mivart’s LessonsfromNature appearstohavebeen cutshortbytheappearanceofwhatlaterbecame knownas“TheGreatSeptemberCometof1882.” Torreyreportsinhisdiarythatheviewedacomet inearlyOctoberafterhavingread(onSeptember14, 21,and28)abookonobservationalastronomyby H.W.Warren.65 Soonafterviewingthecomet, theTorreyfamilyspentayearinGermany—apparentlyleavingDarwin’sandMivart’sbooksbehind.

Torrey’senjoymentofscientificliteraturespurred himtoevenreadaloudtohiswifeClarafrom R.A.Proctor’s LightScienceforLeisureHours. 66

Torrey,whoreadwidelyonevolution,wassomewhatambivalentaboutevolutionarytheoryandits relationtoChristianity.Inasermonusedduring his1902–1905revivaltour,Torreypresentedscientificargumentsagainstuniversalcommondescent, butthenpresentedabackupgreater-Godevolutionarydesignargument(incaseuniversalcommon descentwereeverproven).67 InOctober1925 (shortlyaftertheScopestrial),Torreyrecalledin alettertohisfriendJamesGray,editorofthe MoodyBibleInstituteMonthly ,

EvenafterIcametobelievethoroughlyinthe Bible,andinitsexactinterpretation,Iwas,to acertainextent,anevolutionist.Ilater,with morethoroughstudy,wasledtogiveupthe evolutionaryhypothesisforpurelyscientific reasons.68

Inthatsamepublishedletter,Torreyindicatedthat afundamentalistcouldbeanevolutionistinatleast somesenseoftheterm:

WhileIamnotanevolutionistinanysense, Ihaveknownmenintimatelywhowereas soundontheScripturesandonallfundamentaldoctrinesofourfaithasIamwhowere atthesametimeevolutionists.Ithinkthey aremistaken,butIcanseehowamancan believethoroughlyintheabsoluteinfallibility oftheBibleandstillbeanevolutionistof acertaintype.69

TheMoodyeditorsinsertedafootnoteatthispoint thatread:

MichaelN.Keas

The“evolutionist”inmindevidently,isnothe whodeniesthesupernatural,butwhoemploys theterminthesimplesenseofgrowth,progress,developmentfromthelowertothehigher inthehistoryoftheuniverseofman.70

DuringtheperiodinwhichTorreycollaboratedwith TheFundamentals publicationproject(1910–1915), hepromotedabookbytheBritishcriminallawpractitionerandamateurtheologianSirRobertAnderson (1841–1918), ADoubter’sDoubtsaboutScienceand Religion.71 Torreyincludedthisbookwithinthe “MontroseLibrary,”whichwasacollectionofrecommendedbooksroutinelypromotedinBiola’sorganizationalmonthly, TheKing’sBusiness 72 Anderson’s bookthusgivesusadditionalinsightintoTorrey’s ownviewsaboutscienceandreligion.

Afterdiscussingthemeagerevidenceinfavorof Darwin’stheoryoftheoriginofspecies,Anderson suggestedthat“thefirstandgreatestquestion relates,nottothephenomenaoflife,buttoits origin.”73 Interactingwithsomeofthepublished remarksofCharlesDarwin,T.H.Huxley,and HerbertSpencer,Andersonarguedthatnotheory oftheoriginoflifeenjoyedsignificantsupportat thattime.Evenso,Huxleyisquotedassayingthat “atsometimeorotherabiogenesismustshavetaken place.Ifthehypothesisofevolutionbetrue,living mattermusthavearisenfromnon-livingmatter.”74 Suchaconclusion,however,merelyassumesthe verynaturalisticphilosophyinquestion.Anderson aptlycharacterizesHuxley’sabiogenesisassertion as“boundlesscredulity.”75

ReturningtoDarwin’stheoryproper,whichpertainstotheoriginofspecies,nottheoriginoflife, Andersoncommentsthat“itclaimsahearingon itsmerits.Andviewedinthislight,nooneneed denounceitasnecessarilyirreligious.”Hethen arguesthatintelligentlyguidedhumanevolution wouldbe“afarmoreamazingactofcreativepower thantheMosaicaccountofthegenesisofman supposes.”76 But“basematerialism”ispowerless toexplaintheoriginofhumanreligiousconsciousness.77 Intheend,Andersonconcludesthatthe availableevidencedoesnotsubstantiallysupport Darwinianevolution.Itis“merelyaphilosophical theory”thatis“unnecessary,exceptofcoursewith thosescientistswhoclingtoanyplankthatwill savethemfromhavingtoacknowledgeGod.” 78 Anderson’sanalysisofDarwinismandnaturalistic

philosophyisreflectedinTorrey’soccasional remarksonthesubject,includinghisearlierdiary entriesanalyzedabove.

Despitehispartialuncertaintyaboutevolution, Torreyconsistentlyadvocatedthedesignargument inhissermonsandpublications.Hisclearestexpositionofthebasicstructureofthedesigninference surfacedinhisbook PracticalandPerplexingQuestionsAnswered 79 Herehedescribesaconversation withan“inquirer”thathewouldredirectbypulling outhiswatch.Aseriesofquestionswouldhelp theinquirerrecognizehisownabilitytomakethe designinferencewithouthavingseeneithertheact ofdesignorthedesigningintelligence.Thefirst peakofthisconversationcomesinthissentence: “Thewatchshowsthemarksofintelligentdesign, thusprovingithadanintelligentmaker.”Torrey wouldtheninquire,“Whataboutyourowneye? Isitnotaswonderfulapieceofmechanismas awatch?DiditnotthenhaveaMaker?”Hewould applythisinsighttootherfeaturesoftheuniverse thatdisplay“symmetry,order,beauty,law,[and] adaptationofmeanstoanend,”which“provethe existenceofanintelligentCreatorandDesigner.” ThisistheclassicteleologicalargumentforGod’s existence.Evolution,“eveniftrue,wouldnottake awayanyoftheforceoftheargumentfromdesign innature,”becauseoftheneedfora“powerof development”imposedonnaturebyadesigner. HereisanechoofDana,Torrey’sgeologyprofessor, whoseYalelecturescontainedsimilarperspectives.

AportionofthecoverofR.A.Torrey, PracticalandPerplexing QuestionsAnswered (Chicago:MoodyPress,1908).

Darwinism,Fundamentalism,andR.A.Torrey

PreparedbyaYaleandGermantheologicaland liberalartseducation,byseveraldecadesofpastoral andBibleinstituteleadership,andbyanumberof prayer-bathedrevivalsinAmerica,Torreywas eagerforrevivalonalargerscale.From1902to 1905,TorreyandsingerCharlesAlexander(1867–1920)sawnearly100,000conversionsinmeetings heldinJapan,China,Australia,India,andGreat Britain.80 UponreturningtoAmerica,Torreyturned increasinglytofull-timeevangelisticwork(leaving MBIin1908),untilheacceptedthecalltoBiola’s deanshipin1912,havingpreachedtoatotalofabout 15millionpeopleonfourcontinents.81 Withinthree yearsafterthecompletionofhisunprecedented evangelisticcrusadesin1905,Torreyhadpublished hismainapologeticworks,82 whichincludedmany ofhismusingsonevolutionandintelligentdesign. Beginningin1909,hejoinedforceswithotherevangelicalsinajointpublicationproject, TheFundamentals,whichhelpedidentifyanewbreedofevangelicals:thefundamentalists.

Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism,andChristian WorldviewThinking:1889–1915

Besideshisroleasaleadingturn-of-the-century evangelicalrevivalist,Torreywasoneoftheeditors andauthorsof TheFundamentals (1910–1915).This publicationseriesnotonlyhelpeddefinefundamentalism,butitalsodisseminatedJamesOrr’sexplicit articulationofChristianityasa“worldview”—a projectOrrhadbeguninabout1889(thesame yearTorreybeganwritingBibleinstitutecurricula).83 WewillfocusonhowTorreyandOrrcontributed tothesortofChristianworldviewanalysisthat informedearlyfundamentalisminregardtoscience andChristianity.

Whatareevangelicalism,fundamentalism,and Christian“worldview”thinking?Evangelicalsare bestdefinedasChristiansaffectedbytheeighteenthcenturyrevivalsledbypeoplesuchasJonathan EdwardsandJohnandCharlesWesley,whowere committedtobiblicalauthority,Christ’ssubstitutionaryatonement(andafewothermajordoctrines),aconversionexperience,andtransformation oftheworldthroughevangelismandsocialaction.84 Christianfundamentalismhasbeenamovement withinevangelicalismsincetheearlytwentieth century.Itopposedliberalismanddefendedthe truthsofChristianitymoreactivelythanmany evangelicalshaddonepreviously.Christianworldviewthinking(explicitlyusingtheterm“worldview”or Weltanschauung)hasbeenaproject,within bothevangelicalismandtheReformedtradition sincethelatenineteenth-century,todevelopacomprehensiveaccountofrealitythatisrootedinthe Bibleandclearlydistinguishedfromnon-Christian viewsoftheworld.Thisprojectwaslargelyinitiated inabout1889bytheScottishPresbyteriantheologianJamesOrr(1844–1913)—whowasalsoaleadingauthorof TheFundamentals—and(inthemid1890s)bytheDutchReformedpolymathAbraham Kuyper(1837–1920).85

WhenMoodydiedin1899,Torreysucceededhim asaleadingworldevangelist.Torreylaterbecame acentralfigureinthefundamentalistmovement. Moodyhimselfhadbeenaproto-fundamentalist, accordingtoMarsden.86 Themainfundamentalist ingredientthatMoodylacked—thepassionand educationalbackgroundtofightliberalism—Torrey possessedinabundance.Infact,Torrey’schief

ThecoverofR.A.Torrey, DifficultiesandAlleged ErrorsandContradictionsintheBible (Chicago,IL: TheBibleInstituteColportageAssociation,1907).

MichaelN.Keas

disagreementwithMoodywaspreciselyconcerning thisissueoffightingtheintellectualidolsoftheage. “ChristandHis…disciples…attackederror,” Torreywrote.Itisnotenoughto“simplyteachthe truth,”hearguedin1899,delineatinghisposition incontrasttothatofMoody.87 Althoughtheterm “fundamentalist”didnotappearinprintuntil1920,88 fundamentalismhadbeenintheworksforatleast afewdecadesprior.Theworldwidedispersalof thepamphletscalled TheFundamentals providedthe rootofthenameandsomeofthemomentumthat gavefundamentalismitspublicface.

Whatinitiated TheFundamentals projectin1909? OilprospectorLymanStewarthadlongdreamed offundingthewidecirculationofascholarlydefenseofmereevangelicalChristianitywithaminimumofsectariancontent.89 SoonafterhisUnion OilCompanyofCaliforniahadmultiplieditsworth fivetimesbetween1900and1908,90 Lymanandhis brotherMiltondecidedtoadvanceGod’skingdom anonymouslywithaproclamationofbasicChristianity.Theywerethe“twoChristianlaymen”on thetitlepageofeachoftheundatedtwelvevolumes of TheFundamentals thatappearedfrom1910to1915. Theprefacetothelastvolumestatesthat“over 2,500,000copiesofthetwelvevolumeshavebeen publishedandcirculated,”91 leadingsometobelieve thatthisreferredtothenumberofcopiesof each volume.The total copiesof all twelvevolumesis whattheprefaceactuallyintendedtoreport,anumberthatgrewtonearlythreemillionaccordingto thenextsentenceofthepreface(thisincluded reprintsofbackcopies).

Orrwasoneofthemostinfluentialessayists in TheFundamentals,particularlybecausehehad alreadyestablishedhisreputationasafounding fatherofChristian“worldview”thinking. 92 Inhis magnumopus, TheChristianViewofGodandthe WorldasCenteringintheIncarnation (1897),hehad declared,

TheoppositionwhichChristianityhasto encounterisnolongerconfinedtospecialdoctrinesortopointsofsupposedconflictwith thenaturalsciences—forexample,therelations ofGenesisandgeology—butextendstothe wholemannerofconceivingoftheworld,and ofman’splaceinit,themannerofconceiving oftheentiresystemofthings,naturaland moral,ofwhichweformapart.Itisnolonger

anoppositionofdetail,butofprinciple.Thecircumstancenecessitatesanequalextensionof thelineofdefense.ItistheChristianviewof thingsingeneralwhichisattacked,anditisby anexpositionandvindicationoftheChristian viewofthingsasawholethattheattackcan mostsuccessfullybemet.93

Orr’sparticipationin TheFundamentals promoted thissortofChristianworldviewanalysisonamassivescale(owingtothelargedistributionofthose volumes).Orrexpresseshisviewsaboutscienceand Christianworldviewthinkinginhisessay“Science andChristianFaith”(vol.4).Hedeclaresthatnaturallaw“intheBibleisneverregardedashaving anindependentexistence.Itisalwaysregardedas anexpressionofthepowerorwisdomofGod.”This clarificationundercutsaclassofargumentslater knownas“godofthegaps,”accordingtowhich Godisimplicatedinnatureonlywhenwefailto explainsomethingbymeansofnaturallawsand naturalevents.Orralsoarguedthatwhensomeone

TheFundamentals (1910–1915)wereissuedastwelveseparatevolumes(abouttwoperyear).Nearlythreemillionofthese volumes(about250,000of each volume)weremailedaround theworld.

liftstheirarm,theydonot“abolishthelawofgravitationbutcounteractoroverruleitspurelynatural actionbytheintroductionofanewspiritual[nonmaterial]force.”94 Whatscientificmaterialistswould needtojustifyintheirapproach,Orrsuggests,is “notsimplythatnaturalcausesoperateuniformly, butthatnootherthannaturalcausesexist…”

Diggingyetdeeperintotheworldviewlevelof analysis,Orrconcluded,

Therealquestionatissueinmiracleisnot naturallaw,but Theism.Itistoberecognized atoncethatmiraclecanonlyprofitablybediscussedonthebasisofatheisticviewofthe universe.Itisnotdisputedthatthereareviews oftheuniversewhichexcludemiracle.95

Hementionsatheism,pantheism,anddeismas examplesofworldviewsthatprecludemiracles.But thenhe“marvels”atthosetheists(especiallytheistic evolutionists)whopresumethat“forthehighest andholiestendsinHispersonalrelationswith Hiscreatures,Godcanworkonlywithinthelimits whichnatureimposes;thatHecannotactwithout andabovenature’sorderifitpleasesHimtodoso.”

