Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Creation and design in the thought of Sir William Dawson Ballantyne, Edmund Chattan 1977

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1977_A8 B34.pdf [ 5.62MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094053.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094053-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094053-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094053-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094053-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094053-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094053-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094053-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094053.ris

Full Text

CREATION AND DESIGN IN THE THOUGHT OF SIR WILLIAM DAWSON  by EDMUND CHATTAN BALLANTYNE B.A., M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , 1972  A Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l F u l f i l l m e n t o f the Requirements f o r the Degree o f MASTER OF ARTS THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES in  RELIGIOUS STUDIES  We accept t h irequired s t h e s i s standard as conforming to the  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA J u l y , 1977  Edmund Chattan Ballantyne, 1977  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s  in p a r t i a l  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y the L i b r a r y  s h a l l make i t f r e e l y  f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree  available for  I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e  r e f e r e n c e and copying o f t h i s  It  i s understood that copying or  thesis  permission.  Depa rtment The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  or  publication  o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d without my written  that  study.  f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head of my Department by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  for  ii  ABSTRACT  In 1859 Darwin's On the O r i g i n of Species presented a compelling argument f o r evolution that was to challenge the fundamental b e l i e f s o f C h r i s t i a n i t y .  I t was incompatible with the idea  of a supernatural, designing, and p r o v i d e n t i a l God; and i t r a i s e d doubts about the B i b l e ' s i n s p i r a t i o n by c o n t r a d i c t i n g the Genesis account o f c r e a t i o n .  Some C h r i s t i a n s r e c o n c i l e d t h e i r f a i t h to the  theory o f e v o l u t i o n , while others r e j e c t e d i t as a t h e i s t i c .  This  thesis examines the r e a c t i o n of S i r W i l l i a m Dawson (1820-1899), the Canadian n a t u r a l h i s t o r i a n and C h r i s t i a n a p o l o g i s t , who r e j e c t e d evolution as a t h e i s t i c and spent the l a t t e r part of the 19th century campaigning against i t . Dawson was a P a l e y i t e who believed i n the designing God and the l i t e r a l word o f Genesis.  He found e v o l u t i o n incompatible with  t h i s b e l i e f and countered i t by constructing a s c i e n t i f i c theory of creation.  This study explores the nature of h i s Paleyism and how i t  led him to defend the doctrine o f c r e a t i o n as a theory which preserved b e l i e f i n the designing God and corroborated the Genesis cosmogony.  I t also places h i s r e a c t i o n to e v o l u t i o n i n the context  of Canadian thought on t h i s i s s u e .  iii  TABLE OF CONTENTS  INTRODUCTION  1  I.  5  DAWSON'S PALEYITE FAITH Background  5  Dawson's P a l e y i t e Heritage  9  Dawson's B i b l i c a l F a i t h and I t s Geological Confirmation  13  Natural Theology and Prcgressionism  19  .  Footnotes to Chapter I I I . THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION  25 27  Darwin  28  Huxley  34  Spencer  36  Haeckel  38  The T h e i s t i c E v o l u t i o n i s t s  41  The Agnostic and A t h e i s t i c E v o l u t i o n i s t s on Science and R e l i g i o n  45  Footnotes to Chapter I I  50  I I I . THE MAJOR PROBLEMS DAWSON SAW IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION .  53  Natural S e l e c t i o n and Design  54  Naturalism and Natural Theology  60  Evolution and Genesis Footnotes to Chapter I I I  71 79  iv IV.  DAWSON'S SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF EVOLUTION  81  A Sample o f Canadian Solutions to the Problem of Evolution  81  Dawson's Solution to the Problem of Evolution  87  Footnotes to Chapter IV  94  BIBLIOGRAPHY  96  V  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  I thank Professor N. K. C l i f f o r d f o r h i s support, suggestions, and advice, without which t h i s t h e s i s would not be.  I also thank  Mr. John Andreassen and Mrs. F a i t h W a l l i s , o f the M c G i l l Archives, for t h e i r generous help.  I am also indebted to the I n t e r l i b r a r y  Loan D i v i s i o n o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia who were always considerate and h e l p f u l . also earned my gratitude.  Nancy Smith, who typed t h i s t h e s i s , has  vi  "Why, do you not say y o u r s e l f that the sky and the b i r d s prove God?" --"No." --"Does your r e l i g i o n not say so?" --"No. For though i t i s true i n a sense for some souls whom God has enlightened i n t h i s way, yet i t i s untrue f o r the majority." Pascal  1  INTRODUCTION  In 1859 Darwin's O r i g i n o f Species presented a compelling argument f o r evolution that was to challenge the fundamental b e l i e f s of C h r i s t i a n i t y .  The naturalism and randomness inherent i n the  proposed evolutionary process was incompatible with the idea of a supernatural, designing, and p r o v i d e n t i a l God. Moreover, the idea of d e r i v a t i o n r a i s e d doubts about the Bible's i n s p i r a t i o n by cont r a d i c t i n g the Genesis account of a c r e a t i o n which had culminated i n Adam, who had been made i n the image of God. Although many C h r i s t i a n s r e c o n c i l e d t h e i r f a i t h to evolutionary thought, others refused e i t h e r to surrender t h e i r t r u s t i n the l i t e r a l word of Genesis or t o accept a seemingly absurd and purposeless universe. From t h i s camp came several apologists who defended orthodoxy against evolution because they saw i t as a revolutionary view of l i f e t o t a l l y at odds with C h r i s t i a n i t y . Among the prominent defenders of the f a i t h was S i r William Dawson (1820-1899).  One o f Canada's leading i n t e l l e c t u a l s , Dawson  was an a c t i v e Presbyterian apologist and a h i g h l y q u a l i f i e d natural historian.  A dynamic man, he b u i l t h i s reputation by w r i t i n g  p r o d i g i o u s l y , by i n v o l v i n g himself i n many s c i e n t i f i c and r e l i g i o u s a s s o c i a t i o n s , and by b u i l d i n g M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y i n t o a d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n s t i t u t i o n during h i s p r i n c i p a l s h i p from 1855 to 1893. His country recognized h i s a b i l i t i e s when, i n 1882, the Marquis o f Lome appointed  2 Him the f i r s t president of the Royal Society of Canada. also well-known i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y .  Dawson was  Among h i s f r i e n d s were such men  as  Charles Lye11, Louis Agassiz, and Asa Gray, a l l of whom were outstanding s c i e n t i s t s and p r i n c i p a l f i g u r e s i n the e v o l u t i o n controversy. his  Leading s c i e n t i f i c s o c i e t i e s around the world often honoured  c o n t r i b u t i o n s . Dawson, f o r example, on separate occasions held  the p r e s t i g i o u s presidencies of both the B r i t i s h A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Advancement of Science (1886-1887) and i t s American counterpart (1882-1883). In a d d i t i o n to being a respected s c i e n t i s t Dawson was also an acknowledged apologist f o r c r e a t i o n . For example, the E v a n g e l i c a l A l l i a n c e and the V i c t o r i a I n s t i t u t e (a s o c i e t y of apologetic C h r i s t i a n s c i e n t i s t s ) often requested papers and l e c t u r e s from him.  Even  P r i n c i p a l McCosh of Princeton College begged Dawson to accept the geology c h a i r at that i n s t i t u t i o n i n h i s capacity as a s c i e n t i s t could defend the f a i t h . "We  who  McCosh admitted to Dawson i n a l e t t e r that  f e e l i t to be of vast importance not only f o r ourselves but f o r  the country to have you i n the United States to guide opinion at t h i s c r i t i c a l time.""'  -  Despite Dawson's importance as a C h r i s t i a n s c i e n t i s t i n the evolution controversy, there has been l i t t l e f i r s t - r a t e s c h o l a r l y work done on him.  The only recent work worth noting i s C. O'Brien's  S i r W i l l i a m Dawson:  a L i f e i n Science and R e l i g i o n (1971), which  competently describes Dawson's s c i e n t i f i c controversies.  O'Brien  recognized that Dawson f e l t t e r r i b l y threatened by e v o l u t i o n , but """Letter, J . McCosh to J . W. Dawson, Apr. 4, 1875, M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , Archives, Dawson papers.  3 he d i d not explore h i s subject's r e l i g i o u s make-up s u f f i c i e n t l y to explain why  evolution was  t o t a l l y unacceptable to him and why he so  a c t i v e l y defended c r e a t i o n . Dawson was a P a l e y i t e who r e c o n c i l e d h i s science and i n a f a i t h founded on God's two r e v e l a t i o n s : He assumed that the B i b l e was  the B i b l e and nature.  l i t e r a l l y true and that science  v e r i f y i t when i t touched on n a t u r a l subjects.  religion  could  He also assumed that  God's c r e a t i o n was imbued with purpose and design which science examine i n order to prove the existence of a d i v i n e designer. found the major evidences of t h i s i n biology. cal  could He  Zoological and botani-  systems of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n revealed a whole n a t u r a l order of  h i e r a r c h i c a l arrangements and repeated patterns and functions.  The  h i s t o r y of animal l i f e showed the planned progressive i n t r o d u c t i o n of species.  Every animal and plant exhibited complex adaptations to  i t s environment.  Dawson believed that a l l t h i s evidence of design  and contrivance proved the d i v i n e  designer.  Darwinism threatened t h i s b e l i e f by reducing purpose and design to the r e s u l t s of random and l i m i t l e s s v a r i a t i o n as c o n t r o l l e d by the law of natural s e l e c t i o n . of v a r i a t i o n and environment.  Adaptations r e s u l t e d from the clash  The n a t u r a l order which systems of  b i o l o g i c a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n revealed was  explained by the v a r i a t i o n of  groups of species away from l i k e progenitors. was  due to c o n t i n u i t y of inheritance.  S i m i l a r i t y of type  Furthermore, the  progressive  i n t r o d u c t i o n of l i f e was quite simply proposed as evidence f o r evolution.  Darwin offered a s u f f i c i e n t natural explanation f o r  Dawson's evidences of God and then challenged  the very idea of an  i n t e l l i g e n t designer by introducing randomness as a r e a l f a c t o r i n  4 nature. Dawson opposed e v o l u t i o n p r i m a r i l y because i t was c a l to the foundations of h i s f a i t h :  antitheti-  nature and the B i b l e .  Mere  chance was incompatible with Dawson's b e l i e f i n a designing and i n t e l l i g e n t God.  Naturalism, though l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t , e n t a i l e d the e l i m i n a -  t i o n of the b i o l o g i c a l evidences of f a i t h and removed God as an ordering p r i n c i p l e i n nature. Because Dawson i n t e r p r e t e d the Genesis creation n a r r a t i v e as a type of n a t u r a l theology which spoke of the designing creator God, he also found e v o l u t i o n to be incompatible with it. This t h e s i s explains why Dawson was an ardent opponent of evolution.  Chapter I describes and analyses h i s r e l i g i o u s viewpoint  as i t stood before the p u b l i c a t i o n of the O r i g i n .  Chapter I I describes  those aspects of evolutionary speculation which were to prove a n t i t h e t i c a l to the foundations of t h i s viewpoint. presents Dawson's perception of these problems.  Chapter I I I  I t e s t a b l i s h e s that  randomness and naturalism were the elements he found unacceptable i n evolution; and i t places Dawson i n the context of other Canadian thought on the same issues.  Chapter IV presents Dawson's response to the  challenge of e v o l u t i o n , namely h i s attempt to form a s c i e n t i f i c theory of c r e a t i o n .  I t also places t h i s response i n the context of other  Canadian s o l u t i o n s to the same problem.  