Darwinism, Fundamentalism, andR.A.Torrey
MichaelN.KeasR.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.
Article
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
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.
Article
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
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 MichaelN.Keas
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
Article
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:
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.
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.
ThecoverofR.A.Torrey, DifficultiesandAlleged ErrorsandContradictionsintheBible (Chicago,IL: TheBibleInstituteColportageAssociation,1907).
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
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.”
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
TheFundamentals,volume1(1910).R.A.Torreyservedasawriterandoneoftheeditorsoftheproject.
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.
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,
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
Article 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
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
Article
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.
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
Article
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.
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 MichaelN.Keas