Darwinism,Fundamentalism,andR.A.Torrey TheFundamentals,volume1(1910).R.A.Torreyservedasawriterandoneoftheeditorsoftheproject.

Heconcludes,“Miraclesstandorfallbytheirevidence,buttheattempttorulethemoutbyanyapriori dictumastotheuniformityofnaturallawmustinevitablyfail.” 96 Orrskillfullyavoidsbothextreme presuppositionalismandexclusiveevidentialismin hisarticulationofaChristianworldviewascomparedwithrivalworldviews.

Inthissameessay,OrrdismantledtheDraperWhite97 warfarethesisofscienceandChristianity bymeansoftheoverallharmonythatisevident inthehistoryofscienceandChristianity.Historians ofscience,particularlysinceWorldWarII,have resoundinglydiscreditedthewarfarethesisalong similarlines(buttolittleeffectasthewarfareimage stillhaspopularcurrency).Furthermore,Orrdisplaysaremarkablyaccurategraspofthelimited extenttowhichconflict has appearedinthehistory ofscienceandChristianity,namelywheneithernatureorScripturewasmisinterpreted.Forexample, Orr—echoingAugustine,Calvin,Galileo,andmany others—observesthattheBibleisnotascientific textbook,butiswrittenusingthecommonlanguage ofhowthingsappearfromearth.98 Admittedly, “Galileowasimprisonedbythechurch,”but“truth

MichaelN.Keas

prevailed,anditwassoonperceivedthattheBible, usingthelanguageofappearances,wasnomore committedtotheliteralmovingofthesunroundthe earththanareourmodernalmanacs,whichemploy thesameformsofspeech[e.g.,‘sunrise’].”Similarly, Orrarguesthatthe“greatdivine‘week’ofwork” isitselfpartofthe“symbolicsettingofthepicture” inGenesis1,andnotintendedtoteachcreation insixsolardays.99 Infact,noneoftheessaysin TheFundamentals advocatedayoungearth.Orralso concludedthatNoah’sfloodwasanthropologically universal,butgeographicallylocal.100 Manyofthe errorsoffundamentalismbecamepervasiveonly laterinthehistoryofthemovement,aftertheinfluenceofgiantslikeOrrhadfaded.

Afterthedemiseoffundamentalismamongmost evangelicalsinthegenerationaftertheScopestrial, someaspectsofitsearlierstrengthswerelaterrevived.Forexample,CarlF.H.Henry(whowas bornin1913,theyearOrrdied)readOrr’s TheChristianViewofGodandtheWorld inaWheatonCollege seniorcourseontheism,which(Henrylaterrecalled)“didthemosttogivemeacogentlycomprehensiveviewofrealityandlifeinaChristian context.”101 HenryrevivedcarefulChristianworldviewanalysisinthetraditionofOrr,butheand hisWheatonclassmateBillyGrahamalsoshedthe tainted“fundamentalist”labelintheirintellectual andrevivalistrenewalof evangelicalismduringthe secondhalfofthetwentiethcentury.

Inhis“ScienceandChristianFaith”essay,Orr alsoproposedaresolutiontotheapparentconflict betweenbiologicalevolutionandtheBible.Significantevidencepointsto“someformofevolutionary originofspecies—thatissomegeneticconnectionof higherwithlowerforms,”buthethoughtthatthis changewaslimited(withoutspecifying how limited).102 HealsoarguedthatGoddirectsthemechanismsofevolutiontowardpurposefulends. “Evolution,”heconcludes,“iscomingtoberecognizedasbutanewnamefor‘creation’…”Orralso assertsthattheoriginoflifeisinexplicableby “purelymechanicalandchemicalagencies”and thattheoriginoftraitssuchasconsciousnessand moralitysimilarlyrequiretheoperationof“spiritualpowers”ora“specialactoftheCreator.”103 Orr’sviewshereareinlinewiththeDana-Torrey trajectoryanalyzedearlier.

TheFundamentals (1910–1915)displayedarange ofopiniononevolutionthatdidnotbecomefocused

politicalresistanceamongfundamentalistsuntilthe 1920s.Althoughsomeessayistsin TheFundamentals clearlyrejecteduniversalcommonancestry,others acceptedit(withtheexclusionofthespecialcaseof humans).Themostqualifiedauthoronevolution amongtheessayistswastheologian(andamateur geologist)GeorgeFrederickWright(1838–1921), whowasprofessorofthe“HarmonyofScienceand Revelation”atOberlinCollegeinOhio.Wrightarguedthat“modernevolutionaryspeculationshave notmademuchrealprogressoverthoseofthe ancients.”Heespeciallynotedthelackofsuccessof Darwin’sproposedmechanismofnaturalselection actingonrandomvariations,which,indeed,historiansoflatehaveshowntohavebeentemporarily eclipsedbyneo-Lamarckianandothergoal-directed mechanismsaroundtheturnofthetwentiethcentury.104 Wrightconcludedthat“design”isstilldetectableinevolutionarychange,buthewasvague abouthowmuchcommonancestryhedeemedtobe welldocumented(healsochangedhismindabout thissubjectafewtimesduringhiscareer).105

Furthermore,Wrightmadethecase(likeOrrand designtheoriststoday)thathumansareknown toactroutinelyasintelligentagentsinbreeding animalsandfashioningtechnology—oreveninjust movingtheirarm,asOrrhadillustrated.Thus, “wecannotbanishGodfromtheuniversewithout stultifyingourselvesandreducingman’sfreewill tothelevelofameremechanicalforce.Butman ismorethanthat;andthiseveryoneknows.”Even thoughWrightwascorrectaboutthestronghuman intuitionthatvalidatesourstatusasvolitional beingswhoretainpersonalidentitythroughtime (unlikematerialobjects),hemightbesurprisedby thedegreetowhichmaterialistssubsequentlyhave attemptedtoreducehumanstomaterialentities.

Intheprefacetothelastvolumeof TheFundamentals,whichappearedin1915,underTorrey’seditorialoversight,readerswereurgedtosubscribeto TheKing’sBusiness publishedbyBiola(alsoedited byTorrey),whichwasofferedasacontinuation of TheFundamentals.Thefirstelevenvolumesof TheFundamentals hadspurred200,000letterstothe publisher,halfofwhichhadrequestedmore.106 Torreywashappytocomplybysendingacomplimentaryissueof TheKing’sBusiness toeachreader inthehopethatmanywouldcontinuebysubscription.107 TheoilmoneyoftheStewartbrothers wasbehindalltheseprojects: TheFundamentals,

Darwinism,Fundamentalism,andR.A.Torrey

TheKing’sBusiness,andBiolaitself.108 TheKing’s Business focusedon“fundamentalChristianity”and Sundayschoollessons,includingbackgroundreadingandeditorialcommentsaboutcurrentevents.

Otherthanahighprofilepresenceofmail-order offersfromtheBiolaBookRoom,Biola’sselfpromotionwaskepttoaminimum.Thismonthly connectionwithaninstantinternationalconstituencyhelpedputBiolaonthereligiousworldmap, particularlyastheperiodicalwasalsoknownforits editor,therenownedworldevangelistR.A.Torrey.

TheKing’sBusiness (1910–1970)wasoneofthemost influentialfundamentalistperiodicalsofthefirst halfofthetwentiethcentury.109 ChristianityToday (1956–),thebrainchildofBillyGrahamandCarlF.

H.Henry,becametheleadingevangelicaljournal (andchiefdefenderoforthodoxyinthewakeof fundamentalism’sdecline)ofthesecondhalfofthe twentiethcentury.110

Science,Religion,andthe GreatWar:1914–1918

WhileOrrhadarguedagainsttheallegedwar betweenscienceandChristianityin TheFundamentals (ashadTorreyinhisrevivalmessagesandBible schoolcurriculum),Torrey’smonthlyeditorialsin TheKing’sBusinessoftenaddressedthewarin EuropethatsoondrewAmericaintooverseascombat.Torreymaintainedapacifistpositionthrough thefirsthalfofWorldWarI,whichhadbegunin August1914.ButinhisApril1917editorial(written February15,twoweeksafterGermanyhadbegun unrestrictedsubmarinewarfare),Torreymadean aboutface.“OughtChristianstogotowar?”he asked.“Theycertainlyshould,”heanswered.“But whatwarshouldtheygoto?”First,hegavethespiritualanswer:“ThewaragainstSatan(Eph.6:12,13); thewaragainstsinandunbeliefanderrorinallits countlessforms.”ThenTorreysuggestedthenecessityofphysicalwarfare:

ThereseemstobenopossibilityofAmerica’s beingkeptoutofthismostappallingwarinall theworld’shistory.Thecoursebeingpursued byGermanyhasnoshadowofexcuseininternationallaworhumanity.Intheirdesperation thatnationanditsrulesseemtohavegone mad.Itlooksasiftherewasnothinglefttobe donebuttoutterlycrushthenation,tobringit toitssenses.111

Indeed,theUSAenteredthewaronApril6,1917. InthesameApril1917issueof TheKing’sBusiness, Torreypennedanotherarticleaboutthespiritual warovertheauthorityofScripture.Hesuggested thatthe“mostdangerousenemiesoftheBibletoday arecollegeprofessorsandprincipalsofhighschools, andeventheologicalprofessors,who…are… attemptingtoshowthattheBibleisfulloferrors andnotinaccordwiththeassuredresultsofmodern scienceandhistory.”112 Laterinthisarticle,however, Torreyproclaimed,

ThegreatestscientistthatAmericaproduced inthenineteenthcentury,myownfriendand belovedinstructoringeology,Prof.Dana,said, “ThegrandoldbookofGodstillstands,and thisoldearththemoreitsleavesareturnedand pondered,themorewillitsustainandillustrate thesacredword.”113

IntheFebruary1918issueof TheKing’sBusiness, TorreyaddressedthespiritualandDarwinian

CourtesyofBiolaUniversityArchives.

MichaelN.Keas

dimensionsoftheGreatWar.First,hecelebrated the“takingofJerusalembytheEnglishforces”as afulfillmentofprophecy.114 Thenhelaunchedfive pagesthatblamedDarwinianevolutionforthewar.

Therecanbenoquestionthatthepresentwar andsomeofthemosthorriblefeaturesofGerman‘frightfulness’arethedirectoutcomeof theevolutionaryhypothesis,whichhashadso greataswayinGermanuniversitiesandin Germanscientificthought.115

TorreydocumentedhownumerousGermanintellectualsandmilitaryleadershadjustifiedGerman militaryaggressionbasedonDarwinianprinciplesin earlytwentieth-centurypublications.116 Although recentscholarshiphasshownthatauthorslikeTorrey andWilliamJenningsBryan(oftheScopestrial)overestimatedthedirectlineofinfluencefromDarwinism totheoutbreakofWorldWarI,117 thereremainsa substantialcaseforsocialDarwinismasoneofthe significantfactorsthatledtothewar.Torreydidnot recognizeoneglaringcounterexampletohisthesis: someDarwinistswerepacifists.But,ironically,the reasonforsuchpacifismusuallyhingeduponthe objectionthat,inmodernwars,thewrongpeople werebeingkilled—Europeansratherthanallegedly inferiornon-Europeanraces.118

ThoughDarwinhimselfopposedmilitarismas adeliberatepolicy,119 hejudgedthe“warofnature” tobethesourceoutofwhichmoralityitselforiginated.Atribewithmorealtruisticbehaviorwould out-compete(inthe“battleforlife”)thoselacking suchselflessbehavior,hereasoned.120 Thosesuperiorinbattlewerealsothoseonthehighmoral ground(asanallegedconsequenceofnaturalhistory).Torrey,makingmanyofthesesamepoints aboutDarwinismandmilitaryaggression,quipped, “ThismaysoundlikeDarwinianevolutiongone mad,butitisreallytheevolutionaryhypothesis carriedtoitslogicalissue.”121 HistorianRichard Weikarthasrecentlydocumentedamorenuanced versionofTorrey’sassessment(andconnecteditto bothWorldWars)inhisbook FromDarwintoHitler (2004).122

Inthesameeditorialanalyzedabove,Torrey showshowsomeoftheleadingGermanscholarsof biblicalhighercriticismtarnishedtheirreputations bypubliclyvoicingsupportforGermanmilitarism. Forexample,heprofilesstatementsfromGustav AdolfDeissmann,professorofNewTestament

exegesisatBerlin.DeissmannproclaimedtheGreat Wartobe“ourholywar,”whichhasstrengthened religion:“Isayit[i.e.,thepresentwar]hassteeled [i.e.,strengthened]it[i.e.,religion]…Thisisnot relapsetoalowerlevel,but amountinguptoGod himself.”Torrey,perhapsrecallinghisownexperiencestudyingtheologyinGermany,responded, “WhowilldesiretostudyNewTestamenttheology underamanwhoiscapableofsuchaninfamous andSatanicutteranceasthis[?]”123 Torreyconcludeshiseditorialwiththesewords,“Itmakes fortheprogressoftruethoughtthattheyandtheir theoriesarenecessarilydiscreditedbytheserecent utterances.”