5  CHAPTER I DAWSON'S PALEYITE FAITH  As Dawson b a t t l e d the theory of evolution because i t was incompatible with h i s f a i t h , i t i s necessary f i r s t to examine the k i n d of f a i t h he had before broaching h i s r e a c t i o n to evolutionary speculation.  Dawson was a P a l e y i t e who r e c o n c i l e d science and r e l i g i o n i n a  h i g h l y r a t i o n a l i z e d f a i t h which was based on the B i b l e and n a t u r a l theology.  As t h i s Paleyism was f u l l y developed before the p u b l i c a t i o n  of the O r i g i n of Species, i n 1859, i t w i l l be best to examine i t as then fashioned.  Before the O r i g i n Dawson had r e c o n c i l e d s c r i p t u r e  and science i n a harmonization of the Genesis cosmogony with geology, and he had constructed a n a t u r a l theology on the evidences design provided by biology and palaeontology.  of  A f t e r presenting the  background of Dawson's career, t h i s chapter describes Dawson's P a l e y i t e heritage and h i s continuation of t h i s t r a d i t i o n as i t stood before the O r i g i n .  I. Background Dawson was born on October 13, 1820, i n P i c t o u , Nova S c o t i a , to staunch Presbyterian parents.  A f t e r passing much of h i s younger  years s c u r r y i n g around the l o c a l c o a l f i e l d s searching out g e o l o g i c a l specimens, he was e n r o l l e d i n the l o c a l P i c t o u Academy f o r h i s  6  secondary education.  The Academy had been founded by T. McCulloch  with the i n t e n t i o n of t r a i n i n g Presbyterian ministers and providing a higher education f o r the l o c a l dissenters.  Although i t was  small  and impoverished i t managed to send f o r t h hundreds of clergymen, doctors, and scholars i n t o the community.  Dawson attended the Academy  f o r four years and received a l i b e r a l education which included h i s f a v o r i t e subject of natural h i s t o r y .  As a student he must also have  experienced strong r e l i g i o u s i n f l u e n c e s , f o r when he graduated he set himself to studying "Hebrew and a l l i e d subjects" and gave serious thought to entering the m i n i s t r y . * The p u l l of science, however, was greater on Dawson than that of the church.  In 1840 he set o f f f o r Edinburgh i n order to  study natural h i s t o r y with Robert Jameson (1774-1854), who was  a  leading geologist and a conservative Presbyterian under whom Charles Darwin had also studied.  In 1841 Dawson returned to P i c t o u because  h i s father had run i n t o f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s .  As chance would  have i t , however, Charles L y e l l , England's most important g e o l o g i s t , v i s i t e d Nova S c o t i a i n the same year and became acquainted Dawson.  with  They q u i c k l y became f r i e n d s , and L y e l l engaged h i s j u n i o r  as a guide i n an exploration of the Nova S c o t i a c o a l - f i e l d s .  Dawson  remained i n Nova S c o t i a u n t i l 1846, when he returned f o r a f i n a l year of studies with Jameson i n Edinburgh. His student days behind him, Dawson set to work b u i l d i n g a career.  In 1850 he was appointed superintendent  of education f o r  Nova S c o t i a and spent three years touring and organizing that colony's schools.  His next appointment was to a commission r e g u l a t i n g  the a f f a i r s of the U n i v e r s i t y of New  Brunswick, and i n 1855 he  was  7  appointed p r i n c i p a l o f M c G i l l , a p o s i t i o n he held u n t i l 1893. M c G i l l was an impoverished and poorly managed i n s t i t u t i o n when Dawson a r r i v e d .  The grounds were d i l a p i d a t e d , and even the  Arts b u i l d i n g i t s e l f had been abandoned.  He was, however, undeterred  and immediately set to the task of b u i l d i n g M c G i l l i n t o a u n i v e r s i t y which, by the time o f h i s retirement, had gained i n t e r n a t i o n a l standing. growth.  Dawson involved himself i n every aspect of h i s i n s t i t u t i o n ' s He taught natural h i s t o r y , helped with f i n a n c i n g , and i n  1857 founded the M c G i l l Normal School which was to supply the teachers to t r a i n the students who would attend the u n i v e r s i t y . In s p i t e o f h i s deep involvement with M c G i l l , Dawson maintained a severe regimen of research, w r i t i n g , and l e c t u r i n g on geol o g i c a l , b i o l o g i c a l , anthropological, and r e l i g i o u s subjects. Because he was capable and p r o l i f i c i n each of these areas, h i s name became i n c r e a s i n g l y recognized.  In 1881 he both received the L y e l l award  from the Geological Society o f London and also was made a companion o f St. Michael and St. George.  In 1883 he was knighted, and the next year  h i s alma mater o f Edinburgh conferred upon him the honorary Doctor of Laws.  degree o f  While these commendations brought p u b l i c honour,  Dawson's a b i l i t i e s had also provided him with the less tangible but more important respect and f r i e n d s h i p of many major s c i e n t i f i c opinion makers such as Louis Agassiz and Asa Gray. Dawson's s c i e n t i f i c successes had not a r i s e n out o f a vacuum. Much 19th century s c i e n t i f i c work was done by the members o f the many s c i e n t i f i c s o c i e t i e s and promulgated i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s .  Dawson was  a member o f the leading s o c i e t i e s i n Canada and the major f i g u r e i n h i s own c i t y ' s Natural H i s t o r y Society. Moreover, he was one o f the  8  prime movers behind the  formation  which was established i n 1882.  of the Royal Society of Canada,  But Canadian science was s t i l l young,  and the most s i g n i f i c a n t studies were c a r r i e d out by the E n g l i s h scientists.  Accordingly, Dawson frequently v i s i t e d England where  he was a member of the major s o c i e t i e s and a c o n t r i b u t o r to t h e i r journals.  Among others, he was a f e l l o w o f both the Geological  Society o f London and the Royal Society o f England. Dawson's p u r s u i t o f science was perhaps equalled by h i s defense of C h r i s t i a n i t y , where again he had an i n t e r n a t i o n a l reputation.  In Canada he was involved i n such organizations as the YMCA,  the Montreal A u x i l i a r y B i b l e Society, the Quebec Women's C h r i s t i a n Temperance Union, and the Canada Sunday School Union.  He was f r e -  quently c a l l e d on to l e c t u r e on r e l i g i o u s t o p i c s , and at M c G i l l he often made i t a habit to i n v i t e students home f o r discussions on B i b l i c a l subjects.  His i n t e r n a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s included member-  ships i n both the Evangelical A l l i a n c e and the V i c t o r i a I n s t i t u t e . He was Canadian vice-president o f the A l l i a n c e and contributed papers to i t s 1873 meeting i n New York as w e l l as the J u b i l e e Conference of 1896.  The V i c t o r i a I n s t i t u t e , which was a B r i t i s h  a s s o c i a t i o n of s c i e n t i s t s dedicated to " r e c o n c i l i n g any apparent discrepancies between C h r i s t i a n i t y and Science," considered Dawson 2 to be one o f t h e i r more important members. Requests f o r Dawson's a i d i n defending the f a i t h came from near and f a r .  In 1894 he was i n v i t e d to the s i x t h Council of the  Presbyterian A l l i a n c e i n Scotland i n order to speak on e i t h e r "Modern 3 Apologetics and C r i t i c i s m " or "Biology and Natural  Science."  Moody's N o r t h f i e l d Seminary asked him to contribute i n t h e i r work. When Princeton College offered Dawson the geology c h a i r , Charles  9 Hodge induced Princeton Seminary to e s t a b l i s h a l e c t u r e s h i p on "the r e l a t i o n of Science and R e l i g i o n , " with the hope that Dawson would accept i t as w e l l .  I I . Dawson's P a l e y i t e Heritage The 19th century was a time of growing doubt.  Franklin  Baumer views i t as an age of s c e p t i c a l r e v o l u t i o n which c r y s t a l l i z e d i n s i x schools of thought.  Psychology, beginning with Feuerbach,  was coming to regard the s p i r i t u a l as a mental p r o j e c t i o n .  Utilitar-  ianism frequently argued that r e l i g i o n was i n j u r i o u s to s o c i e t y . The sciences, and e s p e c i a l l y evolutionary b i o l o g y , were i n c r e a s i n g l y d e s c r i b i n g a natural universe that bore l i t t l e r e l a t i o n to C h r i s t i a n b e l i e f s and hopes.  The anthropology pursued by such men  as Tylor and  Frazer was reducing r e l i g i o n to a n a t u r a l i s t i c outgrowth of p r i m i t i v e superstition.  Marxist economics was promulgating the idea that  r e l i g i o n was nothing but a s o c i a l by-product.  The Higher C r i t i c i s m  was subjecting the B i b l e to h i s t o r i c a l analyses which r e s u l t e d i n such contentions as Strauss' that the New Testament was  essentially  4 myth.  A l l i n a l l , i t can be seen that the very essence of b e l i e f  had come under question. Dawson was keenly aware of the atheism and agnosticism which surrounded him, and h i s own f a i t h was always coloured by a t i v e r e a c t i o n to i t .  conserva-  This conservatism was rooted i n the C a l v i n i s t i c  b e l i e f i n the f a l l e n condition of man which seemed to explain the i r r e l i g i o n and madness of the " m a t e r i a l i s t s , " " p o s i t i v i s t s , " and "agnostics."  His f a i t h was that of an embattled man  the true and the good i n a h o s t i l e world.  fighting for  In 1864 he declared that  10 he could hear "the thunders o f A n t i c h r i s t " which were possiblysoon to be p i t t e d i n the f i n a l "great struggle against the Gospel.""' By 1898, one year before h i s death, t h i s a t t i t u d e had  strengthened.  In an exegesis o f the Book of Revelation he applied some Johannine symbolism to h i s own era and a r r i v e d at the conclusion that "we may take the dragon to represent Heathenism and Agnosticism; the Beast, the Papacy and R i t u a l i s m ; and the False Prophet, apostate Protes„6 tantism." What Dawson was conserving against the ravages o f i n f i d e l i t y was h i s h i g h l y r a t i o n a l i z e d f a i t h which was formed i n a combination of r e l i g i o n and science and based on God's twin r e v e l a t i o n s : nature and the B i b l e .  He assumed that God's c r e a t i o n was imbued with  purpose and design which science could demonstrate i n order to prove the d i v i n e designer.  He also assumed that the B i b l e was l i t e r a l l y  true and that science could v e r i f y i t when i t touched on n a t u r a l subjects.  In sum, he represented a c o n t i n u i t y o f that l i n e o f  b e l i e f which was epitomized i n Paley and argued f o r the inherent reasonableness  o f r e l i g i o n and i t s s c i e n t i f i c v e r i f i c a t i o n .  At the turn of the 19th century Paley published h i s Natural Theology which argued f o r an i n t e l l i g e n t and benevolent God from the evidences of h i s design i n nature.  Using the now famous analogy with  the watch, Paley reasoned that i t was only by p o s t u l a t i n g the e x i s t ence o f a d i v i n e designer that we could explain the numerous manifest a t i o n s o f order and contrivance i n nature.  His argument rested p r i -  marily on the myriad examples of contrivance i n anatomy which provided h i s reasoning with a s c i e n t i f i c and e m p i r i c a l foundation.  He assumed  that science and r e l i g i o n could be r e c o n c i l e d i n a universe pervaded  11 by purposefulness.  The s c i e n t i f i c study of nature l e d to knowledge  of God because i t discovered a designed c r e a t i o n which could not explained through the action of random n a t u r a l forces.  be  Paley  believed that everything was imbued with some d i v i n e purpose.  Even  purpose had a purpose, f o r i t existed to make p o s s i b l e n a t u r a l theology.  Whatever God wished f o r h i s creatures he could have accom-  p l i s h e d "without the i n t e r v e n t i o n of instruments or means," but " i t i s only by the d i s p l a y of contrivance, that the existence, the agency, the wisdom of the Deity, 'could' be t e s t i f i e d to h i s r a t i o n a l 7 creatures." While natural theology demonstrated the existence of the d i v i n e a r t i f i c e r , i t also served as a prelude to the New which could i n turn stand the t e s t of reason. C h r i s t i a n i t y t r i e d to show that the New  Testament  The Evidences f o r  Testament was  historically  accurate and could be v a l i d a t e d by secular h i s t o r i c a l methods. Paley's c e n t r a l argument was that because the o r i g i n a l C h r i s t i a n witnesses had defended t h e i r b e l i e f at the r i s k s of t o r t u r e and death, and because they could not have done so without that f e e l i n g of cert a i n t y which only miracles could have provided, the miracle s t o r i e s must be true.  