Someevangelicalleadershaddefendedtheistic evolutionuptoWorldWarI,124 butthissupport dwindledamongevangelicalsandfundamentalists aftertheGreatWar.Althoughevangelicalshadlong arguedthathighercriticisminthehandsofliberal theologians(thoseassumingnaturalisminvarying degrees)hadcorruptedourunderstandingofthe bookofGod’swords(theBible),nowtherewas agrowingconcernthatscientificnaturalismhaddegradedourknowledgeofthebookofGod’sworks (nature).Therewasalsoincreasingevidencethat thedomainofthetwobookssignificantlyoverlapped,particularlyindisputesaboutthevalue (orrepudiation)ofwarandofthesanctityofeach individualhumanlife.

TorreynotonlyopposedAmericaenteringthe war(untilitappearednecessary),buthealsohelped advertiseapamphletin TheKing’sBusiness that opposedthewaragainst“inferior”Americansby eugenicistswhowerecampaigningtocreateamasterracethroughhumanbreeding.125 Beginningin December1912, TheKing’sBusiness advertisedthis fourteen-page“smallbook”byPhilipMauro(1859–1952)126 entitled “Eugenics”ANew“Movement”(of whichnocopiesareknowntoexisttoday).127 TheadvertisementforMauro’sfive-centtreatiseannouncedthatit“tellsofanothernewmovement instigatedbySatan.”Mauro,theNewYorklawyer whocontributedseveralessaysto TheFundamentals, andwholaterwrotethebriefthatWilliamJennings BrianusedintheScopestrial,wasapopularChristianapologist.Mauroopposedeugenics,whichwas theattempttoguidehumanevolutionbyregulating humanprocreation.AlthoughDarwinhimselfprovidedsomeoftherationaleforimprovinghumanity throughbreedinginhis DescentofMan (1871),128

Darwinism,Fundamentalism,andR.A.Torrey

eugenicsdidnotbecomeapopularsocialmovement untilaboutthetimeofMauro’sconversiontoChristianityneartheturnofthecentury.

Asalawyer,Mauromighthavebeenfamiliar withsomeoftheeugenics-basedcompulsorysterilizationlawsthatwerepassedbeginningin1907.129 Bytheearly1930s,thirtystateshadenactedsuch lawsandover12,000Americanshadbeensterilized undertheirguidance(atotalofover60,000compulsorysterilizationshadtakenplaceby1958). 130 Mostofthosesterilizedweredeemedinsaneor “feebleminded.”Withhindsight,the“feebleminded” designationwasoftenquitedubious,including, inmanycases,merelyfinanciallyunderprivileged people.Althoughconservativeevangelicalsand fundamentaliststypicallyopposedeugenics,liberal preacherstypicallysupportedthemovement.131

R.A.Torreyandthe

OrganizationofFundamentalism beforetheScopesTrial: 1918–1925

TheBaptistministerHarryEmersonFosdick—atheisticevolutionistandambivalentsupporterofeugenics132—becamethebestknown“liberal”criticof fundamentalismthroughhiswidelydistributed sermon“ShalltheFundamentalistsWin?”133 Inthis sermondeliveredinMayof1922,Fosdickaffirmed “genuineliberals”withinChristianitywhocombine “newknowledgeandtheoldfaith,”andwhomight “saythatthevirginbirthisnottobeacceptedas ahistoricfact.”Hewarnedthatfundamentalists “haveactuallyendeavoredtoputonthestatute booksofawholestatebindinglawsagainstteaching modern[evolutionary]biology,”referringtothefirst suchattemptsin1921. 134 “Iftheyhadtheirway, withinthechurch,theywouldsetupinProtestantismadoctrinaltribunalmorerigidthanthepope’s,” hepredictedconcerninghisincreasinglymobilized fundamentalistopponents.Giventhateugenicswas routinelytaughtaspartofevolutionarybiologyat thistime135 (includinginthetextbookatissuein the1925Scopestrial),136 Fosdickprobablyfeltcompelledtosupporteugenicsdespitehisdoubtsabout someofitsaims.Indeed,hewasoneofthree Christianministerswhowerechartermembersof theAmericanEugenicsSocietyAdvisoryCouncil, whichformedin1923(theyearfollowinghissermon againstfundamentalism).137

Howdidthefundamentalistsgetorganizedbeforethe1920s,thedecadeinwhichtheirmovement becameanationalsensation?Muchoftheanswer comesfromalookataflurryofactivitycentered onTorrey,whomemergingfundamentalistsrecognizedastheleadingevangelicalrevivalist.AlthoughTorreywastheologicallyopentocertain formsofevolution,hehadarguedextensivelyin theFebruary1918issueof TheKing’sBusiness that DarwinismwasthemaincauseofWorldWarI. Fundamentaliststooknoteofthis.Thepillarsof Christiancivilizationseemedtobecrumblingunder theinfluenceofDarwinismandhighercriticism(see cartoonbelow).DefendersofChristendomneeded togetorganized.

AtthefourthannualmeetingoftheWorld’s ChristianFundamentalsAssociation(WCFA),which washeldinthe4,564-seatauditoriumoftheBible InstituteofLosAngelesin1922,Minneapolispastor WilliamB.Rileybegantheconventionbytelling thestoryofthebirthoftheWCFAanditsaimof combatingthetwomaincomponentsofmodernism: evolutionandhighercriticism.Heexplainedhow theWCFAwasconceivedinthesummerhome138

TheKing’sBusiness 13(July1922):642. CourtesyofBiolaUniversityArchives.

MichaelN.Keas

ofTorrey,Biola’sdean,atameetingin1918,called byRileyandtheeditorofthefirstfivevolumesof TheFundamentals, A.C.Dixon.139 Rileyencouraged fundamentaliststofightmodernismincollegesand seminaries.Todocumentthisneed,hesummarized theresultsofthesurveypublishedbyJamesLeuba in BeliefinGodandImmortality (1916):“…morethan halfofthoseteachingbiology,geologyandhistory havediscardedabeliefinapersonalGodandapersonalimmortality.”140 Rileythenturnedtothe “fruit”ofthisunbeliefinAmericanacademicleadership,notingthatahigherpercentageoffreshman studentsincollegesbelieveintheChristianfaith thandoupperclassmen.Leuba’sstudyindicatedto Rileythatthe“camouflageofChristianity,solong workedbymodernistinstructors,isnowremoved, andforthefirsttimesincetheconflictbeganthe armyofModernismisintheopenandunderdirect fire.”141 HistorianEdwardLarsonhasrecognized theWCFAasaleadingorganizationbehindthe politicalactivationoffundamentalism.142 However, Torrey’sbiographer,RogerMartin,concludesthat TorreywithdrewfromtheWCFAsoonafterthe LosAngelesmeetingfortworeasons:itsoveremphasisonfightingevolutionandits“subsequent divisivenessandimproperspirit.”143 MartinsuggeststhatTorreythoughttheinerrancyofScripture shouldbetheprimaryfocusoforganizedattempts torenewChristianity.

Indeed,Torrey’semphasisonbiblicalinerrancy spansthechronologicalrangeofhispublications.144 In1899,hecomparedacceptanceofinerrancyinthe faceofapparenterrorsintheBibletotheacceptance ofCopernicanastronomybeforeGalileo’sdiscovery ofthephasesofVenus.“Sowesee,”heconcluded, thataccordingtothecommon-senselogicrecognizedineverydepartmentofscience(with theexceptionofBiblicalcriticism,ifthatbe ascience),ifthepositiveproofofatheoryis conclusiveitisbelievedbyrationalmen,in spiteofanynumberofdifficultiesinminor details.Heisashallowthinkerwhogivesup awell-attestedtruthbecauseofsomefacts whichhecannotreconcilewiththattruth. AndheisaveryshallowBiblescholarwho givesupthedivineoriginandinerrancyofthe Biblebecausetherearesomesupposedfacts thathecannotreconcilewiththatdoctrine. Unfortunatelywehavemanyshallowthinkers ofthatkind,eveninourpulpits.145

Biblicalinerrancy,setwithinscienceandreligion methodologicaldialogue,makesaprominent appearanceinTorrey’s1907bookthatanswersthe mostfrequentquestionsaskedduringhis1902–1905 worldevangelismtours,whichresultedinabout 100,000conversions.Torreyopenshisbookwith “ageneralstatement”aboutallegedbiblicalerrors inwhichhenotesthatthereis“scarcelyadoctrine insciencegenerallybelievedtodaythathasnothad somegreatdifficultyinthewayofitsacceptance.” AppealingtotheearlyyearsofCopernicanastronomy,hewrites,

WhentheCopernicantheory,nowsouniversallyaccepted,wasfirstproclaimed,itencounteredaverygravedifficulty.Ifthistheorywere true,theplanetVenusshouldhavephasesas themoonhas,butnophasescouldbediscoveredbythebestglasstheninexistence.Butthe positiveargumentforthetheorywassostrong thatitwasacceptedinspiteofthisapparently unanswerableobjection.Whenamorepowerfulglasswasmade,itwasfoundthatVenus hadphasesafterall.Thewholedifficultyarose, asmostallofthoseintheBiblearise,fromman’s ignoranceofsomeofthefactsinthecase.146

Torreyreinforcedthesamepointbyreviewingthe acceptanceofthenebularhypothesis(ofthesolar system’sorigin)despiteanomalousdata.

Thenebularhypothesisiscommonlyaccepted inthescientificworldtoday.Butwhenthis theorywasfirstannounced,andforalongtime afterward,themovementsoftheplanetUranus couldnotbereconciledwiththetheory.Uranus seemedtomoveinjusttheoppositedirection fromthatinwhichitwasthoughtitoughtto moveinaccordancewiththedemandsofthe theory.Butthepositiveargumentsforthetheoryweresostrongthatitwasacceptedinspite oftheinexplicablemovementsofUranus.147

In1922,sixyearsbeforehisdeath,heidentifiedinerrancyandJesus’bodilyresurrectionasthetwomost pressingissuesoftheday,despitetherecentflurry oftalkaboutevolution,whichhedeemedcomparatively“notsofundamentalandvital.”Debateabout evolutionwasmarkedby

greatconfusionofthoughtbothuponthepart oftheConservativesandonthepartofthe Liberals.Neithersidedefine[sic]withaccuracy justwhattheymeanby“Evolution,”andthe ardentadvocatesofEvolution,havinggiven

Darwinism,Fundamentalism,andR.A.Torrey

whattheyconsiderconclusiveproofofthefact ofanEvolutionofacertaincharacter,atonce assertthattheyhaveprovedthedoctrineof Evolutioninanentirelydifferentsense.Thereis asimilarconfusion,thoughnotsofrequentor sogross,onthepartofthosecontendingagainst Evolution.Nooneshouldwriteeitherforor againstEvolutionwithoutacarefuldefinition ofjustwhathemeansbyEvolution.148

Torreyofferedthisassessmentofevolutiononthe eveofthe1925Scopestrialwiththeobservationthat anadequatebookonthetopichadyettobewritten. Hehadthe“hope”that“aman”hehadinmind woulddothejob.Thisman’sidentityremainsa mystery.

Conclusion:R.A.Torreyand IssuesinScienceand Christianitybefore1925

FundamentalistleaderR.A.TorreyofferedevangelicalChristiansinsightfulapproachesfordealingwith Darwinismandnaturalismbeforehisdeathin1928. Theseinsights,someofwhichTorreyderivedfrom Yale’spresidentNoahPorterandYale’sgeologist J.D.Dana,mightinspireabetterrelationshipbetweenscienceandChristianitytoday.HowimportantwasDanatoanineteenth-centuryassessmentof Darwinianevolution?DarwinhimselfwroteDana aletterafewyearsbeforethe OriginofSpecies appearedin1859,inwhichheconfided,“butwhen Ishallpublish,Heavenonlyknows,notIfearfor acoupleofyears,butwhenIdothefirstcopyshall besenttoyou.”149 Indeed,inaletterfromDarwin toDanadatedNovember11,1859—subsequently foundinsertedintoDana’scopyofthe OriginofSpecies—DarwinannouncedthefulfillmentofhispromiseandchallengedDanawiththesewords:“Iknow toowellthattheconclusion,atwhichIhavearrived, willhorrifyyou,butyouwill,Ibelieve&hope,give mecreditforatleastanhonestsearchafterthetruth. IhopethatyouwillreadmyBook.”150 Danaapparentlyreadit,honestlyevaluatedit,andthenrejected thecornerstoneofDarwinism:theclaimthatnatural selectionactingonrandomvariationshasthecreativepowertomakealllifefromsimplebeginnings. Torreyfollowedasimilarcourse.

In1889,twoimportantevangelicalprojectswere initiated:TorreybegancreatingamodelBible curriculumforordinaryChristianworkersasthe

superintendentofMoody’snewBibleInstitutein Chicago,andOrrbeganwritinghisKerrlectures thatembodiedthefirstexplicitarticulationofChristianityasa“worldview.”Thesetwoprojectsreinforcedeachotherandbecamepartofthelarger fundamentalistmovementtodefendChristianity againstmodernism,asarguedin TheFundamentals (1910–1915).Thewritersof TheFundamentals,includingOrrandTorrey,proposedharmonybetweenscienceandChristianitybyacceptingthe standardgeologicalagesandbyofferingatleast somecritiqueofDarwinism.Biolaadvancedthe workof TheFundamentals throughitsmonthly periodical, TheKing’sBusiness (1910–1970),which Torreydesignatedasthesuccessorto TheFundamentals inthefinalvolumeofthatseries.Torreycould dothisbecausehewaseditorofbothpublications, andthefundingforbothcamefromthesame millionairebrothers—LymanandMiltonStewart. AlthoughTorreyofferedoccasionalcritiquesof Darwinismin TheKing’sBusiness andinhisbooks andsermons,heurgedevangelicalsandfundamentaliststofocusmoreonbiblicalinerrancyandacritiqueofnaturalisminallacademicfields,rather thanonthedetailsofhowGod’screativeactsunfold intime.WhileBiolaUniversityandmostother evangelicalinstitutionstodaynolongeracceptthe tainted“fundamentalist”label,thereismuchtobe emulatedfromearlyfundamentalismbeforeitflung itselfintothehumiliationofthe1925Scopestrial— adisastrousmovethatTorreydidnotsupport.151

Notes

1GeorgeM.Marsden, FundamentalismandAmericanCulture, 2ded.(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2006),260. Thesecondeditionleavestheoriginaleditionof1980 unchanged,otherthananadditionalchapteraboutrecent fundamentalism.Marsdenisbothaleadinghistorianof evangelicalismandfundamentalism,aswellasaninfluentialadvocateofChristianworldviewthinkinginacademia today—particularlysincethepublicationofhisbook TheOutrageousIdeaofChristianScholarship (Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,1997).AfterdeclaringtheSocietyof ChristianPhilosophersthepremierrolemodelofChristian thought,MarsdenalsofavorablymentionstheAmerican ScientificAffiliationin OutrageousIdea,102.

2AspresidentofBiolaanditsprimarydonor,LymanStewart builtLosAngeles’tallestbuilding(thirteenfloors),which wasmostlycompletedin1914tohousetheyounginterdenominationalevangelicalBibleInstitute.Seewww. talbot.edu/about/history.cfm(accessedJuly28,2009).

3Torrey’sfamilyburnedhislettersanddiariesafterhis deathin1928,accordingtoKermitL.Staggers,“ReubenA.

MichaelN.Keas

Torrey:AmericanFundamentalist,1856–1928”(PhDdiss., ClaremontGraduateSchool,1986),i.However,someof Torrey’sdiariesandotherunpublishedmaterialshave surfacedinvariousarchives.Forareviewofthesematerials,seewww.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/Papers/Torrey/ papers.html(accessedJuly28,2009).ManyofTorrey’s publishedworksareavailableatwww.freewebs.com/ ratorrey/index.htm(accessedJuly28,2009).

4“PerryMiller,thegrandexpositoroftheNewEngland mindandfounderoftheYaleeditionof TheWorksof JonathanEdwards, describedEdwardsasthefirstand greatesthomegrownAmericanphilosopher,”according totheYaleDivinitySchool’sJonathanEdwardsCenter, “JonathanEdwards:Biography,”http://edwards.yale.edu/ about-edwards/biographyYaleUniversity,2006(accessed December18,2007).WhileEdwardscontributedsubstantiallytotheologicalandphilosophicalreflectiononnatural philosophy(science),Torreycommentedsparselyonthe scienceofhisday.Edwardshelpeddefineearlyevangelicalismbydefendingtherationalityandauthenticityofthe recentrevivals.Similarly,Torreyfortifiedthefoundations ofevangelicalismbymodelinganddefendingthelegitimacyofintellectuallyresponsiblerevivals.

5GeorgeW.Pierson, YaleCollege:AnEducationalHistory, 1871–1921,vol.1(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress, 1952),69–71.Manyofthesecoursesinthesenioryearwere onlyafewweekslong.

6www.yale.edu/chaplain/yalehistory.html(accessedJuly30, 2009).

7Ibid.

8R.A.Torrey, RevivalAddresses (Chicago,IL:FlemingH. Revell,1903),149–50.

9GeorgeM.Marsden, TheSouloftheAmericanUniversity: FromProtestantEstablishmenttoEstablishedNonbelief (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1994).

10Ibid.,126.

11NoahPorter,“TheAmericanCollegesandtheAmerican Public,PartIV,” NewEnglander 28(October1869):753–60, asquotedinMarsden, TheSouloftheAmericanUniversity, 126–7.

12Staggers,“ReubenA.Torrey,”45.

13Marsden, TheSouloftheAmericanUniversity,22–3.

14NoahPorter,“HerbertSpencer’sTheoryofSociology,” PrincetonReview,ser.4,no.6(September1880):295,ascited inMarsden, TheSouloftheAmericanUniversity,131.

15Staggers,“ReubenA.Torrey,”51–7.

16Marsden, Fundamentalism,129.

17SeeBiola’scentennialtimelineathttp://100.biola.edu/ timeline/index.htmlfordatesandphotographs.

18CeciliaRasmussen,“OilmanLeavesaLastingL.A.Legacy,” LosAngelesTimes,March2,2008;http://articles. latimes.com/2008/mar/02/local/me-then2?pg=2(accessedJuly28,2009).

19Ibid.,128.

20MarvinN.Olasky, TheTragedyofAmericanCompassion (Wheaton,IL:CrosswayBooks,1992).

21ChristineRosen, PreachingEugenics:ReligiousLeadersandthe AmericanEugenicsMovement (Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,2004).

22R.A.Torrey, WhattheBibleTeaches (Chicago,IL:FlemingH. Revell,1898),1.Emphasisisintheoriginal.Inalater Biblestudycurriculum,Torreyofferedthesameapproach:

“Itisthemethodofmodernscience;firstadiscovery ofthefacts,andthenaclassificationoftheteachings,” R.A.Torrey, StudiesintheLifeandTeachingofOurLord (LosAngeles,CA:BiolaBookRoom,1909),i,availableat www.freewebs.com/ratorrey/StudiesInTheLife1-140.htm (accessedJuly28,2009).

23Marsden, Fundamentalism,55–62,214–6.

24RobertMillikan, AScientistConfessesHisFaith (Chicago,IL: AmericanInstituteofSacredLiterature,1923),ascitedin EdwardB.Davis,“ScienceandReligiousFundamentalism inthe1920s,” AmericanScientist 93(May–June2005):258. MillikanwontheNobelPrizeinphysicsin1923,forisolatingtheelectronandmeasuringitscharge.In1923and1924, Millikanusedtwoprestigiousawardacceptancespeeches tocommunicatetoawiderscientificallyliterateaudience adescriptionofthenatureofsciencethatisconsistentwith theonequotedabove.InOctober1923,heexpressedhis appreciationtotheAmericanInstituteofElectricalEngineersforawardinghimtheEdisonMedal,despitethelack ofimmediatetechnologicalsignificanceofhispioneering workwiththeelectron.Heremarked:

inbehalfofallworkersinwhatiscalledthefieldofpure science,allthosewhoarespendingtheirlivesintrying merelytoferretoutnature’ssecretsandtobetterman’s understandingofherlaws,Iwishnotonlytoexpress myappreciationtotheInstitutefortheaward,butalso tocomplimentituponthebreadthofitsownvisionand theservicetosciencewhichithasdoneinrecognizing beforethepublicthevalueofthisotherfield.For,in thefinalanalysis,thethinginthisworldwhichisof mostsupremeimportance,indeedthethingwhichisof most practical valuetotherace,isnot,afterall,useful discoveryorinvention,butthatwhichliesfarbackof them,namely,“thewaymenthink”—thekindofconceptionswhichtheyhaveabouttheworldinwhichthey liveandtheirownrelationstoit.Itisthisexpandingof themindofman,thisclarifyingofhisconceptions throughthediscoveryoftruthwhichistheimmediate objectofallstudiesinthefieldofpurescience.(Robert A.Millikan, ScienceandLife [Boston,MA:ThePilgrim Press,1924],2–3)

Onpage86ofthis1924book,Millikanrepublishedthe 1923statementonscienceandreligionthatalsoappeared inhispamphlet AScientistConfessesHisFaith, which includesthisdeclaration:“Thepurposeofscienceisto developwithoutprejudiceorpreconceptionofanykind aknowledgeofthefacts,thelaws,andtheprocessesof nature.”Heindicatesthatthelarger1923statementwas “publishedwidelyinthepressoftheUnitedStatesin June1923,”underthetitleof“AJointStatementuponthe RelationsofScienceandReligionbyaGroupofScientists, ReligiousLeadersandMenofAffairs.”This1923statement reappearedin PopularAstronomy:AReviewofAstronomy andAlliedSciences 48(1940):425–6,attheendofthearticle “AstronomyandReligion”byLouiseE.Ballhaussen— withthejournaleditor’sexplanatorynotethatitsethos hadbecome“generallyacceptedbyeducated,thoughtful persons”—whichsuggeststhatmanyearlytwentiethcenturyscientistsacceptedthischaracterizationofscience. The1923statementalsoappearedasappendixAin The AutobiographyofRobertA.Millikan (NewYork:Prentice Hall,1950).AlthoughMillikan’sNobelLecturepresents

Darwinism,Fundamentalism,andR.A.Torrey

amorenuanceddescriptionofthenatureofscience,itdoes notconflictwiththeassessmentofsciencevoicedabove.

Millikanwrites, ThefactthatSciencewalksforwardontwofeet,namely theoryandexperiment,isnowherebetterillustrated thaninthetwofieldsforslightcontributionstowhich youhavedonemethegreathonourofawardingme theNobelPrizeinPhysicsfortheyear1923.Sometimes itisonefootwhichisputforwardfirst,sometimesthe other,butcontinuousprogressisonlymadebytheuse ofboth—bytheorizingandthentesting,orbyfinding newrelationsintheprocessofexperimentingandthen bringingthetheoreticalfootupandpushingitonbeyond,andsooninunendingalternations.(RobertA. Millikan,“TheElectronandtheLight-Quantfrom theExperimentalPointofView,”NobelLecture, May23,1924,p.1),www.huwu.org/nobel_prizes/ physics/laureates/1923/millikan-lecture.html (accessedDecember26,2009)

InMillikan’smostsignificantscientificmonograph,he offersasimilardescriptionofscience: Ascience,likeaplanet,growsinthemainbyaprocess ofinfinitesimalaccretion.Eachresearchisusuallya modificationofapreceding[sic]one;eachnewtheoryis builtlikeacathedralthroughtheadditionbymany buildersofmanydifferentelements.Thisispreeminentlytrueoftheelectrontheory.(RobertA.Millikan, TheElectron,ItsIsolationandMeasurementandtheDeterminationofSomeofItsProperties [Chicago,IL:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,1917],5)

Curiously,Millikan’snumeroussciencetextbooksare largelydevoidofgeneralcharacterizationsofthenature ofscience.

25Torrey’scriticalrealismisseeninhischaracterizationof hissystematictheologyasan“anattempt”atunbiased inductiveBiblestudy(herecognizedhumanfallibilityin theinterpretiveprocess).Torrey, WhattheBibleTeaches, 1. Anotherexampleofhiscriticalrealismisfoundinoneof Torrey’srevivaladdressesfromhisworldwidetourat theturnofthetwentiethcentury.Hepresentedthebasic argumentofwhatC.S.Lewiswouldlaterpopularizeas thetrilemma:

ThereisnoquestionthatJesusChristclaimedtobe divine;nocompetentstudentwilldenythatHeclaimed tobedivine.Well,then,Hewasoneofthreethings; Hewaseitherdivine,asHeclaimedtobe,orelseHe wasthemostaudaciousimpostortheworldhasever seen,orelseHewasthemosthelplesslunatictheworld haseverseen.Hemusthavebeenoneofthesethree.