Consequently the o r i g i n a l witnesses must have been  correct i n t h e i r testimony and the New Testament must be true. Paleyism l i v e d on i n the 19th century u n t i l Darwinism p r e c i p i t a t e d i t s decline.  I t s most notable expression was i n the eight  Bridgewater Treatises which were published between 1833 and from a bequest of the e c c e n t r i c E a r l of Bridgewater.  1840  These t r e a t i s e s  continued the n a t u r a l t h e o l o g i c a l side of Paley's thought and attempted to i l l u s t r a t e "the power, wisdom and goodness of God"  as  12  exhibited in his creation.  The  W.  of science,  Whewell, the p h i l o s o p h e r  w r i t e r s were a l l eminent men  more famous f o r h i s thesaurus. were f a m i l i a r to Dawson, not elsewhere embraced Paley's for scripture.  H i s On  and  P. M.  Roget, who  to the  o n l y c o n t r i b u t e d one  other  a c c u r a c y o f the New As  the Power Wisdom and  revealed  (1818) had  t r e a t i s e but  Goodness o f God  The  Evidence and A u t h o r i t y o f  aimed to v e r i f y the  f o r the e x i s t e n c e  the i n f l u e n c e o f P a l e y .  assumed, was  paper o f f e r i n g  o f God  H i s a d u l t f a i t h was  o f God  and  which  also irrevo-  the v a l i d i t y o f the B i b l e .  a matter o f i n t e l l e c t u a l  assent  arguments by which reason supported b e l i e f . r e s t e d on the evidences o f God's d e s i g n f a i t h r e s t e d on the s c i e n t i f i c  could o f f e r  F a i t h , he  to the evidences His natural  i n n a t u r e , and  and  theology  his  Biblical  support which c o u l d be brought to  s c r i p t u r e i n i t s h i s t o r i c a l n a r r a t i v e s and  he assumed t h a t s c i e n c e  Science  verify  d e s c r i p t i o n s of nature.  Because Dawson b e l i e v e d t h a t the study o f n a t u r e l e d to  s c i e n c e was  the  historical  Dawson wrote more than one  t e l e o l o g i c a l proofs  existence  (1839)  intellectual  c a b l y i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h the r a t i o n a l demonstrations t h a t he f o r the  also  Testament.  an a d o l e s c e n t  r a t i o n a l and  now  s i d e by o f f e r i n g r a t i o n a l defenses  e x t e r n a l world.  C h r i s t i a n Revelation  is  Thomas Chalmers, some o f whose works  p r e s e n t e d evidence f o r the d e i t y i n man's moral and adaptation  such as  c o u l d be r e c o n c i l e d w i t h r e l i g i o n .  God,  Indeed,  i t s e l f the r e l i g i o u s e x e r c i s e o f e x p l o r i n g God's c r e a t i o n .  i n e l u c t a b l y l e d to r e l i g i o n , and  depart from the path o f e i t h e r was darkness which shroud from our s p i r i t u a l and  the m a t e r i a l . "  g  Dawson m a i n t a i n e d t h a t  to enter  " i n t o the m i s t s  gaze the p r e c i o u s Science  and  and  junction of  religion  described  the  to  13 different  aspects  of the u n i t a r y r a t i o n a l universe.  p e r v a d e d G o d , man, a n d t h e w o r l d ; a n d s o to  the i n d u c t i v e examination o f energy  religious did  explanations  Dawson d e p a r t  rational  s c i e n c e , w h i c h was  and m a t t e r ,  of the s p i r i t u a l .  order  limited  complemented  A t no p o i n t  in his  life  f r o m t h e c o n v i c t i o n t h a t God h a d c r e a t e d a  purposeful  and harmony  T h e same  w o r l d a n d t h a t t h e r e was a " f u n d a m e n t a l  of a l l t r u t h whether n a t u r a l or s p i r i t u a l ,  d i s c o v e r e d b y man o r r e v e a l e d b y  God."  unity  whether  9  The t r a g e d y o f D a w s o n ' s f a i t h l a y i n t h e f a c t t h a t i t b a s e d upon p r e c i s e l y t h o s e of  life  w h i c h D a r w i n was  s c i e n t i f i c explanations  to overturn.  belief  in a creator.  the evidences biology  was  causes.  of design  to  s c i e n t i f i c theory  e v o l u t i o n was  fundamentally  Dawson's B i b l i c a l  t h e B i b l e was  i n the organic  world; Darwin's  his  Darwin because h i s  F a i t h and I t s  life  essential  Geological  everything from a c h a r t e r f o r c i v i l He was m o s t  t h e book most  mindless  own f a i t h ,  the  thought.  Confirmation  Dawson n e v e r w a i v e r e d f r o m t h e to his  on  evolutionary  whole view o f  incompatible with evolutionary  t h e g e n e r a l h e a l t h and p r o g r e s s o f s o c i e t y .  ism.  of  incompatible with  t o e x p l a i n t h e s e by t h e a c t i o n o f n a t u r a l and  Throughout that  f a i t h was  D a w s o n ' s n a t u r a l t h e o l o g y was b a s e d p r i m a r i l y  Dawson was t o o p p o s e  w o r l d was  III.  mindless  descriptions  Dawson's B i b l i c a l  supported by the accordance o f a seemingly creation with Genesis;  and  was  conviction  to C h r i s t i a n i t y , He saw i t a s  and  being  l i b e r t i e s to a cure f o r m a t e r i a l -  c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e book  of Genesis  f r e q u e n t l y a n a l y s e d by t h e H i g h e r  because  this  C r i t i c s and a l s o  was the  14  book most s u s c e p t i b l e , o r defense.  due t o i t s cosmogony, t o s c i e n t i f i c a t t a c k  As Dawson i n v e s t e d much e f f o r t  i n e x p l a i n i n g and  d e f e n d i n g G e n e s i s , we w i l l be a b l e t o g a i n an i n s i g h t i n t o h i s a t t i t u d e toward the B i b l e and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to s c i e n c e by exami n i n g h i s thought  on t h i s  subject.  Dawson saw Genesis as a t y p e o f n a t u r a l t h e o l o g y .  He thought  t h a t t h i s was e p i t o m i z e d i n i t s opening statement which c o n t a i n s " g r e a t fundamental  truth,  that  which must ever form the b a s i s o f t r u e  r e l i g i o n and sound p h i l o s o p h y - - t h e p r o d u c t i o n from n o n - e x i s t e n c e t h e m a t e r i a l u n i v e r s e by the e t e r n a l  self-existent  God."^  of  He always  m a i n t a i n e d t h a t Genesis had s e r v e d to p r o v i d e the Hebrews, and now modern man as w e l l , w i t h the b e l i e f i n a t r a n s c e n d e n t d e s i g n i n g God who had c r e a t e d an o r d e r e d and p u r p o s e f u l w o r l d .  I t was as though  the  cosmogony had been w r i t t e n t o answer to the modern d i s e a s e s o f materi a l i s m , p o s i t i v i s m , pantheism,  and the b e l i e f i n f o r t u i t o u s  Genesis e x p l a i n e d the u n i t y o f the u n i v e r s e ,  occurrence.  cosmic d e s i g n , and mono-  t h e i s m , and i n c u l c a t e d a n a t u r a l and r a t i o n a l  theism.  Dawson b e l i e v e d i n the l i t e r a l word o f the B i b l e and plenary i n s p i r a t i o n .  He f r e q u e n t l y  its  complained about t h e exegetes who  would reduce i t t o myth, f o r i t was h i s c o n s t a n t p o s i t i o n t h a t S c r i p t u r e was an a c c u r a t e h i s t o r i c a l and r e v e a l e d n a r r a t i v e which r e f e r r e d to r e a l e v e n t s .  He was, n e v e r t h e l e s s ,  sufficiently a scientist  that  he o f t e n was f o r c e d e i t h e r t o r a t i o n a l i z e away t h e u n s c i e n t i f i c  portions  o f h i s m a t e r i a l o r t o push t h e Hebrew language i n t o meanings  consonant  w i t h h i s needs.  poetic  sections  For example, he would g r a n t t h a t t h e r e were  i n G e n e s i s , such as the r e f e r e n c e  h e a v e n s , " which s h o u l d not be t a k e n  t o t h e "windows o f  literally.  the  15 Beyond h i s own b e l i e v e r ' s c r i t i c i s m , however, Dawson d i d not venture very f a r . He was s u f f i c i e n t l y enraged by the Higher C r i t i c s that, l a t e r i n l i f e , he came to see them as the arch-enemy along with the e v o l u t i o n i s t s .  He bemoaned how these two groups "have  long since united forces, and true C h r i s t i a n i t y and true science are now face to face with both.""^  Between p r o t e s t s , however, he d i d  surrender to them a l i t t l e ground.  In 1860 Dawson had maintained 12  "the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, as an undeniable f a c t . " By 1877, Moses had been reduced to the status o f e d i t o r of Genesis, although he s t i l l retained the authorship of the remainder of the 13 Pentateuch.  By the 1880's, Dawson was w e l l f a m i l i a r with  B i b l i c a l c r i t i c i s m , and i n the 1890's the l a s t four books of the Pentateuch had become a record kept by camp s c r i b e s , which accounted for  s t y l i s t i c v a r i a t i o n s ; and the authorship of various parts of  Genesis was a t t r i b u t e d to such unknown authors as "the w r i t e r of 14 Genesis i i . "  Despite these concessions, Dawson had a s p e c i a l  d i s l i k e f o r c r i t i c s such as Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen; and he continued to believe i n the l i t e r a l word o f Genesis. Genesis commits i t s e l f to a number of g e o l o g i c a l views.  The  most pertinent are that the earth was created, formed, and populated i n a set order over a period of s i x days, and that there once was a u n i v e r s a l deluge.  From the l a t e 18th century u n t i l the e a r l y  1830's English geological opinion was frequently i n turmoil over the issue o f whether or not i t s findings could be r e c o n c i l e d with Genesis.  The geologists debated the c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f t h e i r  data and theories with both the Genesis time scale and also the p o s s i b i l i t y of such a cataclysmic event as the Noachic deluge.  16 These controversies received a r a d i c a l t w i s t when L y e l l began publ i s h i n g the three volumes of h i s P r i n c i p l e s o f Geology i n the e a r l y 1830's.  L y e l l seemed to have severed geology from Genesis with h i s  " u n i f o r m i t a r i a n " method, which maintained that a l l g e o l o g i c a l change had taken place gradually over immense stretches o f time through the action of those kinds of causes which are presently observable.  As  Wilson, L y e l l ' s biographer, explains i t : I f s t r a t a were to be deposited and upheaved q u i c k l y , i f v a l l e y s were to be excavated overnight, these events would indeed assume the dimensions of catastrophes; but i f very long periods of time were allowed, they might be accomplished gradually by the ordinary a c t i o n of r a i n , wind, and waves to wear down the land and earthquakes to b u i l d i t up again.15 L y e l l had seemingly i n v a l i d a t e d the Genesis chronology and removed the p o s s i b i l i t y of such a cataclysmic event as the deluge.  He had  also rendered geology a n a t u r a l i s t i c science which could explain the earth by the action of e f f i c i e n t c a u s a l i t y , without making reference to God. A number of authors responded to L y e l l i n an attempt to r e c o n c i l e h i s uniformitarianism with Genesis, and Dawson was with the major works of t h i s genre.  familiar  Pye Smith, a Congregationalist  d i v i n e , wrote The R e l a t i o n Between the Holy Scriptures and Some Parts of Geological Science (1852) which maintained that the f l o o d had been of only l i m i t e d extent and that the s i x c r e a t i o n days r e f e r r e d to but a small area of the globe where God had perfected the Garden of Eden. Hitchcock's R e l i g i o n of Geology (1851), which Dawson considered to be "valuable and p o p u l a r , " ^ also l i m i t e d the flood and then posited an i n d e f i n i t e time gap between the f i r s t and subsequent c r e a t i o n days. The w r i t e r who most influenced Dawson, however, was Hugh M i l l e r whose  17 The Testimony of the Rocks (1857) resurrected the idea that the creation days r e f e r r e d to extensive eras r a t h e r than twenty-four hour periods. Dawson was a q u a s i - u n i f o r m i t a r i a n , which i s to say that he was p r i m a r i l y a L y e l l i a n g r a d u a l i s t , although he allowed f o r the occasional catastrophe whenever he needed to shorten h i s time span or allow f o r Noah's deluge.  Nevertheless, he was enough of a u n i -  f o r m i t a r i a n that he f e l t compelled to r e c o n c i l e Genesis to t h i s method r a t h e r than to r e j e c t e i t h e r .  In 1860 he published Archaia  which had the aims of harmonizing Genesis and geology as w e l l as 17 disposing of polygenism. t i f i c view of r e l i g i o n .  This work t y p i f i e d h i s r a t i o n a l scienThe reader i s immediately introduced to  Dawson's P a l e y i t e p o s i t i o n when i n the preface he denounces those who t r y to " r a i s e an insurmountable b a r r i e r between the domains of 18 f a i t h and reason."  He then goes on to explain that Genesis i s no  mere myth or p r i m i t i v e attempt at science, but r a t h e r a purposeful r e v e l a t i o n from God about the order of the world. The B i b l e i s 19 " f u l l of n a t u r a l theology" and Genesis served to nurture "a high 20 and j u s t a p p r e c i a t i o n of nature among the Hebrew people." Dawson followed a path popularized by M i l l e r i n suggesting that the r e v e l a t i o n of the cosmogony to Moses occurred i n s i x v i s i o n s over s i x days.  I t was not to be i n t e r p r e t e d as a s c i e n t i f i c  account of nature, but rather as Moses' d e s c r i p t i o n of that which he had seen.  He then i n t e r p r e t e d , with great exegetical f i n e s s e , how  the s i x days a c t u a l l y meant eras and how they n i c e l y corresponded with the extensive g e o l o g i c a l periods provided by uniformitarianism. Assuming that the geological record d i d not reach as f a r back as the  18 fourth day, he c o r r e l a t e d the remaining three days and t h e i r parts with the Palaeozoic, Mesozoic, Neozoic, and Modern periods.  His  method was to show how the animals which he considered c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of each g e o l o g i c a l period corresponded s e r i a t i m with the  animals  which Genesis recorded as successively introduced on each day.  The  Modern period and the seventh day were i n agreement because n e i t h e r of them had witnessed the i n t r o d u c t i o n of any new forms of l i f e nor experienced any permanent and major g e o l o g i c a l change.  A l l in all,  Genesis and geology were r e c o n c i l e d because they described the same world.  Although Dawson had not bothered with any defense of the  flood i n Archaia, l a t e r works show that he considered i t a l s o to be capable of g e o l o g i c a l r a t i f i c a t i o n .  He believed that i t had been of  l i m i t e d extent and that i t was corroborated by p o s t - g l a c i a l submergence. But Dawson was not s a t i s f i e d with h i s u n i f o r m i t a r i a n v i n d i c a t i o n of Genesis; i f both science and Genesis described the same world there had to be greater r e c o n c i l i a t i o n p o s s i b l e .  Perhaps Genesis  could guide s c i e n t i f i c speculation beyond i t s e m p i r i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s to a t e n t a t i v e explanation of the f i r s t four c r e a t i o n days, and perhaps i n turn t h i s explanation might render more reasonable Genesis cosmogony. and showed how  Dawson took the then popular nebular  the  hypothesis  i t s theory of cosmic evolution accorded with the  Genesis account of the c r e a t i o n of the heavenly bodies and more.  For  example, he urged how i t was quite s c i e n t i f i c that Genesis describes the existence of l i g h t (1:3) before the existence of the luminaries (1:14).  A f t e r a l l , according to the nebular hypothesis as Dawson  saw i t , the w h i r l i n g mass of nebulous matter would be before i t a c t u a l l y formed i n t o bodies such as the sun.  luminescent He was  later  to remark on how t h i s was "another point on which Moses a n t i c i p a t e s  19  science."  IV. Natural Theology and  Progressionism  Dawson believed that nature bore the impress of the d i v i n e mind: that nature was pervaded by a design which could not be explained through the a c t i o n of n a t u r a l causes.  Ultimates, such as  natural laws and the i n t r o d u c t i o n of species, manifested God's hand rather than the operation of n a t u r a l forces. cosmic orderer.  Order, t e s t i f i e d a  Adaptations, or any n a t u r a l arrangement wherein some  means serves an end, demonstrated the f o r e s i g h t and plan of a benevol e n t , purposive God.  Dawson u n f a i l i n g l y and a x i o m a t i c a l l y drew the  conclusion of design from the n a t u r a l evidences of ultimacy, order, and adaptation.  So strong was Dawson's t e l i c v i s i o n that whenever  he attempted to demonstrate the existence of God from the manif e s t a t i o n s of ultimacy, order, and adaptation, he r a r e l y i f ever bothered to construct an argument to prove h i s case.  I t was as though  these evidences were obviously evidences of design and thus equally obviously evidences of the d i v i n e designer.  Furthermore, t h i s t e l i c  reasoning so pervaded Dawson's thought that he came to see God e s s e n t i a l l y a purposive  as  designer.  Dawson o c c a s i o n a l l y spoke of how n a t u r a l law s i g n i f i e d the d i v i n e law-maker, but h i s b e l i e f that ultimacy e x h i b i t s the a c t i o n of God's mind depended mainly on the p a l a e o n t o l o g i c a l evidences f o r the abrupt i n t r o d u c t i o n of species.  I f the species could not be  explained as derived from e i t h e r organic matter or other species, then t h i s provided i n c o n t r o v e r t i b l e proof of God's c r e a t i v e a c t i o n .  The  existence of l a w - l i k e patterns, such as the c r y s t a l l i n e formations,  20  and r e g u l a r i t i e s ,  such as the s t r u c t u r a l types which r u n through  animal p r o v i n c e s , spoke to Dawson o f designed o r d e r . to  the e x i s t e n c e o f a u n i f i e d p l a n which extended  of  nature and thereby a l s o t o God  Order  the  attested  throughout  the whol  the p l a n n e r and o r d e r e r .  A d a p t a t i o n s were the fundamentals i n Dawson's v i s i o n o f d e s i because they so o b v i o u s l y i n d i c a t e d f i n a l zation of d i v i n e purposiveness.  A d a p t a t i o n s witnessed  which u l t i m a c y and o r d e r d i d not. who  was  c a u s a l i t y and  the  actuali-  a side of  They s i g n i f i e d a benevolent  s u f f i c i e n t l y i n v o l v e d i n h i s c r e a t i o n t o so arrange  p a r t o f i t t o s e r v e some good and f u l f i l  some end.  of  blind fatalistic  laws.  had  Although  its  ultiGod  l e f t h i s c r e a t i o n t o t h e workings  But n a t u r e was  Dawson: n o t h i n g e x i s t e d without  God  each  macy and o r d e r a t t e s t e d t o the d i v i n e d e s i g n e r as w e l l , t h i s might c o n c e i v a b l y be one who  God  full  o f purpose f o r  s e r v i n g some end, and e v e r y t h i n g had  l e g i t i m a t e p l a c e i n t h e scheme o f t h i n g s . Dawson's t e l i c v i s i o n , however, was  r e n d e r him  an incompetent  scientist.  not so complete as to  Dawson was  an e m p i r i c i s t  b e l i e v e d i n i n d u c t i o n and i n g i v i n g n a t u r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s and c r i p t i o n s to n a t u r a l events and o b j e c t s . r e l i g i o n d i r e c t e d him  who  des-  On the o t h e r hand, h i s  to study matters which would o s t e n s i v e l y  support the f a i t h , and h i s r e l i g i o n p r o h i b i t e d him  from the  thought  t h a t u l t i m a c y , o r d e r , and a d a p t a t i o n c o u l d be g i v e n s u f f i c i e n t natural explanations.  Dawson was  no  l e s s a s c i e n t i s t than h i s  p o s i t i v i s t i c c o l l e a g u e s , and h i s p u r e l y p r o f e s s i o n a l work d i d not r e l y on r e l i g i o u s r e a s o n i n g .  Design  s c i e n c e and r e l i g i o n where the former and y i e l d e d t o the  latter.  c o n s t i t u t e d a b o r d e r between ceased  i t s explanatory  activity  21  Dawson's s c i e n t i f i c a l l y based n a t u r a l theology was w e l l developed before the p u b l i c a t i o n o f the O r i g i n .  Palaeontology and  biology had provided the substance o f h i s thought with t h e i r port r a y a l o f an organic world abounding with design.  He b e l i e v e d that  the m i l l i o n s o f organisms and f o s s i l s provided overwhelmingly v i n c i n g examples o f God's design.  con-  Dawson claimed that palaeontology  presented a record o f the progressive i n t r o d u c t i o n of immutable species i n p r e h i s t o r i c time.  The chronological succession of s t r a t a  contained a succession of f o s s i l s from the very simple to the most complex.  The s t r a t a also appeared to t e l l of the abrupt i n t r o d u c t i o n  and e x t i n c t i o n o f species.  Species seemed to have made t h e i r f i r s t  appearances f u l l y formed, and they never disappeared by gradually transmuting i n t o the formation o f new and d e r i v a t i v e species.  What  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n could be given to t h i s evidence but that species were immutable and created?  Dawson c e r t a i n l y believed that t h i s was the  only j u s t i f i a b l e conclusion and that the f o s s i l s were e m p i r i c a l proof of God's many c r e a t i o n s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the f a c t that the succession of f o s s i l s i s progressive impressed him with the b e l i e f that God had had a s i m i l a r l y progressive c r e a t i o n plan.  Dawson was a "pro-  g r e s s i o n i s t " who read the p a l a e o n t o l o g i c a l record as the s c i e n t i f i c n a r r a t i v e of those ultimate beginnings where God had c a r r i e d out h i s p r o v i d e n t i a l design.  The idea of c r e a t i o n became a v a l i d s c i e n t i f i c  theory which coordinated with and r a t i f i e d h i s r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s . Progressionism had much i n common with evolutionary thought: both saw development i n the f o s s i l record.  L y e l l mentioned t h i s to  Dawson, about one year a f t e r the p u b l i c a t i o n of the O r i g i n , when he wrote that:  22 I f Darwin ( s i c ) theory i s ever established i t w i l l be by the f a c t s and arguments o f p r o g r e s s i v i s t s such as Agassiz whose development doctrine go ( s i c ) three parts of the way tho they don't seem to see i t . 2 2 But Dawson needed no warning.  Even before the O r i g i n , he had  elaborated h i s progressionism  i n a way which made i t incompatible  with the theories o f the pre-Darwinian e v o l u t i o n i s t s .  He was proba-  bly provoked i n t o doing t h i s by Robert Chambers' extremely popular Vestiges of the Natural H i s t o r y of Creation (1844) which combined pantheism and evolution i n t r a c i n g a l l l i f e back to a p r i m o r d i a l chemico-electric operation.  Dawson took a lead from Hugh M i l l e r ' s  Footprints of the Creator, which was a r e f u t a t i o n o f Chambers, and contended that although species had been introduced p r o g r e s s i v e l y , each one had degenerated a f t e r i t s c r e a t i o n . sive transmutation o f species.  There was no progres-  The only progress was i n the i n t r o -  duction o f "new objects and powers not accounted f o r by previous objects or powers," the contemplation  o f which brings man "very near 23  to the presence of the S p i r i t u a l Creator." Dawson also saw design i n the order which p r e v a i l s i n the structures of organisms and f o s s i l s :  the order which b o t a n i c a l and  z o o l o g i c a l systems of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n d i s c l o s e .  For Dawson the science  of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was no mere t o o l o f biology, f o r i t l i t e r a l l y caught hold o f God's n a t u r a l plan.  Dawson believed that there was a  n a t u r a l b i o l o g i c a l order which was apparent i n the c r e a t i o n o f l i f e around c e r t a i n fundamental types.  Following Cuvier, he affirmed that  a l l animals were designed around one o f four e s s e n t i a l types: 24 vertebrate; the r a d i a t e ; the a r t i c u l a t e ; and the mollusc.  the Further-  more, he contended that there i s a n a t u r a l hierarchy of types as can be seen, f o r example, i n the manner i n which the vertebrate branch  23  breaks down i n t o the mammal, b i r d , r e p t i l e , and f i s h types.  As i f  t h i s were not enough, Dawson also maintained that order was manifest i n homologies, or the s i m i l a r types of construction found i n the 25  organs of various animals.  The i n e v i t a b l e explanation f o r t h i s per-  vasive and fundamental order was that a l l animals had been designed around God's s i n g l e u n i f i e d plan; and, accordingly, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  was  no "mere matter of a r b i t r a r y naming or even a convenient arrangement 26  of s t r u c t u r e s " but rather the u n r a v e l l i n g of God's plan. The most important type was the species, which Dawson believed to be a r e a l e n t i t y .  He put h i s emphasis here rather than  on the i n d i v i d u a l which, as he knew, r a r e l y represents i t with great accuracy.  