(Torrey, RevivalAddresses,176–7)

ThisisahistoricalargumentfortherealityofJesus’divinity.AlthoughLewiscoinedtheterm“trilemma,”theargumentitselfappearstogobacktothepatristicperiod.

26Davis,“ScienceandReligiousFundamentalism,”255–9.

SeealsoEdwardB.Davis,“RobertAndrewsMillikan (1868–1953):HisReligiousLifeandThought,”inNicolaas A.Rupke, EminentLivesinTwentieth-CenturyScienceand Religion,2ded.(FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang,2009), 253–74.DavisestimatesthatMillikanwasthesecondmost famousscientistintheUnitedStates(afterEinstein)inthe mid-1920s.

27Highercriticismoftenaimedto“demythologize”theBible, whichwastheattempttoreconstructChristianitywith littleornoacceptanceofthesupernaturalactionsofGod inhumanhistory.

28Seetheclassicbookonthistopic:PeterLipton, Inference totheBestExplanation, 2ded.(London:Routledge,2004). ForanapplicationofLipton’scharacterizationofscientific methodologytocontemporaryoriginsissues,seeStephen C.Meyer, SignatureintheCell:DNAandtheEvidenceforIntelligentDesign (NewYork:HarperOne,2009),155–9,343–4.

29Marsden, Fundamentalism,55–62,214–6.

30ForestRayMoulton, AnIntroductiontoAstronomy (London:Macmillan,1906),2.Foranaccountofhowthe Chamberlin-Moulton“planetesimalhypothesis”temporarilyeclipsedtheLaplacian“nebularhypothesis”inthe earlytwentiethcentury,seeRonaldL.Numbers, Creation byNaturalLaw:Laplace’sNebularHypothesisinAmerican Thought (Seattle,WA:UniversityofWashingtonPress, 1977),75–6.Moultonwasaprominentastronomeratthe UniversityofChicagoandlaterservedassecretaryofthe AmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience, accordingtotheMoultonobituarybyF.C.Leonard, Journal oftheRoyalAstronomicalSocietyofCanada 47(1953):84.

31ForestRayMoulton,“Astronomy,”inH.H.Newman,ed., TheNatureoftheWorldandofMan (Chicago,IL:University ofChicagoPress,1933),3–4.Thefirsteditionofthiscomprehensivesciencetextbookwaspublishedin1926,the secondeditionappearedin1927,andthethird(andlast) “star”editionin1933.Itsprefaceindicatesthatthetextbook containsthelecturesfora“surveycourse,”offeredannuallyattheUniversityofChicago,“toagroupofselected first-yearstudentsofsuperiorintelligence.”Thepreface alsoreportsthatthesixteenauthorsmetasagroupover sixteenweekstorevieweachauthor’scontribution.

32WilliamStanleyJevons, ThePrinciplesofScience:ATreatise onLogicandScientificMethod (London:Macmillan,1900), 11–2.

33BertrandRussell, TheScientificOutlook (London:George AllenandUnwin,1931),33.

34EricM.Rogers, PhysicsfortheInquiringMind:TheMethods, Nature,andPhilosophyofPhysicalScience (Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress,1960),285.

35EricM.Rogers,BrendaJennison,andJonOgborn, Wonder andDelight:EssaysinScienceEducationinHonourofthe LifeandWorkofEricRogers1902–1990 (Bristol:Instituteof Physics,1994).

36Torrey, WhattheBibleTeaches, 294–5.

37Theterm“progressivecreationism”wasmostinfluentially promotedinBernardRamm’s TheChristianViewofScience andScripture (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1954),abook baseduponlecturesinRamm’s1946–1951Biolaapologeticsclass.

38ForanassessmentofDana’sprominentroleinAmerican science,seeNumbers, CreationByNaturalLaw,94–100.For example,Danawastheprincipaleditoroftheleading Americanscientificperiodicalofthetime, TheAmerican JournalofScienceandArts.TorreyreferredtoDanaoftenin hissermonsandpublicationsasafriendandasanauthority ontheharmonyofscienceandtheology.Forexample,inhis bookthatanswersthequestionsmostfrequentlyasked

duringhisrevivalsaroundtheglobe,hecitesDana(and LordKelvin)tosubstantiatetheharmonybetweenthe orderofcreationinGenesisandtheorderestablishedby geology.Healsoadvocatedthegaptheory(agapoftime betweenGen.1:1and1:2)asawayofacceptinganoldearth, andsuggestedthatthenebularhypothesisgivesusscientificreasonstobelieveintheoriginof“light”beforethe originofoursun—thusreconcilingdaysoneandfourof thecreation“week”withmodernscience.R.A.Torrey, DifficultiesandAllegedErrorsandContradictionsintheBible (Chicago,IL:TheBibleInstituteColportageAssociation, 1907), 29–32.

39JamesD.Dana, ManualofGeology,2ded.(1874;reprint, NewYork:Ivison,Blakeman,Taylor,1876),603–4.The identicallanguageappearsinthethirdedition(1880)ofthis bookonthesamepages.Thefinal(1895)editionofthis book,whichwascopyrightedin1894,wasDana’slast majorworkbeforehisdeathin1895.Hereherevisedand enlargedthissection,asweshallseebelow.

40JamesDwightDana,“LecturesonEvolution,”DanaFamily Papers,YaleUniversityLibrary.Dana’slecturemanuscriptsarelocatedinbox4,folders119–26,whichareon reel4ofthemicrofilmcollectionofDana’spapers.On apagejustpriortothefirstlecture,Danaindicatedthe yearshedeliveredeachofhislecturesandwhenheexpandedanolderlectureintotwonewones.Eachlecture lastedaboutsixtyminutesaccordingtohisnotations. Whenlecturematerialexpandedmuchbeyondthislimit, hewouldsplitthatancestorlectureintotwodescendant lectures.Thus,Danaexpandedhisinitialthreelecturesof 1871intoatotalofeightlecturesby1879(or1880;thereis someambiguityinhischronologicalnotation).Theentire seriesofeightlecturesiscontinuouslypaginated,often withlettersuffixesappendedtopagenumberstosignify insertedpagesinthegrowinglectureseries.In1883and 1885,heprintedoutlines(notcompletetranscripts)ofhis eight-lecturesequence.Thesetwooutlinesarevirtually identical,thusindicatingthematureandstablenatureof theircontentinthe1880s.Herecordshavingdelivered theselecturesatYaleupthrough1890.

41Dana,“LecturesonEvolution,”lectureseven,p.74,assessesthestateofevolutionarytheoryinthelate1870s: Thecausesappealedtowillbefoundtobeinsufficient—evenincludingthatwhichhasbeenacceptedas sopotent—Darwin’snaturalselection.Butifconvinced thatnaturalcauseshaveacted,thereviewofthemwill helptheopenmindtounderstandhowtheyhaveacted. Thisthoughtisrepeatedinslightlydifferentlanguagein his1895 ManualofGeology,p.1034.Inlectureseven,p.85 (thelastpageofthatlecture),Danawrites(myitalicsare underlinedwordsinDana’smanuscriptbothhereand intheothercitationsbelow):

Naturalselection is thesurvivalatleastofthosethat survive,ifnotofalwaysthefittest;andhenceaction underthisprinciplehasdeterminedthroughalltime, inconnectionwithphysiologicallaw,thekindofplants andanimalsthathavesurvivedandthatthushave cometolivetogetherandmakeupthevariousassociationsofspeciesinthisland&overtheglobe;thatisit hasdeterminedthefaunasandflorasofthepresentand pasttime.Thisresult,notthe Origin ofspecies,isthe chiefresultundertheDarwinianPrinciple.

Inlectureeight,p.99,hewrites, Butthepreeminentimportanceoftheprincipleof NaturalSelection,otherwisecalledtheSurvivalofthe Fittest,inspecies-makingIhavequestioned.Afavorablevariationislikelytobeperpetuated;andthose individualsthatcannotadaptthemselvestochanging conditionsornewemergenciesarelikelytosuccumb, sothatthefittestismostsuretosurviveandperpetuate itskind.Thisfartheprinciplecannotbequestioned. Butthis survival ofthefittestandthe origin ofthefittest areverydifferentsubjects.

42Dana,“LecturesonEvolution,”lectureeight,onanunpaginatedsheetlocatedbetweenp.100and100A.

43Ibid.,p.100A.Danawasimpressedbythenon-Darwinian implicationsofthenumeroussuddenappearancesofbiologicalnoveltyonthehighertaxanomiclevels(herefersin thisquotationtolevelsinthevicinityofwhatwenow wouldcallphyla),especiallyasinthecaseofwhatisnow calledtheCambrianexplosion.SeealsoDana,“Lectureson Evolution,”lectureone,p.2,inwhichheconsidersthepossibilityofapolyphyleticviewoforiginsinwhichcommon ancestryisfarfromuniversal,butratherascenarioinwhich thereareseparateoriginsforeachof“theseeminglydistincttribesorfamiliesofspecies.”Forarecentreviewofthis trajectoryofpaleontologicalinterpretation,seeStephenC. Meyer,ScottMinnich,JonathanMoneymaker,PaulA. Nelson,andRalphSeelke, ExploreEvolution:TheArguments forandagainstNeo-Darwinism (London:HillHouse,2007). Tovisualizethiskindofargument,viewIllustraMedia’s film“Darwin’sDilemma”(2009).

44Dana, ManualofGeology (1895),1032–5,emphasisisin theoriginal.Danaalsoadvocated,asdidDarwin,alimited roleforneo-Lamarckianevolutionarymechanisms,but concludedthat,forthemostpart,theoriginofvariation was“withoutexplanation.”

45Ibid.,1029–30.SeealsoDana,“LecturesonEvolution,” lectureone,p.24A,inwhichDanawrites,

Agassiz,inviewoftheevidence,alwaysspokeofthe systemofprogress—whichheillustratedinhislectures withgreatforceandenthusiasm—asadevelopment ofGod’splan,anexpressionofthethoughtsofGod. AndyetAgassizhelduntilhisdeaththatspeciescame intoexistencethroughspecialcreativeacts.Allthe newfactsaboutthesuccessionofspeciesthatgeology broughttolightinthelateryearsofhislifeonly enhancedtohismindthebeauty&wisdomofthe divineplan.

AlthoughDanafirstdeliveredthisinitiallectureofhis seriesin1871,atleastthisportionofthelecturemust post-dateAgassiz’sdeathin1873.Allofhislecturesdisplay numerousrevisionsandexpansionsfrom1871to1890,as hecrossedoutmaterial,insertedphrases,andaddedmany newparagraphsandwholepagestopreviouslectures.

46Ibid.,1030,emphasisisintheoriginal.

47ThedifferencebetweenAgassizandDanahingedonthe number ofinstancesofdetectableintelligentcausationin nature’shistory.SeeLouisAgassiz,“EvolutionandPermanenceofType,” AtlanticMonthly (1874),92–101.Here Agassizwrites,

ThemostadvancedDarwiniansseemreluctantto acknowledgetheinterventionofanintellectualpower inthediversitywhichobtainsinnature,undertheplea

Darwinism,Fundamentalism,andR.A.Torrey

thatsuchanadmissionimpliesdistinctcreativeactsfor everyspecies.Whatofit,ifitweretrue?Havethose whoobjecttorepeatedactsofcreationeverconsidered thatnoprogresscanbemadeinknowledgewithout repeatedactsofthinking?Andwhatarethoughtsbut specificactsofthemind?Whyshoulditthenbeunscientifictoinferthatthefactsofnaturearetheresultof asimilarprocess,sincethereisnoevidenceofanyother cause?Theworldhasariseninsomewayorother. Howitoriginatedisthegreatquestion,andDarwin’s theory,likeallotherattemptstoexplaintheoriginof life,isthusfarmerelyconjectural.Ibelievehehasnot evenmadethebestconjecturepossibleinthepresent stateofourknowledge.

48JamesD.Dana, TheGenesisoftheHeavensandtheEarthand AlltheHostofThem (Hartford,CT:StudentPublishing, 1890),46–7.UnlikeAgassiz,Danathoughtthatallnonhumanspecies-leveldifferencesarosebymeansofGod’s generalprovidenceovernaturalvariations,ratherthan by“specialdivineacts”(p.18).Inthisthinmonograph, Danamostlyrestateswhathewroteinhisessay“Creation; or,theBiblicalCosmogonyintheLightofModernScience,” BibliothecaSacra,42(1885):201–24,especiallyonp.212. Danadidnotrevokehisassertionofmultipledivineinterventionsinlife’shistoryinhis1895 ManualofGeology,and soremainedwhatwemightcallaprogressivecreationist forthisreasonandothersgiveninmyanalysisofDana.

49Dana, TheGenesisoftheHeavens,45 50Dana, ManualofGeology (1895),1036.