The genus, the order, or the c l a s s , were also of consider-  ably less importance as they r e f e r r e d to the r e l a t i o n s of organisms once created, while the species r e f e r r e d "to c e r t a i n o r i g i n a l i n d i v i d u a l s , p r o t o p l a s t s " which determined the s t r u c t u r e of t h e i r con27  stituent individuals.  Although v a r i a b l e w i t h i n l i m i t s ,  species  were the immutable representatives of God's ordered plan; they were "that which the Creator has made, h i s u n i t i n the work, as w e l l as 28  ours i n the study." Although the ultimacy of c r e a t i v e beginnings and the order e x h i b i t e d i n b i o l o g i c a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n furnished much evidence f o r design, Dawson found the most compelling testimony i n the which species d i s p l a y .  adaptations  Not only i s each species i n t r i c a t e l y adapted  to i t s environment, but a l s o each organism i s i t s e l f a complex arrangement of ends and means.  The vegetable c e l l i s adapted to the  s o i l , to the atmosphere, and even to the d i s t a n t sun.  The c o i l e d  s h e l l of the pearly n a u t i l u s i s d i v i d e d i n t o a i r chambers which  24 enable i t to modify  its internal a i r density  or sink.  is  the r e s u l t  o f a complex o f a d a p t a t i o n s  among o t h e r t h i n g s ,  the b r a i n ,  the cornea,  In  sum,  Vision  life  is  replete with adaptations  t h e a c t i o n and f o r e s i g h t  so  intimately suited to i t s  Adaptations  exist  throughout  environment  the lens,  designing,  light.  through  purposive  How c o u l d i t b e t h a t  life  w e r e t h e r e no d i v i n e  a r a t i o n a l , purposive world.  existence.  God who h a d d e s i g n e d  a rational,  scripture.  Reason,  science,  and r e l i g i o n  r e a l m s w h i c h w e r e u n i f i e d b y t h e same r a t i o n a l  Reason l e d t o r e l i g i o n ; r e l i g i o n guided r e a s o n ; could c o n t r a d i c t the  God's  corroboration  c o n t r i b u t e d to the e x p l a n a t i o n o f the complementary n a t u r a l spiritual  design.  and n e i t h e r  one  other.  modes, b o t h o f w h i c h were f o u n d e d on s c i e n t i f i c e v i d e n c e .  demonstrated,  thought  The  two  telic  saw m i n d i n n a t u r e w h i c h , when e m p i r i c a l l y  t o o k h i m f r o m t h e w o r l d t o God.  Scripture,  which  c o u l d b e s c i e n t i f i c a l l y v a l i d a t e d when i t t o u c h e d o n n a t u r a l was t h e l i t e r a l  all  and  D a w s o n ' s f a i t h was a r a t i o n a l i z e d f a i t h w h i c h e x i s t e d i n  quality of his  in  purposeful  of d e s i g n which permeated  a n d h e was o v e r w h e l m e d b y t h e r a t i o n a l  which science provided  William  an e s s e n t i a l l y r a t i o n a l man who b e l i e v e d  He m a r v e l l e d a t t h e i m p r e s s  creation,  is  designer?  F o r some p e o p l e t h e w o r l d makes c o m p l e t e s e n s e ; S i r He was  God.  n a t u r e a n d c o n s t i t u t e d w h a t Dawson c o n -  s i d e r e d t o be e m p i r i c a l p r o o f o f G o d ' s  Dawson was o n e .  rise,  between,  and t h e  explicable only  of a benevolent,  How c o u l d b l i n d n a t u r e c r e a t e a n e y e ?  i n order to f l o a t ,  r e v e l a t i o n of God's  word.  subjects,  25  FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER I  " J . W. Dawson, F i f t y Years o f Work i n Canada (London: Ballantyne, Hanson § Co., 1901), p. 2. 2 The V i c t o r i a I n s t i t u t e or P h i l o s o p h i c a l Society o f Great B r i t a i n (n. p., n. d.), p. 1. 3 L e t t e r , G. Mathews to J . W. Dawson, March 4, 1894, M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , Archives, Dawson papers. 4 F. Baumer, R e l i g i o n and the Rise o f Scepticism (New Haven: Harcourt, Brace i> World, 1960), pp. 140ff. ^ J . W. Dawson and D. H. M'Vicar, Addresses of P r i n c i p a l Dawson and Rev. D. H. M'Vicar (Montreal: John L o v e l l , 1864), p. 5. ^ J . W. Dawson, The Seer o f Patmos and the Twentieth Century (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1898), p. 3. 7 William Paley, Natural Theology (London: J . Faulder, 1810), p. 40. g J . W. Dawson, "Natural H i s t o r y i n i t s Educational Aspect," American Journal of Education, I I I (1857), p. 428. 9 J . W. Dawson, "Points o f Contact Between Science and Revel a t i o n , " Pj^lii£ejtoji_^ev^w, s e r . 4, IV(1879), p. 606. 1 0  J . W. Dawson, Archaia (Montreal: B. Dawson, 1860), p. 61.  " ^ J . W. Dawson, Eden Lost and Won (London: Hodder § Stoughton, 1895), p. 6. 12 J. W. Dawson, Archaia, p. 361. 13 J . W. Dawson, O r i g i n o f the World (Montreal: Dawson Bros., 1877), p. 26. 14 J . W. Dawson, Modern Science i n B i b l e Lands (rev. ed.; London: Hodder § Stoughton, 1892), p. 110. ^ L . Wilson, Charles L y e l l (New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1972), p. 282. ^ J . W. Dawson, Archaia, p. 114.  26 17 Polygenism was the theory that maintained that mankind had descended from several p a i r s o f ancestors rather than from Adam and Eve alone. 18 J. W. Dawson, Archaia, preface, n. p. 19 I b i d . , p. 54. 20 I b i d . , p. 48. 21 J. W. Dawson, Nature and the B i b l e (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1882), p. 64. 22 L e t t e r , L y e l l to Dawson, Oct. 27, 1860, M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y Archives, Dawson papers. 23 J. W. Dawson, Archaia, p. 53. 24 By some point before 1886 t h i s scheme had become amended and enlarged i n t o s i x types. 25 An example of t h i s i s the s i m i l a r s k e l e t a l c o n s t r u c t i o n shared by the wing of a bat and the arm of a man. 26 J . W. Dawson, "Agassiz's Contributions to the Natural H i s t o r y of the United States," Canadian N a t u r a l i s t , 111(1858), p. 211. 27 I b i d . , p. 253. 28 ,., Ibid. T  27  CHAPTER I I THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION  Evolution was a d i r e c t challenge t o the heart o f Dawson's faith. for  The evolutionary speculations o f Darwin and h i s d i s c i p l e s ,  example, Huxley and Haeckel, assumed nature t o be random.  Spencer, the Lamarckian, argued that n a t u r a l e v i l made b e l i e f i n a designing God impossible.  The inherent naturalism o f e v o l u t i o n  removed God as an ordering and explanatory p r i n c i p l e i n biology. Dawson's r a t i o n a l i z e d f a i t h was based on science, and so e v o l u t i o n threatened the foundations o f h i s b e l i e f .  Randomness i n nature was  incompatible with b e l i e f i n a designing God, and naturalism meant that God was not needed to explain the development o f l i f e .  Evolution  clashed d i r e c t l y with Dawson's n a t u r a l theology and challenged h i s f a i t h i n the B i b l e because he saw Genesis as a type o f n a t u r a l theology. Dawson b a t t l e d evolution f o r the l a s t h a l f o f h i s l i f e and focused on the ideas o f four major e v o l u t i o n i s t s , who were e i t h e r agnostics or a t h e i s t s .  Darwin, from the p u b l i c a t i o n o f the O r i g i n  i n 1859, was c o n t i n u a l l y on Dawson's mind as the one who had grounded the development o f evolutionary thought.  Huxley was the object o f  Dawson's d i s d a i n from the e a r l y 1860's when he adopted the r o l e o f Darwin's p o p u l a r i z e r .  Spencer became an important f i g u r e f o r Dawson  by the e a r l y 1870's, a f t e r the p u b l i c a t i o n o f h i s i n f l u e n t i a l The P r i n c i p l e s o f Biology.  Haeckel completed the l i s t o f Dawson's  28 p r i n c i p a l foes when h i s works were f i r s t t r a n s l a t e d i n t o E n g l i s h i n the mid 1870's.  Dawson a l s o followed and c r i t i c i z e d the theories  of the major t h e i s t i c e v o l u t i o n i s t s such as Wallace, M i v a r t , and Le Conte.  But these men were o f l e s s s i g n i f i c a n c e t o him because they  d i d l i t t l e to strengthen the argument f o r e v o l u t i o n . This chapter explores the concepts o f naturalism and randomness held by the agnostic and a t h e i s t i c e v o l u t i o n i s t s i n the order i n which they came i n t o Dawson's view.  I t then describes the  attempts o f some t h e i s t s t o r e c o n c i l e r e l i g i o n and evolution. I t concludes with a discussion o f the a t t i t u d e s of the agnostics and a t h e i s t s toward r e l i g i o n .  I. Darwin Although there had been some notable exceptions, such as Lamarck, most men before Darwin believed that species were d i v i n e and immutable creations. were transmutable, inal  progenitors.  The O r i g i n (1859) contended that a l l species  and that they had a l l evolved from a few aborigI t was common s c i e n t i f i c knowledge that species  vary; Darwin argued that they were p l a s t i c .  He argued that they were  so p l a s t i c that any species could vary i n t o becoming a new one: that any species could evolve.  His r e a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , however, lay not so  much on t h i s point as i t did on h i s p r o v i s i o n of a n a t u r a l mechanism to explain how i t happened.  Evolution became the received s c i e n t i f i c  view because Darwin provided the mechanism o f " n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n " t o explain i t . Darwin took as h i s s t a r t i n g point the Malthusian tenet that nature i s a struggle f o r existence due t o the competition o f  29  geometrically increasing populations-for only a r i t h m e t i c a l l y increasing  food s u p p l i e s .  always g i v i n g way  Nature i s a scene o f b a t t l e w i t h the l e s s f i t  to the f i t t e s t .  Now,  given that species vary  i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y , i t i s bound t o happen o c c a s i o n a l l y t h a t a v a r i a t i o n a r i s e s which chances to b e n e f i t s u r v i v a l . v a r i a t i o n s promote l i f e ,  Because such  adaptive  the s p e c i e s o r i n d i v i d u a l s b e a r i n g them have  a g r e a t e r chance o f s u r v i v i n g , and  so the v a r i a t i o n s become s e l e c t e d .  Species chancing to v a r y a d a p t i v e l y w i l l ,  over the course o f  survive.  d i e out.  Species v a r y i n g non-adaptively,  y e a r s , and  i n the f a c e o f a c o n t i n u a l l y changing  time,  Over m i l l i o n s  environment,  s p e c i e s which c o n t i n u e to v a r y a d a p t i v e l y e v e n t u a l l y become new Much o f both the appeal and naturalism.  of  those species.  the t h r e a t o f the O r i g i n was i t s  I t a l l o w e d s c i e n t i s t s t o remove God  from b i o l o g y .  Darwin  worked i n the realm o f secondary  causes and r e f u s e d t o use the d i v i n e  mind as an e x p l a n a t o r y i d e a .  argued t h a t "such  He  e x p r e s s i o n s as  'plan o f c r e a t i o n , ' ' u n i t y o f d e s i g n , ' e t c . " were not  explanations  o f n a t u r e but o n l y v e i l s t o ignorance.'''  course,  repugnant to Dawson who O r i g i n he c r i t i c i z e d  T h i s was,  saw mind i n n a t u r e .  of  In h i s review  Darwin's n a t u r a l i s m as "a r u s h and  the  o f the  a leap i n t o  an  2 unknown and  fathomless  t h a t designed understand  abyss."  E v o l u t i o n d i d not e x p l a i n a n y t h i n g  c r e a t i o n c o u l d not.  I t was  an ambitious  nature w h i l e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y i g n o r i n g  attempt to  God.  Darwinism o f f e r e d an a l t e r n a t e n a t u r a l i s t i c e x p l a n a t i o n o f every k i n d o f d e s i g n which Dawson saw i n t e r n a l and of  in life.  e x t e r n a l a d a p t a t i o n s o f animals  God's b e n e f i c e n t - p l a n n i n g .  s e l e c t i o n o f chance  adaptive  Dawson saw  the  and p l a n t s as the  fine result  Darwin e x p l a i n e d them by the n a t u r a l variations.  Where the p r o g r e s s i v e  30 nature of the p a l a e o n t o l o g i c a l record was seen by Dawson as evidence of God's progressive plan. evolution.  Darwin took i t as d i r e c t evidence of  I f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n were seen as a science which discerned  God's order i n nature, Darwin explained t h i s order by genealogy:  "the  community of descent," he s a i d , " i s the hidden bond which n a t u r a l i s t s have been unconsciously seeking, and not some unknown plan of crea3  tion."  The s i m i l a r i t i e s of type, which Dawson took as an expression  of God's mind, were.regarded by Darwin as the inheritance shared by many species i n t h e i r d e r i v a t i o n from the same progenitors.  The  vertebrates had s i m i l a r skeletons not because they were expressions of God's vertebrate type, but because they were a l l descended from the same vertebrate source. Darwin would have threatened the n a t u r a l theologians had  he  only suggested that t h e i r evidences f o r design could be explained away, but the i m p l i c a t i o n s of h i s theory went even f u r t h e r . s e l e c t i o n i m p l i e d that nature was random:  Natural  that i t was without plan.  The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a species were not selected by God's b e n e f i cent forethought but were the chance adaptive v a r i a t i o n s that natural s e l e c t i o n had accumulated.  In the f i r s t e d i t i o n of the  O r i g i n Darwin protested that he had not introduced chance into nature, and that to l a b e l v a r i a t i o n s as chance-like was "a wholly 4  i n c o r r e c t expression."  He thought that v a r i a t i o n s might be r e f e r r e d  to as chance-like only because t h e i r causes were unknown, but that discovery of the causes would show them to be under the r u l e of law. But i t would appear that Darwin had missed the main'implication of h i s own argument.  Natural s e l e c t i o n d i d not imply randomness or  chance because the causes of v a r i a t i o n were unknown, but because  31  t h e r e was  no  individual. harmful.  c o o r d i n a t i o n between v a r i a t i o n and  the needs o f  In f a c t , most v a r i a t i o n s were u s e l e s s , and  Species  became what they were by p o t - l u c k .  c o u l d never a c c e p t , because v a r i a t i o n was  the  some were  But t h i s Dawson  never random f o r him,  but  always an i n d i c a t i o n o f "the wisdom o f the creator."*' In The V a r i a t i o n o f Animals and (1868), Darwin was f o r the t h e i s t . was  Domestication  more aware o f the i m p l i c a t i o n s h i s t h e o r y  He had  the " i n d e f i n i t e and  ences.^  P l a n t s Under  decided  t h a t , f o r the most p a r t , v a r i a t i o n  f l u c t u a t i n g " r e s u l t o f environmental  E v o l u t i o n stood m o s t l y on the n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n o f  v a r i a t i o n , and  held  influthis  Darwin c o u l d conclude h i s book w i t h the melancholy  words t h a t : I f we assume t h a t each p a r t i c u l a r v a r i a t i o n was from the b e g i n n i n g o f a l l time p r e o r d a i n e d , then t h a t p l a s t i c i t y o f o r g a n i z a t i o n , which leads t o many i n j u r i o u s d e v i a t i o n s o f s t r u c t u r e , as w e l l as the redundant power o f r e p r o d u c t i o n which i n i t i a l l y leads to a s t r u g g l e f o r e x i s t e n c e , and, as a consequence, t o the n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n or s u r v i v a l o f the f i t t e s t , must appear to us s u p e r f l u o u s laws o f n a t u r e . On the o t h e r hand, an omnipotent and o m n i s c i e n t C r e a t o r o r d a i n s e v e r y t h i n g and f o r e s e e s e v e r y t h i n g . Thus we are brought f a c e to f a c e w i t h a d i f f i c u l t y as i n s o l u b l e as t h a t o f f r e e w i l l and p r e d e s t i n a t i o n . 7 I f the f o r t u i t o u s v a r i a b i l i t y s i o n a l touch  o f m i l d a n x i e t y , h i s The  the t r o u b l e s o f many o t h e r s . t h a t man  had  of nature  gave Darwin an  Descent o f Man  (1871)  occa-  exacerbated  In t h i s r a t h e r clumsy book Darwin argued  descended, both p h y s i c a l l y and m e n t a l l y ,  "from a h a i r y ,  g t a i l e d quadruped."  Man  f o r t u i t o u s product  as was  o f God's p l a n .  was  presented  the r e s t o f l i f e ,  T h i s annoyed Dawson who  the r e s t o f c r e a t i o n , and S t o r y o f E a r t h and Man,  as the same k i n d  and by no means the acme  viewed man  as d i s t i n c t  as made i n the image o f God.  which was  of  p u b l i s h e d two  years  His  The  after  The  from  32  Descent, repeatedly attacked Darwin's contention: Shave and paint your ape as you may, clothe him and set him up upon h i s f e e t , s t i l l he f a i l s g r e a t l y of the "human form d i v i n e ; " and so i t i s with him morally and s p i r i t u a l l y as w e l l . We have seen that he wants the i n s t i n c t o f immortality, the love o f God, the mental and s p i r i t u a l power of e x e r c i s i n g dominion over the earth. The very agency by which he i s evolved i s o f i t s e l f subversive o f a l l these higher p r o p e r t i e s . ^ The Descent may have denied man "the 'human form d i v i n e , ' " but Darwin had a strong argument t o back up h i s case.  He used the  e s s e n t i a l s i m i l a r i t y of human anatomy with that of a l l other vertebrates as evidence f o r d e r i v a t i o n .  The p a r a l l e l i s m between the human  skeleton and that of the monkey, s e a l , or bat was due t o community of descent rather than God's plan.  The seeming r e c a p i t u l a t i o n of the  major d i v i s i o n s of the vertebrate province by the developing human embryo led Darwin t o conclude that the human fetus was the l i v i n g h i s t o r y o f man's evolutionary past.  Man a l s o , e v i d e n t l y , possesses  rudimentary souvenirs o f h i s ancestry.  He has, f o r example, a  caecum, which i s a branch of the i n t e s t i n e serving no purpose and ending " i n a cul-de-sac."*^  Darwin also contended that there was no  q u a l i t a t i v e mental g u l f between man and the other animals.  Why, even  dogs could form mental concepts, which Darwin had deduced from h i s observation that "when I say t o my t e r r i e r , i n an eager voice . . . 'Hi, h i , where i s i t ? ' she at once takes i t as a sign that something i s to be hunted."*'''  Even m o r a l i t y could be traced back t o the " s o c i a l 12  i n s t i n c t s " found i n lower mammals. Although The Descent embroiled man i n evolutionary  specula-  t i o n , i t retreated somewhat from the emphasis on n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n found i n the f i r s t e d i t i o n of the O r i g i n .  The mechanism o f n a t u r a l  s e l e c t i o n had come under some serious objections.  For example:  how  33 could i t s e l e c t the i n c i p i e n t stages of v a r i a t i o n s before they became useful?  Why  should minor v a r i a t i o n s not be swamped out of  when the i n d i v i d u a l s bearing them mated?  How  existence  could i t s e l e c t those  numerous c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of any species which provide no b e n e f i t i n the struggle f o r existence?  The Descent answered these questions by  s t r e s s i n g other mechanisms, along with n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n , which had been b r i e f l y passed over i n Darwin's previous works. tant of these was  sexual s e l e c t i o n , which meant that:  The most impor(1) i n the  struggle between males f o r females, the h e a l t h i e s t and strongest males win out, and accordingly have t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s selected i n t o the evolutionary process; (2) the h e a l t h i e s t females produce the most o f f s p r i n g , and thus also t i l t e v o l u t i o n ; (3) those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , such as sweet voices and s k i n colour, whereby animals sexually e x c i t e t h e i r mates, are also selected because the s e x u a l l y a t t r a c t i v e mate more frequently and with the h e a l t h i e r companions. Darwin also explained some other mechanisms, but he seemed vague as to t h e i r r e l a t i v e merits.  He stated "that the i n h e r i t e d  e f f e c t s of the long-continued use or disuse of parts w i l l have done 13 much," but he d i d not say how much.  He t a l k e d of c e r t a i n "unknown 14  causes," but he had no clue as to what they were.  I t was  apparent,  however, that n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n remained paramount f o r evolution that sexual s e l e c t i o n was  and  the most important determinator of char-  a c t e r i s t i c s unnecessary f o r s u r v i v a l . The s i x t h and f i n a l e d i t i o n of the O r i g i n (1872) also contained  these r e v i s i o n s .  In any event,  evolution s t i l l proceeded n a t u r a l i s t i c a l l y and, f o r the most part, through the s e l e c t i o n of f o r t u i t o u s v a r i a t i o n s . l o s t s i g h t of.  This, Dawson never  Despite the r e v i s i o n s he always associated Darwinism  34 with n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n , and n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n with naturalism and randomness.  II.  Huxley  Although i t was Darwin who had set the evolutionary b a l l r o l l i n g , i t was h i s j u n i o r , T. H. Huxley, who took n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n to the people.  Huxley was a c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s t who spent the l a t t e r  part of the 19th century m i s s i o n i z i n g the doctrine of e v o l u t i o n . Although he was a z o o l o g i s t of no mean standing, he s a c r i f i c e d much o f h i s own work to become the major propagandist f o r n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n . He also outdid Darwin i n h i s frank r e c o g n i t i o n o f the i m p l i c a t i o n s that n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n held f o r r e l i g i o n , and i n h i s w i l l i n g n e s s to proclaim them loud and wide.  N a t u r a l l y , Dawson kept i n touch with  Huxley's work from the 1860's on. Huxley welcomed the naturalism which Darwin had brought to biology and which he maintained would "lead us to a region free from the snares of those f a s c i n a t i n g but barren v i r g i n s , the f i n a l causes."* He made out Darwinism to be the culmination of the h i s t o r y of science, a h i s t o r y which was no other than the d e c l i n e of r e l i g i o u s ignorance and the r i s e of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge.  By the 1880's Darwinism had so  l i b e r a t e d him from teleology that he came a c t i v e l y to advocate agnosticism as the i n e v i t a b l e concomitant of science.  At t h i s point  Dawson s i n g l e d out Huxley f o r s p e c i a l treatment and attacked t h i s combination of naturalism and agnosticism, saying: "there must be some points o f a l l i a n c e between the C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n and the whole cosmos or arranged system of things, which must . . . same Divine Mind with C h r i s t i a n i t y i t s e l f . " * ^  be the product of the  35 While eagerly embracing Darwinian naturalism, Huxley a l s o sought to strengthen i t .  In 1863 h i s "Man's Place i n Nature" com-  pared man with the anthropoid apes and concluded that they were not far removed from each other.  C e r t a i n l y there were many large d i f f e r -  ences between man and the higher apes, but these were less than those between the higher and lower apes.  There was apparently no inherent  reason why man should be deemed d i s t i n c t from the r e s t o f the animal kingdom. ialism.  Later Huxley extended h i s n a t u r a l i s t i c bent toward materIn "On the P h y s i c a l Basis of L i f e " (1898) he denied the  existence of any v i t a l l i f e force.  Although he never committed himself  to p h i l o s o p h i c a l materialism, he favored m a t e r i a l i s t i c language and was prepared to consider man as a machine.  Dawson viewed Huxley as more  extreme than Darwin who "does not seem to have gone as f a r as absol u t e l y to i d e n t i f y the p h y s i c a l and the v i t a l i n the way that Huxley, 17 Tyndall, and others have done." Huxley accepted the randomness of evolution as q u i c k l y and f u l l y as he d i d the naturalism. method of t r i a l and error:  He explained Darwinism as a n a t u r a l  "According to Teleology, each organism i s  l i k e a r i f l e b u l l e t f i r e d s t r a i g h t at a mark; according to Darwin, organisms are l i k e grapeshot of which one h i t s something and the r e s t 18 f a l l wide."  Cats abounded because they were good at catching mice,  not because they had been designed to catch mice.  And Huxley lectured  a l l over England because he never t i r e d of t e l l i n g people that there was no teleology i n biology.  36 I I I . Spencer Herbert Spencer had come to the theory of e v o l u t i o n before Darwin, though he was, of course, l a t e r aided by Darwin's work. Spencer was a philosopher who wanted to create a complete and n a t u r a l i s t i c p i c t u r e of the universe.  Evolution was to be at the centre of  t h i s v i s i o n because i t permitted him to do without God. evolution because e v o l u t i o n eliminated miracle.  He adopted  Because Spencer had  expanded e v o l u t i o n i n t o a philosophy, at the s t a r t of h i s popular  cam  paign against e v o l u t i o n , i n 1873, Dawson viewed him as "the greatest 19 English a u t h o r i t y on e v o l u t i o n . " Spencer's F i r s t P r i n c i p l e s (1861) o u t l i n e d h i s a s s a u l t on a l l knowledge.  