51Ibid.DanaalsoendshisYaleevolutionlectureswiththis sameparaphraseofA.R.Wallace,theco-discovererof naturalselection:Dana,“LecturesonEvolution,”lecture eight,p.125.TheactualwordsofWallaceread, itdoesnotseemanimprobableconclusionthatallforce maybewill-force;andthus,thatthewholeuniverseis notmerelydependenton,butactually is,theWILLof higherintelligencesorofoneSupremeIntelligence.

AlfredRusselWallace, ContributionstotheTheoryofNatural Selection:ASeriesofEssays (London:Macmillan,1870),368. ForarecenttreatmentofWallaceinregardtohisinvocation ofintelligentcausationinbiology,seeMichaelA.Flannery, AlfredRusselWallace’sTheoryofIntelligentEvolution (Reisel, TX:ErasmusPress,2009).

52Dana, ManualofGeology (1895),1033–4.

53Aquitedifferentargumentfortheconservativeeffectof naturalselectioniswellsupportedtoday.SeeMeyeretal., ExploreEvolution,90–6.

54Dana,“LecturesonEvolution,”lectureone,p.1.

55Ibid.,p.10A(thereareseveralpagesmarked“10A”;this oneistwopagespriortop.11).Danawriteshereinhis first(1871)lectureintheeight-lectureseries, …theprogressoflifewhichgeologyhasbroughtto ourknowledgewasessentiallyadevelopment,Idonot saybynaturalcauses,but,somehowadevelopmentor evolution,eitherbynaturalcauses,orbysupernatural alone,thatisdivine,orbythetwoinconjunction. WhichofthesethreemethodsisorappearstobesustainedbySciencewillbelaterdiscussed.

Judgingfromhislaterlecturesandpublishedremarks, Danadecidedthatsciencesupportsthethirdmethodof evolution(Godactingthroughnaturalcausesandby

specialintervention).Danagoesontosayinthenext paragraph,

Thedevelopment,howevercarriedforward,was development accordingtoadivineplan.Insuchaplan therewouldbeorder;andadegreeofparallelismeven withdevelopmentfromtheeggshouldbelookedfor inviewofthecomprehensiveunityofpurposeorlaw whichpervadesallnature,andwhichmustpervade theworkofanInfiniteCreator.

Theclosingsentenceoflectureone,p.24A,reads, Thequestionbeyondthiswhichwehavebeforeusis: Whetherprogressunderthissystemofdevelopment orevolutiondemandedadivineactinordertopass ineachcase,thelimitsofspecies,orWhetherGod’s Powerwroughtoutthegreatsystemthroughnatural lawastheexpressionofHisWill.

56Initially,basedonsecondarysources,Ihadthoughtthat inthe1870sDanahadshiftedtoanalmostcompletely theisticevolutionaryperspective.Afterexaminingthe primarysources,Iwassurprisedtodiscoverotherwise. IthankTedDavisforsuggestingthatIdigdeeperinto Dana’sviewsonevolutioninresponsetohearingmypaper onTorreyattheBaylorUniversityASAmeetinginAugust 2009.ForanoverviewofDana’sroleinpromotingtheharmonyofscienceandChristianity,seeEdwardB.Davis, “TheWordandtheWorks:ConcordismandAmerican Evangelicals,”in PerspectivesonanEvolvingCreation, ed. KeithB.Miller(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2003),34–58, especially47–8.

57RonaldL.Numbers, DarwinismComestoAmerica (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1998),142.

58DavidN.Livingstone, Darwin’sForgottenDefenders:The EncounterbetweenEvangelicalTheologyandEvolutionary Thought (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1987),75.Livingstoneapparentlygotthisidea,atleastinpart,fromWilliam F.Sanford,“DanaandDarwinism,” JournaloftheHistoryof Ideas 26(1965):540–6,whichisanarticleLivingstonecites forotherfacts.Onp.538,Sanfordwrites,“Itisclearthat DanaacceptedthecornerstoneofDarwinism,naturalselection.”Butonp.540,Sanfordagreeswithmyanalysisof Danawhenhewrites,

Oneoftheleadingobjectionswasthefailureof Darwin’stheorytoexplainwhatithadsetouttodemonstrate,namelytheoriginofspecies.Thedoctrine ofsurvivalofthefittestDanaadmittedtobeafact. However,NaturalSelection,truetoitstitle,couldnot satisfyhimastothe origin ofthefittest.Ifspecies becamefitbecausetheycouldbetteradaptthemselves tothecircumstancesinwhichtheywereplaced,what thendeterminedtheirgreateradaptability?Dana believedthattherehadtobeaninneragentguiding aspeciesthroughitsmutationstothepresentresult. StanfordcitesDana,“LecturesonEvolution,”lectureseven andlectureeight,tosubstantiatethispoint.

59Dana, TheGenesisoftheHeavens (1890),56–8.

TothemindsofAgassizandGuyot,thustaughtby nature,thehandofGoddidnotappeartobelifted fromHisworksbysuchtruths.Theyheldthatthe developmentwascarriedforwardbytheCreator,and lookeduponeachsuccessivespeciesasexistingby Hiscreatingact.Godwasnotonlyattheheadasthe

MichaelN.Keas

sourceofpower,butalsoineverymovement,and creativelyineachnewstepofprogress.

Dana,afewyearspriortogivingthis GenesisoftheHeavens lectureatYale,claimedthatGuyot“wasledtoaccept, thoughwithsomereservation,thedoctrineofevolution throughnaturalcauses.”See“BiographicalMemoirof ArnoldGuyot,”inthe AnnualReportoftheBoardofRegents oftheSmithsonianInstitutionfor1887 (Washington,DC: GovernmentPrintingOffice,1889),712,ascitedinLivingstone, Darwin’sForgottenDefenders, 77–8.Livingstone arguesherethatDana“wasstretchingtheterm‘evolution’ waybeyonditscustomarylimits,”giventhatGuyotwas muchmoreofaprogressivecreationistthanatheistic evolutionist.AccordingtomyanalysisofDana’sown useofthephrase“doctrineofevolutionthroughnatural causes,”hehadinmindsomethingquitedifferentfrom whatwewouldcalltheisticevolution.Suchevolution hadnothingtodowithrandomvariationsandalmost nothingtodowithnaturalselection.Instead,itwasaprocessguidedbydivinedesign.

60Recentdefinitionsanddescriptionsoftheisticevolution andrelatedviews(andsnapshotsoftheirhistory)maybe foundatwww.faithandevolution.org/questions.phpand http://biologos.org/questions(accessedOctober8,2009). Mostcommonlytoday,theisticevolutionreferstothebelief thatGodcreatedlifethroughnaturalselectionactingon whatscientistsdetectas“randomvariations.”Someinsist thatsuchvariationsareonlyapparentlyrandom(asfaras scienceiscapableofdetermining),andthatGodactually directstheprocessofevolution.Othertheisticevolutionists maintainthatGod’ssovereignguidanceofthecourseof evolutionisminimalorvirtuallynonexistent(e.g.,open theists).Danaheldviewsfundamentallyatoddswithboth oftheseversionsoftheisticevolution,whilemaintaining hispositionasoneofAmerica’sleadingadvocatesofthe harmonyofscienceandChristianityduringthelatenineteenthcentury.Theterms“evolutionarycreationism”and “BioLogos”aremorerecentalternativelabelsfortheistic evolution.

61Torrey, WhattheBibleTeaches (1898), 294–5.

62DiaryofR.A.Torrey,EphemeraofReubenArcherTorrey Senior,collection107,box3,BillyGrahamCenterArchives, WheatonCollege.TorreynotesonJuly19,“Finishedtoday thefirstpartofthe‘DescentofMan.’”Darwin’sbookis dividedintothreeparts,thefirstpartofwhichincludes upthroughchapter7.Chapter5,“Onthedevelopment oftheintellectualandmoralfacultiesduringprimeval andcivilizedtimes,”isthefocusofTorrey’scommentson July17,1882.“Inchapter5ofDarwin’sbook,wefindsuch joltingstatementsas:‘…exceptinginthecaseofmanhimself,hardlyanyoneissoignorantastoallowhisworst animalstobreed.’”TheJuly18,1882diaryentryrefersto Torrey’sreadingofSt.GeorgeJacksonMivart, Lessonsfrom Nature,asManifestedinMindandMatter (London:J.Murray, 1876),82–127.

63Mivart, LessonsfromNature,p.95.

64Ibid.,108–9.

65HenryWhiteWarren, RecreationsinAstronomy,withDirectionsforPracticalExperimentsandTelescopicWork (NewYork: HarperandBros.,1879).

66Torrey’sdiaryentryofTuesday,July18,1882.RichardA. Proctor, LightScienceforLeisureHours:ASeriesofFamiliar

EssaysonScientificSubjects,NaturalPhenomena (NewYork: Appleton,1871).

67Thegreater-GodargumentattemptstopresenttheGodof theisticevolutionasgreater(comparedtothetraditional viewofthecreator)inthathedesignedthingstodesign themselves.WhileTorreyoccasionallyarguedagainstDarwinisminhissermonsandbooks,heconsidereduniversal commondescent(despitewhathetooktobeitsveryweak evidentialsupport)consistentwiththedesignargument: Butsupposethedoctrineofevolutionweretrue,it wouldnotforamomentmilitateagainsttheargument fromdesign.Iftherewereoriginallysomeunorganized protoplasmthatdevelopedintoalltheformsoflifeand beautyasweseethemtoday,itwouldbeastillmore remarkableillustration,inoneway,ofthewisdomand poweroftheCreator,forthequestionwouldarise, Whoputintotheprimordialprotoplasmthepowerof developingintotheuniverse[oflife]asweseeittoday. (Torrey, RevivalAddresses,8)

68“Dr.R.A.TorreyRepliestoDr.O.E.Brown,”aletterfrom R.A.Torrey[totheeditor,JamesGray],October2,1925, sentfromhisSouthPasadenahome,publishedinthe MoodyBibleInstituteMonthly 26(December1925):161–2. Aboutayearpriortowritingthisletter,Torreyhad resignedfromtheBioladeanship(effectiveJuly1,1924) inordertoengageinfull-timeevangelisticwork.Torrey repeatedthissortofcommentaryonevolutioninhis sermon“Godis”inR.A.Torrey, Soul-WinningSermons (NewYork:FlemingH.Revell,1925),13:

Igaveitupnotforreligiousreasons;Idonotknow anyconclusivereligiousreasonsagainstit:Igaveitup forpurelyscientificreasons.Igaveitupbecauseit wasabsolutelyunproven,andallreallyscientifically discoveredandprovenfactswereagainstitinsteadof forit.

Torreythenalsorepeatshisgreater-Godescapehatchon p.14:“Ifit[evolution]weretrueitwouldbeinawayamore strikingproofoftheexistenceandwisdomandpowerof God,thaniftheuniversewerecreatedoutrightasweseeit today.”Hedrovethepointhomebyanalogy:“Which wouldbemorewonderful,foramantomakeawatch today,orforamantomakeasecondhandwithaninherent capacityfordevelopingintoawatch?”

69“Dr.R.A.TorreyRepliestoDr.O.E.Brown,”161–2.

70Ibid.Theawkwardsentencestructureisintheoriginal. JamesGray,thechiefMoodyeditor,hadpublishedthis articlethreemonthsearlier:“WhyaChristianCannotBe anEvolutionist,” MoodyBibleInstituteMonthly 25(August 1925):538–40.Onp.538,Graydefinesevolutionas“atheorywhichundertakestoaccountfor,ortoexplain,the originandcourseoftheuniverseindependentlyofGod.”

71RobertAnderson, ADoubter’sDoubtsaboutScienceandReligion (NewYork:GospelPublishingHouse,1909).

72Thebackcoverof TheKing’sBusiness oftenrecommended Anderson’sbookinthefirsttwoyearsofthisjournal’s existence(1910–1911).Beginningwiththebackcover oftheAugust–September1911issue, TheKing’sBusiness announcedthearrivalofthe“MontroseLibrary,”acollectionofbooksnamedaftertheMontroseBibleConference facilitythatTorreyfoundedin1908—locatedinMontrose, Pennsylvania(whereTorreywaslaterburied).Beginning withtheJuly1913issueof TheKing’sBusiness,the

Darwinism,Fundamentalism,andR.A.Torrey

“MontroseLibrary”wasexplicitlyidentifiedasacollection ofresourcesthat“DoctorTorreysayseveryChristian shouldown.”Torreyhadrecentlytakenuptheeditorial commandof TheKing’sBusiness 73Anderson, ADoubter’sDoubts,4.

74Ibid.,7.

75Ibid.,11.

76Ibid.,17–8.

77Ibid.,21.

78Ibid.,27.

79R.A.Torrey, PracticalandPerplexingQuestionsAnswered (Chicago,IL:MoodyPress,1908),68–9.Thismaterialisa laterversionofsomeoftheargumentsfoundinhisrevival sermons,whichhepublishedin1903midwaythroughhis evangelisticcrusadesonfourcontinents:Torrey, Revival Addresses,5–8.TorreyrevisedthissermoninTorrey, SoulWinningSermons

80GeorgeT.B.Davis, TorreyandAlexander:TheStoryofa World-WideRevival (NewYork:FlemingH.Revell,1905), 10.