The knowable universe was to be examined as v a r i a t i o n s  upon an evolutionary theme.  E v o l u t i o n , or the passage of matter and  motion "from an i n d e f i n i t e , incoherent homogeneity to a d e f i n i t e and 20 coherent heterogeneity," founded everything.  The s o l a r system had  evolved from a homogeneous nebular mass i n t o a d i f f e r e n t i a t e d system of stars and planets.  Society had evolved from small groups of i n d i -  v i d u a l s i n t o complex nation states.  Even languages, the a r t s , and  science had emerged from humble beginnings i n t o complexity. Spencer's The P r i n c i p l e s of Biology ( v o l . I , 1865; v o l . I I , 1867) launched an a l l out attack on the doctrine of c r e a t i o n .  I t was  "a p r i m i t i v e hypothesis" which educated men had discarded along with 21 other s u p e r s t i t i o n s .  Deductively and s p e c u l a t i v e l y Spencer fashion  an evolutionary process to replace i t .  Evolution was, a f t e r a l l , a  more c r e d i b l e theory; i t was a s i n g l e p r i n c i p l e which coherently explained:  the n a t u r a l r e l a t i o n s of animals and p l a n t s ; embryonic  r e c a p i t u l a t i o n ; s i m i l a r i t y of type; and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of species  37 i n space and time. Spencer's theory of evolution was p r i m a r i l y Lamarckian.  He  contended that environmental change causes organisms to vary i n a d i r e c t i o n of greater complexity and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n .  When change  d e s t a b i l i z e s the balance between an organism and i t s surroundings, i t t r i g g e r s a chain of reactions i n the organism which are completed only upon the achievement of a new balance.  Over the course of time and  continuing environmental change, such v a r i a t i o n becomes s p e c i a t i o n and thus also evolution.  A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s process i s aided by the  " s u r v i v a l of the f i t t e s t : " i n d i v i d u a l s who f a i l to adapt to change d i e out and are removed from the genetic pool. Spencer's system was consciously n a t u r a l i s t i c .  Adaptations  were not r e f e r r e d to God f o r explanation as the adaptive response of organisms to environmental change seemed to solve the problem. Spencer's argument was weak. should vary  But  He had f a i l e d to show why an organism  adaptively- to environmental change.  His argument i s  l i t t l e more than a r a t i o n a l i z e d statement of b e l i e f i n the s u f f i c i e n c y of n a t u r a l causes.  Dawson noted t h i s , and observed that Spencer, as  opposed to Darwin, "often exaggerates or extenuates w i t h reference to his  f a c t s , and uses the a r t s o f the d i a l e c t i c i a n where argument f a i l s . " Spencer was f e r o c i o u s l y a n t a g o n i s t i c to the idea that some  d i v i n e plan might u n d e r l i e nature.  He thought i t b i z a r r e , f o r example,  that anyone should see design i n the t y p o l o g i c a l s i m i l a r i t i e s of species.  Why should God have designed a mammalian type i n which each  species has seven c e r v i c a l vertebrae, when the g i r a f f e could do with many more and the whale with less?  38 S h a l l we say that though, f o r the whale's neck, one vertebra would have been equally good, and though, f o r the g i r a f f e ' s neck, a dozen would probably have been b e t t e r than seven, yet seven was f i x e d upon f o r the mammalian type?23 Evolution could explain t h i s on the assumption of community of descent.  That there might be some c r e a t i v e plan to e x p l a i n i t  Spencer dismisses as absurd.  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n was obviously not to be  construed as a r e l i g i o u s exercise; i n f a c t , i t was merely a method 24 of arranging species i n order to " f a c i l i t a t e our t h i n k i n g . "  But  what Dawson could never understand was how Spencer's e v o l u t i o n could proceed so harmoniously without design.  Spencer assumed there to be  a p r i n c i p l e of progressive development i n nature, but Dawson contended 25 that without design nature could only be a sport of chance. Although Spencer's theory was as n a t u r a l i s t i c as that of Darwin and Huxley, i t lacked the element of randomness found i n t h e i r thought.  Spencer's environmentalism  provided f o r organisms to vary  adaptively to change; evolution did not depend on the s e l e c t i o n of chance v a r i a t i o n s .  On the other hand, Spencer considered nature to be  incompatible with b e l i e f i n a designing creator.  He maintained  that  n a t u r a l e v i l , so widespread i n nature, was i r r e c o n c i l a b l e with b e l i e f . How  could a designing God have created an earth which i s "a scene of 26  warfare between a l l sentient creatures?"  Why  should he have created  the myriad p a r a s i t e s which invade and derange the body? IV. Haeckel Ernst Haeckel, the z o o l o g i s t , was "the recognized spokesman of Darwinism i n Germany" and also a s c i e n t i s t of i n t e r n a t i o n a l s t a t u r e .  39 He had embraced Darwinism as the l i b e r a t o r of science from theology, as the s t a r t of a new age i n a n a t u r a l i s t i c universe.  Prolific in  w r i t i n g and l e c t u r i n g , Haeckel worked f o r the promulgation l u t i o n a r y naturalism and the demise of C h r i s t i a n i t y .  of evo-  A l l that e x i s t e d  was a monistic universe i n which matter and force were the products some p r i m o r d i a l n a t u r a l r e a l i t y .  Natural s e l e c t i o n had  of  disproved  t e l e o l o g y , and mechanical causes reigned supreme. Dawson was f a m i l i a r with at l e a s t two of Haeckel's books: The H i s t o r y of Creation ( f i r s t E n g l i s h e d i t i o n , 1876) and the E v o l u t i o n of Man  ( f i r s t English e d i t i o n , 1879).  In these books Haeckel t r i e d to  prove evolution and to destroy b e l i e f i n design.  His works assumed  the primary agency of n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n and focused on supplying evidence f o r evolution.  While Haeckel presented the usual arguments  for e v o l u t i o n , what i s p e c u l i a r to him i s the emphasis he placed on the evidence of rudimentary  organs and ontogenetic r e c a p i t u l a t i o n .  Haeckel created the name "dysteleology," or the "science of purposelessness"  f o r the study of rudimentary organs.  He b e l i e v e d  that e v o l u t i o n alone could e x p l a i n these organs, and that they were conclusive proof of the absence of design.  Why would a d i v i n e  designer provide h i s creatures with useless organs? impossible, a c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n terms. Man,  f o r example, has a rudimentary  I t was  blatantly  Yet rudimentary organs e x i s t .  and useless covering of h a i r .  This at once shows h i s ape inheritance and disproves the b e l i e f i n a designing creator. Haeckel's " f i r s t p r i n c i p l e of Biogeny" states that "the evolution of the germ (Ontogeny) i s a compressed and shortened  repro-  28 duction of the evolution of the t r i b e (Phylogeny)."  While other  40  e v o l u t i o n i s t s , i t i s true, used the argument from r e c a p i t u l a t i o n , i t was Haeckel who r e l i e d on i t most of a l l .  He reconstructed man's  h i s t o r y by extrapolating from ontogeny to phylogeny and back again. Because of the ontogenetic s i m i l a r i t y of human egg c e l l s with a l l other animals, he concluded that man had descended "from a one-celled 29  organism."  Because the developing human embryo seems to p a r a l l e l the  embryonic forms of other vertebrates, and even the A s c i d i a n s , Haeckel traced man's d e r i v a t i o n through the vertebrate phylogeny down to the worm.  This Dawson considered to be an untenable conclusion.  He  countered Haeckel by saying that the f a c t s of embryonic development have "long been known, arid . . . regarded as a wonderful evidence o f the homology or u n i t y of plan which pervades nature," rather than as evidence of evolution. Haeckel had a n a t u r a l i s t i c view of l i f e .  He had removed  miracle from nature by p l a c i n g the s t a r t of evolution i n a primordial spontaneous generation. He was so convinced that n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n could e x p l a i n evolution that he ignored t r y i n g to prove i t and spent his  time t r a c i n g the evolutionary paths o f various organs and species.  F i n a l causes had been eliminated; nature was a l l ; and there was no more room f o r a mind and matter dualism. Haeckel believed that: everywhere the phenomena of human l i f e , as w e l l as those of external nature are under the control of f i x e d and unalterable laws, that there i s everywhere a necessary causal connection between phenomena, and t h a t , accordingly, the whole knowable universe i s one undivided whole, a "monon."31 Dawson had no respect f o r Haeckel's views.  He accused Haeckel  of assuming most everything he claimed to have proved.  Haeckel's  spontaneous generation was not based on f a c t s , and only occurred when  41 he "waves h i s magic wand and simple masses of sarcode spring from 32 inorganic matter."  Haeckel assumed that man's moral and r a t i o n a l  nature l a y p o t e n t i a l l y i n the lower animals, and also that there was no mind apart from the b r a i n . Indeed: We must grant the monist a l l these postulates as pure matters o f f a i t h before he can begin h i s demonstration; and as none o f them are axiomatic t r u t h s , i t i s evident that so f a r he i s simply a b e l i e v e r i n the dogmas of a philosophic creed.33  V.  The T h e i s t i c E v o l u t i o n i s t s  A number of s c i e n t i s t s t r i e d to r e c o n c i l e evolution and r e l i gion i n a compromise which was u s u a l l y made at the l a t t e r ' s expense. A sampling o f three such men who were f a m i l i a r to Dawson w i l l provide the e s s e n t i a l s of t h i s p o s i t i o n . One o f the more famous o f these s c i e n t i s t s was A. R. Wallace, the co-discoverer with Darwin o f n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n , and a b i o l o g i s t whom Dawson considered to be "next to Darwin, . . . a leader among 34 English d e r i v a t i o n i s t s . " the question o f man.  Wallace was a Darwinian u n t i l i t came to  C e r t a i n l y man was a r e s u l t o f n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n  p h y s i c a l l y , but h i s moral and i n t e l l e c t u a l f a c u l t i e s were exempt from t h i s agency.  As e a r l y as 1864 Wallace was w r i t i n g that man's  more noble f a c u l t i e s l e d him to be s o c i a l and c h a r i t a b l e rather than 35 to be a f i e r c e competitor i n the struggle f o r existence.  The i n t e l -  l e c t u a l and moral f a c u l t i e s were obviously a product of s p i r i t u a l forces and not of brute n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n .  In f a c t , the universe  could be seen as no other than the w i l l o f one or more s p i r i t u a l beings.  42  Wallace l i v e d i n a s p i r i t u a l cosmos.  His "Creation by  Law"  (1867) maintained that evolution had been a process governed by laws such as those of the struggle f o r s u r v i v a l , heredity, and v a r i a t i o n . Surely t h i s was compatible with the b e l i e f i n a law-abiding  spiritual  creator who had so ordered h i s c r e a t i o n as to leave i t equipped with the power of adjusting to change, and of evolving?  By 1889 Wallace  had set f o r t h h i s t h e s i s that evolution had occurred i n three  stages,  the beginnings of which n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n could not e x p l a i n :  the  i n t r o d u c t i o n of v i t a l i t y i n t o the inorganic world; the i n t r o d u c t i o n of consciousness; and the i n t r o d u c t i o n of s p i r i t .  Evidently such con-  s i d e r a t i o n s l e d to the b e l i e f i n an unseen s p i r i t u a l realm "to which 37 the world of matter i s altogether  subordinate."  I t was a l l very w e l l f o r Wallace to point out some l i m i t a t i o n s to the agency of n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n , and to b r i n g s p i r i t back i n t o the world.  I t i s also understandable that he considered a l a w - l i k e evolu-  t i o n to be compatible with a law-abiding creator. solved the problem of randomness.  But Wallace had  not  Perhaps n a t u r a l i s t i c evolution  could not f u l l y explain l i f e , but Wallace had to do more than provide gaps f o r God. random, and how  Wallace never explained why  i t i s that v a r i a t i o n i s  t h i s might be compatible with a supposedly  law-abiding  creator. Another t h e i s t i c e v o l u t i o n i s t , the geologist Joseph Le Conte, saw evolution as a u n i v e r s a l cosmic law. accepted  Unlike Wallace he had  fully  the n a t u r a l i s t i c universe and managed to r e c o n c i l e i t with  b e l i e f by opting f o r pantheism.  