81Staggers,“ReubenA.Torrey,”197.Staggerscites“ASouvenirofReubenArcherTorreyDayattheBillyGraham Center,”WheatonCollege(n.d.),p.2.

82Torrey, DifficultiesandAllegedErrorsandContradictions intheBible andTorrey, PracticalandPerplexingQuestions Answered

83OrrworkedonhisKerrlecturesforthreeyearsbeforedeliveringthemin1891.DavidK.Naugle, Worldview:TheHistory ofaConcept (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2002),7.

84MarkA.Noll, TheRiseofEvangelicalism:TheAgeofEdwards, Whitefield,andtheWesleys,vol.1of“TheHistoryofEvangelicalism”(DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsityPress,2003), 19.SeeacritiqueofNoll(specifically,DavidBebbington, uponwhomNollleansforadefinitionof“evangelical”) inRichardTurnbull, AnglicanandEvangelical? (London: Continuum,2007),55–89.Mydefinitionof“evangelical” takesintoaccounttheworkofallthesescholars.

85Naugle, Worldview,17.KuyperpresentedaChristian “worldview”inhis1898StoneLecturesatPrinceton University.

86Marsden, Fundamentalism,46–7.

87“WhatwasChrist’sAttitudeTowardError?ASymposium,” RecordofChristianWork 18(November1899):600.

88Marsden, Fundamentalism,107.

89AccordingtoLouisMeyer,theideaofthefundamentals firstcametoLymanStewartintheearly1890s,inameeting heldduringtheNiagaraBibleConference.Meyerwas theexecutivesecretaryoftheFundamentalsprojectat thistime.LouisMeyer,“TheFundamentals,” TheKing’s Business 3(December1912):333–4.

90Union’scapitalgrewfrom$10millionto$50millionaccordingto“LymanStewart,”in“Twentieth-CenturyGreat AmericanBusinessLeaders,”HarvardBusinessSchool, 2004,webpage:www.hbs.edu/leadership/database/leaders/ 868(accessedDecember18,2007).TheUnionOilCompanyofCalifornia,laterUnocal,waspurchasedbyChevronin2005.See“CompanyProfile:ProvidingEnergyfor HumanProgress,”www.chevron.com/about/leadership (accessedDecember18,2007)and“UnocalCorporation,” in“ReferenceforBusiness:CompanyHistories,”www. referenceforbusiness.com/history/Ul-Vi/Unocal-Corporation. html(accessedDecember18,2007).

91“AStatementbytheTwoLaymen,”prefaceto TheFundamentals:ATestimonytotheTruth 12(Chicago:Testimony PublishingCompany,[1915]),4.

92Naugle, Worldview,6–13.

93JamesOrr, TheChristianViewofGodandtheWorldAsCentringintheIncarnation, Kerrlecturesfor1890–1891,4thed. (NewYork:Randolf,1897),4.

94JamesOrr,“ScienceandChristianFaith,”in TheFundamentals 4,95.

95Ibid.,96.

96Ibid.,95–6.

97JohnWilliamDraper, HistoryoftheConflictbetweenReligion andScience (London:HenryS.King,1875)andAndrew DicksonWhite, AHistoryoftheWarfareofSciencewith TheologyinChristendom (London:Macmillan,1896).

98OrrcitesJohnCalvin’scommentaryonGenesisasanexampleinOrr,“ScienceandChristianFaith,”97.

99Ibid.,101.Forarecent,andmoresophisticated,exegetical treatmentofGenesis1thatissimilartoOrr’s,seeC.John Collins, Genesis1–4:ALinguistic,Literary,andTheological Commentary (Phillipsburg,NJ:P&RPublishers,2006).

100JamesOrr,“TheEarlyNarrativesofGenesis,”in TheFundamentals 6,97.

101Naugle, Worldview,15.

102Orrdidregardevolutionlimitedenoughtopreclude humanevolution:

CertainlytherewouldbecontradictionifDarwinian theoryhaditswayandwehadtoconceiveofman asaslow,gradualascentfromthebestialstage,but Iamconvinced,andhaveelsewheresoughttoshow, thatgenuinescienceteachesnosuchdoctrine.(Orr, “TheEarlyNarratives,”96)

103Ibid.,103.

104Seethechapter“TheEclipseofDarwinism”inPeterJ. Bowler, Evolution:TheHistoryofanIdea,3ded.(Berkeley, CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2003).

105RonaldL.Numbers, TheCreationists:FromScientificCreationismtoIntelligentDesign,2ded.(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2006),33–50.

106“AStatementbytheTwoLaymen,”prefaceto TheFundamentals 12,4.

107Around1915 TheKing’sBusiness hadacirculationofnearly 200,000 Seehttp://100.biola.edu/timeline/index.html (accessedJuly29,2009).

108StewarttoDr.R.A.Torrey,Montrose,Pennsylvania, August8,1912,LymanStewartCorrespondence,Biola UniversityArchives.Stewartwrites, Wetrustalsothatyouhavebeensufficientlyimpressed withtheimportanceoftheworkheretobewillingto makeLosAngelesthecenterofyourworkforthe balanceofyourlife.Wehope,therefore,thatyouwill notfeellimitedorhamperedbyreasonofthefive yearclauseintheBibleInstitute’scontractwithyou. Laterhesays, Thefactsofourmagnificentclimate,ourfertilesoil,our richmines,ourcheapfuel,thesuperiorintelligenceof ourcitizenship,thenearopeningofthePanamaCanal, andtheproximityofourCoasttotheOrient,insure, webelieve,inthecomparativelynearfuture,ifconditionscontinuenormal,acommercialindustrialempire onthiscoastsuchastheworldhasnotevendreamedof.

MichaelN.Keas

109Seewww2.biola.edu/kingsbusiness(accessedJuly29, 2009)regardingtheinfluenceof TheKing’sBusiness. See alsoRonaldLoraandWilliamHenryLongton, TheConservativePressinTwentieth-CenturyAmerica (SantaBarbara, CA:GreenwoodPress,1999).

110BethSpringandChristianityTodayStaff,“CarlF.H. Henry,TheologianandFirstEditorofChristianity Today,Diesat90,”www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/ decemberweb-only/12-8-14.0.html(accessedJanuary14, 2008).SeealsoKennethW.Shipps,“ChristianityToday (1956–)”inLoraandLongton, TheConservativePress, 171–80,whichnotesthata1979Galluppollfound ChristianityToday tobe“themostwidelyreadreligiousperiodical amongclergyintheUnitedStates.”In1981,thejournalhad acirculationofnearly200,000.Itfluctuatedbelowthisfigurethroughthe1980sand1990s.Forcirculationstatistics, Shippsrefersthereadertothe ChristianityToday Collection, box4,folder1,BillyGrahamCenterArchives,Wheaton College.AsofSeptember2009, ChristianityToday hadacirculationof140,000andanonlinereadershipof265,000 uniquepersonspermonth(thisnumberexceeds443,000 ifoneincludesblogsandotherdomainsofthe Christianity Today website,accordingtoa ChristianityToday employee withwhomIspokeinSeptember2009)

111R.A.Torrey,editorial, TheKing’sBusiness 8(April1917): 292–3.

112R.A.Torrey,“IstheBibleinDanger,” TheKing’sBusiness 8 (April1917):297.

113Ibid.,299.

114R.A.Torrey,editorial, TheKing’sBusiness 9(February 1918):92.

115Ibid.,95.

116Torreymakesthesamepointsinhis16-pagetract,R.A. Torrey, WhattheWarTeachesorTheGreatestLessonsof1917 (LosAngeles,CA:BiolaBookRoom,1918),9–11.

117StephenJayGould,“WilliamJenningsBryan’sLast Campaign,”in BullyforBrontosaurus:ReflectionsinNatural History (NewYork:Norton,1991),416–31.

118RichardWeikart, FromDarwintoHitler:EvolutionaryEthics, Eugenics,andRacisminGermany (NewYork:Palgrave Macmillan,2004),163–5.

119PeterJ.Bowler, CharlesDarwin:TheManandHisInfluence (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996),219.

120Weikart, FromDarwintoHitler,166.

121R.A.Torrey,editorial, TheKing’sBusiness 9(February 1918):96.

122Weikart’sworkhassparkedhistoriographicdebatesthat areusefullyintroducedatwww.faithandevolution.org/ debates,whichincludescriticalreviewsbyJeffSchloss andSanderGliboff.

123Torrey,editorial, TheKing’sBusiness 9(February1918):100. Theoriginalismissingtherequiredquestionmark.

124Livingstone, Darwin’sForgottenDefenders.

125See,forexample,thebestseller,EdwinBlack,Waragainst theWeak:EugenicsandAmerica’sCampaigntoCreateaMaster Race (NewYork:FourWallsEightWindows,2003).

126SomeofMauro’swritingsandhisonlybiographyareat www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/m/mauro-philip. html(accessedJanuary11,2008).Mauroisalsorememberedforauthoringtwopamphletsabouthisexperienceon theshipCarpathiaduringtheTitanicrescueofApril1912.

127PhilipMauro, “Eugenics”ANew“Movement,” 2ded.(London:SamuelE.Roberts,[1912]).Thesecondeditionisthe onlyonerecordedin WorldCat aspresentlyexisting—the onlycopyofwhichwasreportedlylocatedinthelibraryof ReformedTheologicalSeminaryinJackson,Mississippi. BecausethislibrarylostMauro’santi-eugenicspamphlet, wemustinferitsmessagefromadvertisementsintheunpaginatedrearsectionsof TheKing’sBusiness from1912to atleastSeptember1914.Maurolaterwrotealegalapologetic, EvolutionattheBar (Boston,MA:Hamilton,1922),that TheKing’sBusiness alsopromoted. AsaleadingNewYork lawyer,Mauromighthavehadexposuretotheeugenics movementby1912throughaBroadwayplayonthesubject thatwasintheworks,andthroughthemanyneweugenics publicationsthatwereappearing.Also,in1912,thefirst internationalEugenicsCongresswasheldinLondon (whereMauro’spamphletwaspublished),atwhichAmericaneugenicistsplayedaprominentrole.SeeJohnG.West, DarwinDayinAmerica:HowOurPoliticsandCultureHave BeenDehumanizedintheNameofScience (Wilmington,DE: ISIBooks,2007),125–6.

128Darwinwrote, Withsavages,theweakinbodyormindaresoon eliminated;andthosethatsurvivecommonlyexhibit avigorousstateofhealth.Wecivilisedmen,onthe otherhand,doourutmosttochecktheprocessof elimination;webuildasylumsfortheimbecile,the maimed,andthesick;weinstitutepoor-laws;andour medicalmenexerttheirutmostskilltosavethelifeof everyonetothelastmoment.Thereisreasontobelieve thatvaccinationhaspreservedthousands,whofrom aweakconstitutionwouldformerlyhavesuccumbed tosmall-pox.Thustheweakmembersofcivilised societiespropagatetheirkind.Noonewhohas attendedtothebreedingofdomesticanimalswilldoubt thatthismustbehighlyinjurioustotheraceofman. Itissurprisinghowsoonawantofcare,orcarewrongly directed,leadstothedegenerationofadomesticrace; butexceptinginthecaseofmanhimself,hardlyanyone issoignorantastoallowhisworstanimalstobreed. (CharlesDarwin, TheDescentofMan [Akron,OH:The WernerCompany,(1874)],136ofthisversionofthe2d edition[1874],whichisidenticaltop.168ofthe1st edition[1871])

Thequotedpassageisnearthebeginningofthesectionof chapter5thatisentitled“NaturalSelectionasAffecting CivilisedNations.”

129Indianapassedthefirstcompulsorysterilizationlawin 1907,whichwasalsothefirstlegislationofthissortinthe world.West, DarwinDayinAmerica,87.

130MarkH.Haller, Eugenics:HereditarianAttitudesinAmerican Thought (NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress, 1984),141.Onp.49,Halleralsosaysthatbythe1890s, bothsalpingectomy(cuttingandtyingofthefallopian tubes)andvasectomy(cuttingandtyingofthe vasdeferens) wereavailable.Theseoperationssterilizedhumanswithoutsignificantlyaffectingtheirgender.

131ChristineRosen, PreachingEugenics:ReligiousLeadersand theAmericanEugenicsMovement (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004).

132Ibid.,131–2.RosencitesFosdick’sDecember1928sermon “TheImportanceoftheOrdinaryMan,”inwhichhe

Darwinism,Fundamentalism,andR.A.Torrey

assertedthatpeopleofaveragecapabilitiesareimportant totheprogressofhumanity—abeliefrepudiatedbysome eugenicists.Onp.116,RosensuggeststhatFosdick’s motivationsforjoiningtheAES[AmericanEugenics Society]aredifficulttoassess.Hemadefewpublic statementsabouteugenics,andthosehedidwerecautious.“Fewmattersaremorepressinglyimportantthan theapplicationtooursocialproblemsofsuchwellestablishedinformationintherealmofeugenicsas weactuallypossess,”wasatypicallyrestrainedencomium.“Thefailuretodothisisalmostcertainlygoing toputusinthepositionofendeavoringtocuresymptomswhilebasiccausesofsocialdegenerationand disordergountouched.”

HereRosenquotesFosdickinthepamphlet Eugenicsat Work,1931,AESPapers,AmericanPhilosophicalSociety Library.Rosentellsusthat

Rev.Fosdick’spapers,whichhedepositedinthelibrary ofUnionTheologicalSeminaryinNewYork,yieldno traceofhisparticipationintheeugenicsmovement. Fosdickhimselfpreparedthepapersforthearchives, andashelivedlongenoughtoseeeugenicsthoroughly discredited,itispossiblethathewithheldthosedocumentsthatrevealedhisparticipationinthemovement. AESpapersrevealhisparticipation,however.

133Marsden, Fundamentalism,171.HarryEmersonFosdick, “ShalltheFundamentalistsWin?” ChristianWork 102 (June10,1922):716–22isavailableat HistoryMatters,“‘Shall theFundamentalistsWin?’DefendingLiberalProtestantisminthe1920s,”http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5070 (accessedJanuary11,2008).

134Regardinganti-evolutionlegislativeattemptsbeginning in1921,seeEdwardJ.Larson, TrialandError:TheAmerican ControversyoverCreationandEvolution,3ded.(Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,2003),39–49.

135SeeRonaldLadouceur’s“BiologyTextbooksbefore Scopes,”www.faultymemories.com/wordpress/?p=552 (accessedOctober20,2009),whichcitesRonaldP.

Ladouceur,“EllaTheaSmithandtheLostHistoryofAmericanHighSchoolBiologyTextbooks,” JournaloftheHistory ofBiology 41(2008):435–71.Leadingeugenicistswerealso amongthemostactivedefendersofDarwinisminschools. AsJohnWestnotes,

Intheanti-evolutioncontroversiesofthe1920s…the AmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience (AAAS)appointedaspecialcommitteetopublicly defendevolutionarytheory.Itsmembershipconsisted ofthreescholarswhowerealsoleadersoftheeugenics movement:CharlesDavenport,HenryFairfieldOsborn, andEdwinConklin(West, DarwinDayinAmerica,130).

136GeorgeW.Hunter, ACivicBiology:PresentedinProblems (NewYork:AmericanBookCompany,1914),261–5.On p.261,Hunterlistsvariousdiseasesthatareallegedly inherited,includingtuberculosis,epilepsy,andfeeblemindedness,“whichitisnotonlyunfairbutcriminalto handdowntoposterity.”Onp.263,hearguesthatsuch peopleare“trueparasites”becausethey“takefromsociety, buttheygivenothinginreturn.”Mostofthoselabeled “feeble-minded”atthistimewouldnotbeconsideredmentallyilltoday.SeeWest, DarwinDayinAmerica,123–62, whichincludesareviewoftheso-calledKallikakfamily whoarealsocitedinHunter’stextbookasafeeble-minded lineageonp.262.

137Rosen, PreachingEugenics,116.SeealsoJohnM.Bozeman, “EugenicsandtheClergyintheEarlyTwentieth-Century UnitedStates,” TheJournalofAmericanCulture 27(December2004),422–31.Bozemanclaimsonp.427thatFosdick didnotcontributeanythingsubstantialtotheAES’sjournal andconcludesthatFosdick“appearstohavelenthisname primarilyoutofhisinterestsinoverpopulationandbirth control.”ConsistentwithBozeman’sanalysis,Rosen, p.156,remindsusthatFosdick“declaredhimselfan‘ardentadvocate’ofbirthcontrol,andin1928,preachedtoan audienceofmorethanthirteenhundredaboutitsbenefits.”

138ErnestR.Sandeen, TheRootsofFundamentalism (Chicago, IL:UniversityofChicagoPress,2008),243.Torreyretained hisMontrose,Pennsylvania,home(atafundamentalist conferencecenter)asasummerresidencewhenhetook theBioladeanship—apositionthatincludedsummersoff soTorreycouldengageinevangelism.

139W.B.Riley,“TheChristianFundamentalsMovement: ItsBattles,ItsAchievements,ItsCertainVictory,”Opening address,in ScripturalInspirationversusScientificImagination: MessagesdeliveredattheGreatChristianFundamentals Conference (LosAngeles:BiolaBookRoom,1922):7–8. ThemeetingswereheldJune25–July2,1922.

140Rileyused“geology”torefertoLeuba’s“physicalscience” categoryanddidnotmentionLeuba’sstatisticsforsociologistsandpsychologists,whichdocumentedevenlessbelief inGodandimmortality.Seethesummaryofresultsin JamesH.Leuba, TheBeliefinGodandImmortality:APsychological,AnthropologicalandStatisticalStudy (Boston,MA: ShermanFrench,1916),278.Thesametableisfoundonthe samepageinthesecondedition(Chicago,IL:OpenCourt, 1921).Thesecondedition,withonlyminorchanges(and stillbasedontheoriginalsurvey),appearedjustafter fundamentalismhadbecomeapowerfulmovementin America.Leuba,onp.173ofthesecondedition,notesthat hisworkfalsifiestheclaimsofmanypreachersthat“scientistsandphilosophers,withfewexceptions,sharewith themthe‘fundamentals’oftheChristianfaith.”Bringing thisassessmentuptodate,JohnWestwrites,

Althoughtheisticevolutionreceivesmuchattention fromthenewsmedia,itclearlyrepresentsafringepositionamongleadingevolutionarybiologists.Nearly 95%ofthebiologistsintheNationalAcademyofSciencesdescribethemselvesasatheistsoragnostics,afar higherpercentagethaninanyotherscientificdiscipline.[LarryA.Witham, WhereDarwinMeetstheBible (NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2002),271–3] Similarly,accordingtoa2003Cornellsurveyofleading scientistsinthefieldofevolution,87%denyexistenceof God,88%disbelieveinlifeafterdeath,and90%reject theideathatevolutiondirectedtoward“ultimate purpose.”[CornellEvolutionProjectSurvey] www.discovery.org/a/10091(accessedOctober8,2009).

141Riley,“TheChristianFundamentalsMovement,”18.

142Larson, TrialandError,43–4.

143Martincitesa“LetterfromReubenA.Torrey,Jr.,”toRoger Martin,October21,1966.RogerMartin, R.A.Torrey:Apostle ofCertainty (Murfreesboro,TN:SwordoftheLordPublishers,1976),245and249(footnote10).Torrey’sownaddress attheLosAngelesWCFAconventionincludedonlyabrief criticalremarkaboutevolution.R.A.Torrey,“TheGodof theBible:APersonalGod,”in ScripturalInspirationversus ScientificImagination:84–5.Torreynotesthatwhenevolu-

tionistsareaskedfortheevidencethatsupportstheir theory,theyreply“allscholarsareagreeduponit.”But, whenonementionsaspecificDarwindoubter,theevolutionistwillreply,“Ohhedoesn’tbelieveinEvolution, thereforeheisnotascholar.”Regarding“divisivenessand improperspirit,”Torreyhimselfwassometimesguiltyof this,accordingtoLymanStewartinalettertoTorreyin whichhecitedTorrey’ssermonreferencetothePopeasnot having“thebrainsofachipmunk.”Stewart’sgueststhat dayreportedly“wentawaymad,anddeclaredthatthe BibleInstituteandtheChurchoftheOpenDoorwere knockers.”LymanStewarttoR.A.Torrey,August7,1920, p.5,LymanStewartCorrespondence,BiolaUniversity Archives.

144OneofTorrey’searliestpublicationsisanundated23-page pamphletthatincludesacaseforinerrancy:R.A.Torrey, TenReasonsWhyIBelievetheBibleIstheWordofGod (NewYork:FlemingH.Revell,n.d.).Intheopeningparagraphofthissermon,TorreyindicatesthathewasastudentatYale“fifteenorsixteenyearsago.”Hecompleted hisYaleseminarydegreein1878,whichwouldplacethis sermonintheyear1893or1894.Ashorterversionofthis sermonappearedinCharlesLeachandR.A.Torrey, Our Bible:HowWeGotItandTenReasonsWhyIBelievetheBibleIs theWordofGod (Chicago,IL:TheBibleInstituteColportage Association,1898).Torrey’searliestbookwas HowtoBring MentoChrist (NewYork:FlemingH.Revell,1893).

145R.A.Torrey, TheDivineOriginoftheBible:ItsAuthority andPowerDemonstratedandDifficultiesSolved (Chicago,IL: FlemingH.Revell,1899),53–4.Onp.63–4,heindicateshis supportforthegaptheoryasawaytoreconcileanoldearth withGenesis1,andonp.68–9,henotesthatitis“oneof theperfectionsoftheBiblethatitwasnotwritteninthe terminologyofmodernscience,”butratherintheordinary termsofhownatureappearstousonearth.

146Torrey, DifficultiesandAllegedErrorsandContradictionsin theBible,11.Muchofthisisarefinedversionofmaterial inTorrey, TheDivineOriginoftheBible

147Ibid.AlthoughWilliamHerscheldiscoveredUranusin 1781,fifteenyearsbeforeLaplacepublishedhisfirstsketch ofthenebularhypothesisin1796,eighteenth-centuryastronomershadnodataastothedirectionofUranus’rotation.Infact,scientistsstilldebatewhetherUranus’rotation isdirectorretrogradeduetothefactthatitsaxisofrotation iswithineightdegreesofbeingparalleltoitsorbitalplane. Torreymusthaveinmindaperiodofhistoryinwhich astronomersconsideredthedirectionofUranus’rotation tobe retrograde andthus(bythestandardsofthattime) anomalous,relativetotheotherwiseuniformly direct (eastward)motionsoftherotationsandrevolutionsoftheother planetsandmoonsofthesolarsystem,whichLaplacehad usedasevidenceforhisnebularhypothesis.Seeappendix twoinNumbers, CreationByNaturalLaw,1977,toread therelevantpartsofLaplace’stheory.

148R.A.Torrey, IstheBibletheInerrantWordofGod,andWasthe BodyofJesusRaisedfromtheDead? (NewYork:GeorgeH. Doran,1922),vii.Forarecentclarificationoftheconfusion causedbythemultiplemeaningsofevolution,seeStephen C.MeyerandMichaelN.Keas,“TheMeaningsofEvolution,”inJohnAngusCampbellandStephenC.Meyer,eds., Darwinism,DesignandPublicEducation (EastLansing,MI: MichiganStateUniversityPress,2003),135–56.

149CharlesDarwintoJamesD.Dana,September29[1856?], DanaFamilyPapers,YaleUniversityLibrary,microfilm reel2,box2,folder43.

150CharlesDarwintoJamesD.Dana,November11,1859, DanaFamilyPapers,YaleUniversityLibrary,microfilm reel2,box2,folder43.JohnMurray,thepublisherof Darwin’s Origin,officiallylaunchedthebookonNovember24,1859,byreleasing1,250copies.

151Torrey’slackofenthusiasmfortheScopestrialmaybe inferredfromseveralpointsmadeearlier.First,Torrey’s biographerRogerMartin,citingaletterfromTorrey’sson, concludedthatTorreywithdrewfromtheWCFAsoon afterthe1922LosAngelesmeeting,partlybecauseofits overemphasisonfightingevolution.Second,Torreycriticizedboththe“conservatives”andthe“liberals”whowere debatingthemeritsofevolutionintheearly1920s.Here heespeciallynotedtheequivocaluseoftheterm“evolution”—seeTorrey, IstheBibletheInerrantWordofGod (1922), vii.Finally,inOctober1925,afewmonthsaftertheScopes trial,Torreyrecalled,inalettertohisfriendJamesGray, editorofthe MoodyBibleInstituteMonthly, EvenafterIcametobelievethoroughlyintheBible, andinitsexactinterpretation,Iwas,toacertainextent, anevolutionist.Ilater,withmorethoroughstudy,was ledtogiveuptheevolutionaryhypothesisforpurely scientificreasons.

Inthatsamepublishedletter,TorreyindicatedthatafundamentalistChristiancouldbeanevolutionistinatleast somesenseoftheterm.Unfortunately,Torrey’sdiaries fromtheScopesperioddonotexisttoday,andsowecan onlyinferhislackofsupportforthefundamentalistattack onevolutionfromthesourcesmentioned.

ASAAnnualMeeting

July30–August2,2010

TheCatholicUniversityofAmerica Washington,DC

SCIENCE, FAITH,AND PUBLIC POLICY

ConfirmedPlenarySpeakers:

• StanleyBull,AssociateDirector,National RenewableEnergyLaboratory

• RichardCizik,SeniorFellow,UnitedNations Foundation

• VernonEhlers,Congressman(R-MI),House ScienceCommittee

• SaraJoanMiles,FoundingDean Emerita of EsperanzaCollege,EasternUniversity

• JenniferWiseman ,Astronomerand ASAPresident2010

ProgramTracks:

• BiomedicalResearchandHealthPolicy

• Energy,Technology,andEnvironmentalPolicy

• SpacePolicy

• ScienceEducationandPolicy

• NewFrontiersinBioethics

• Panel:BeingaChristianintheWorkplace Visit www.asa3.org forupdatedinformation.