C e r t a i n l y the world i s r u l e d exclu-  s i v e l y by n a t u r a l law, but t h i s world and i t s laws are none other than "the o b j e c t i f i e d modes . . .  of the mind of God,"  and  "science  43  i s the systematic knowledge of these d i v i n e thoughts and ways--a 38  r a t i o n a l system of n a t u r a l theology."  While t h i s may have been a l l  very w e l l i n rendering science and r e l i g i o n t h e o r e t i c a l l y compatible, i t would have made f o r a weak n a t u r a l theology.  Le Conte lacked any  f i r m e m p i r i c a l ground on which to base h i s f a i t h .  There was no inher-  ent reason why h i s n a t u r a l i s t i c universe should be p a n t h e i s t i c rather than m a t e r i a l i s t i c . Le Conte a l s o accepted n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n and yet found i t impossible to conceive of b i o l o g i c a l adaptations and order except "as 39  the r e s u l t of thought."  As with Wallace he had missed the sobering  assumption of randomness which n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n had introduced i n t o the world.  Le Conte explained how we only speak of v a r i a t i o n as random  due to our ignorance of i t s causes, that "of course, i t i s w e l l under40  stood that nothing i n Nature i s r e a l l y f o r t u i t o u s . " missed the p o i n t .  This completely  Natural s e l e c t i o n implied randomness, regardless of  the causes of v a r i a t i o n , because i t assumed that most v a r i a t i o n was not adaptive and sometimes even harmful.  I f v a r i a t i o n were not random  there would have been no need f o r a s e l e c t i n g mechanism. Dawson gave Le Conte's views a thorough a n a l y s i s and them wanting.  found  Le Conte's t h e s i s that evolution i s caused by some  force which God planted i n nature approached Spencer's hypothesis that things are s e l f created.  Le Conte had placed "himself at the mercy  of the agnostics who may say that the continuous e v o l u t i o n of things from one another by 'resident f o r c e ' requires no i n t e r v e n t i o n of a c r e a t i v e power." One of the more s i g n i f i c a n t t h e i s t i c e v o l u t i o n i s t s was also a major opponent of Darwin. St. George Mivart, who was at f i r s t a  44 Darwinian, l a t e r r e b e l l e d against n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n and randomness i n an attempt to make evolution and design compatible.  Mivart was a  devout C a t h o l i c whose s c i e n t i f i c work earned him a doctorate o f philosophy from Pius IX i n 1870, and whose modernism and t h e i s t i c theory o f e v o l u t i o n earned him an excommunication toward the end o f h i s life. his  Dawson was f a m i l i a r with Mivart, although he never attacked  theory of e v o l u t i o n d i r e c t l y .  Indeed, the only d i r e c t attack  Mivart received from Dawson was a censure of h i s moral b e l i e f s , which Dawson considered to be those "of a Romish theologian" rather "than of 42 a B i b l i c a l student or philosopher." Mivart's book On the Genesis of Species (1871) provided f o r an evolution i n which the agency of n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n was minimal. Natural s e l e c t i o n helped to remove monstrosities from nature, and i t hastened the e l i m i n a t i o n of species superseded by e v o l u t i o n ; but evolution proper proceeded i n a l a w - l i k e manner by the a c t i o n o f some 43 " i n t e r n a l power."  Mivart r e c o n c i l e d r e l i g i o n and science by sug-  gesting that evolution was r e a l l y only " d e r i v a t i v e c r e a t i o n , " or "the 44 Divine a c t i o n by and through n a t u r a l laws." Mivart's theory was l i t t l e more than a statement o f b e l i e f that God was s t i l l i n c o n t r o l of l i f e .  He had r a i s e d some serious  objections against n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n , such as the question o f how i t could s e l e c t the beginning stages of v a r i a t i o n s not yet u s e f u l . But i t was not s c i e n t i f i c a l l y convincing to o f f e r some unknown " i n t e r n a l power" i n i t s place.  A d d i t i o n a l l y , although Mivart's scheme was  compatible with b e l i e f i n design, i t lacked, as he admitted, any empirical proof f o r God.  45  VI.  The Agnostic and A t h e i s t i c E v o l u t i o n i s t s on Science and R e l i g i o n  The theory of evolution by n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n n a t u r a l i z e d biology by allowing i t to proceed without God as an ordering p r i n c i p l e . Its  acceptance showed a d e s i r e to remove providence from the world.  Weismann, the German Darwinian z o o l o g i s t , announced that e v o l u t i o n "influences our whole realm of thought," that i t means "nothing less 45  than the e l i m i n a t i o n of the miraculous from our knowledge of nature." I t i s true that some e v o l u t i o n i s t s , Darwin, f o r example, l e f t room f o r an o r i g i n a l c r e a t i o n , but many would have even removed God from t h i s , his  l a s t refuge. Spencer and Haeckel crossed the border between the  organic and inorganic by reducing biology to chemistry. T y n d a l l , who based h i s case on the theory of the conservation o f energy as w e l l as on e v o l u t i o n , saw i n matter "the promise and potency of a l l t e r r e s trial  life."  4 6  As God was removed from nature so a l s o d i d nature adopt a seemingly godless appearance.  Warfare, struggle, and famine became the  determining forces behind l i f e .  Man became a lonely f i g u r e i n a cold  universe, the chance product of a random process. He had l o s t h i s immortality and, f o r some, h i s n o b i l i t y .  Haeckel would even have  traced love "to i t s p r i m i t i v e source, to the power of a t t r a c t i o n 47  between two d i f f e r i n g c e l l s . "  I t appeared as though the court of  science had discovered that God was dead.  The melancholy words o f  George Romanes, w r i t t e n at a time when he had l o s t h i s f a i t h as a r e s u l t of e v o l u t i o n , describe the impact of such t h i n k i n g :  46 As I am f a r from able to agree w i t h those who a f f i r m that the t w i l i g h t doctrine of the "new f a i t h " i s a d e s i r a b l e s u b s t i t u t e f o r the waning splendour of "the o l d , " I am not ashamed to confess that with t h i s v i r t u a l negation of God the universe to me has l o s t i t s soul of l o v e l i n e s s ; and although from henceforth the precept to "work while i t i s day" w i l l doubtless but gain an i n t e n s i f i e d force from the t e r r i b l y i n t e n s i f i e d meaning of the words that "the night cometh when no man can work,"yet when at times I t h i n k , as at times I must, of the a p p a l l i n g contrast between the hallowed g l o r y of that creed which once was mine, and the lonely mystery of existence as I now f i n d i t , --at such times I s h a l l ever f e e l i t impossible to avoid the sharpest pang of which my nature i s s u s c e p t i b l e . And: There i s a dreadful t r u t h i n those words of Hamilton, -Philosophy having become a meditation, not merely of death, but of a n n i h i l a t i o n , the precept "know t h y s e l f " has become transformed i n t o the t e r r i f i c o r a c l e to Oedipus--"Mayest thou ne'er know the t r u t h of what thou art."48 Although e v o l u t i o n was heavy a r t i l l e r y i n the war on r e l i g i o n , Darwin himself was not a combatant. a low regard f o r r e l i g i o n .  I t i s c l e a r , however, that he had  In The Descent devotion i s explained as  something d i s t a n t l y approached i n "the deep love of a dog f o r h i s master, associated with complete submission, some f e a r , and perhaps 49 other f e e l i n g s . "  I t i s perhaps not without a measure of t r u t h that  Dawson claimed Darwin's autobiography  revealed a man "paralysed by a  s p i r i t u a l atrophy, blinded and shut up i n p r i s o n and chained to the m i l l of a m a t e r i a l i s t i c philosophy. Huxley, on the other hand, was a very vocal agnostic. only f a i t h was i n the s c i e n t i f i c method which, he concluded, rendered the b e l i e f s of C h r i s t i a n i t y h i g h l y improbable. of science was, Christianity.  His  had  The h i s t o r y  a f t e r a l l , the h i s t o r y of i t s v i c t o r i o u s b a t t l e s over Nature shows no trace of God, and "extinguished theolo-  gians l i e about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules.""'*  And yet Huxley d i d not appear o v e r l y  47 eager to embrace the surrogate r e l i g i o n o f evolutionary science, f o r he had r e b e l l e d against the b e l i e f that evolutionary thought might t e l l us how to l i v e our l i v e s .  In h i s Romanes lectures of 1893 he  t a l k e d o f how " s o c i a l progress means a checking of the cosmic 52 process at every step."  Evolution did not l e g i t i m a t e s o c i a l Dar-  winism. We have seen that Huxley regarded Darwinism as the death of n a t u r a l theology.  He also propagated the view that science had d i s -  proved, or rendered improbable, much of the B i b l e . palaeontology  Evolution and  had confuted the Genesis cosmogony, or as Huxley once 53  c a l l e d i t , "the M i l t o n i c hypothesis." shown the Noachic deluge to be f a n c i f u l .  U n i f o r m i t a r i a n geology had The c r e d i b i l i t y of the New  Testament was severely s t r a i n e d due t o i t s u n s c i e n t i f i c demonology and miracles.  Obviously  science would be wise to pursue i t s work  without the counsel of r e v e l a t i o n : Wherever b i b l i o l a t r y has p r e v a i l e d , b i g o t r y and c r u e l t y have accompanied i t . I t l i e s at the root o f the deepseated, sometimes disguised, but never absent, antagonism of a l l the v a r i e t i e s o f e c c l e s i a s t i c i s m t o the freedom o f thought and to the s p i r i t o f s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n . ^ 4 Spencer was also an agnostic, but o f a more elaborate s o r t , f o r Spencer was an agnostic who wanted t o r e c o n c i l e r e l i g i o n and science.  He maintained that there was a r e l i g i o u s sentiment i n man,  an " u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d substance o f consciousness," or "a sense of that which e x i s t s p e r s i s t e n t l y and independent o f c o n d i t i o n s . " ^ Beneath the dogma and theology of every r e l i g i o n l i e s t h i s common appreciation that there i s an " u t t e r l y i n s c r u t a b l e " power behind the universe."'  6  This i s the essence o f r e l i g i o n , a f e e l i n g f o r the  "unknowable;" r e l i g i o n deals with that which i s beyond thought and experience.  48  Science, on the other hand, " i s simply a higher development  57 of common knowledge."  I t has the whole realm o f the "knowable" to  i t s e l f , and a monopoly on thought and experience.  Man i s a f i n i t e  creature trapped i n a conceptually f i n i t e world i n r e l a t i o n to which the unknowable i n f i n i t e can not be conceived. definition,  His universe i s , by  scientific.  The b a t t l e s between science and r e l i g i o n are due to the infringement which e i t h e r party o c c a s i o n a l l y makes on the other's domain.  Sometimes science attempts to understand the absolute and  moves i n on r e l i g i o n i n a f u t i l e attempt to know the unknowable. For the most p a r t , however, r e l i g i o n i s the g u i l t y party i n i t s equally f u t i l e attempt to t a l k of the i n f i n i t e i n terms o f the f i n i t e .  The  s o l u t i o n i s a more humble science and a r e l i g i o n which e i t h e r i s s i l e n t o r admits that i t s b e l i e f s and d i c t a are meaningless. and science are r e c o n c i l e d because they are separate. found unacceptable.  Religion  T h i s , Dawson  He accused Spencerianism of doing "more to degrade  the human reason and cut i t o f f from a l l communion with anything beyond mere matter and f o r c e , than does any other form o f philosophy."^ Haeckel a l s o wanted to separate r e l i g i o n and science, but f o r the reason that he b e l i e v e d r e l i g i o n to be s u p e r s t i t i o u s nonsense. was a combatant f o r the a t h e i s t i c r e l i g i o n of science.  Haeckel saw  a universe devoid of design and purpose, a universe completely r u l e d by the juggernaut of mechanical causes and n a t u r a l law. The advent of Darwinism was the death of God.  Natural theology had been f e l l e d  by the forces o f naturalism and dysteleology. wounded by Copernicus, was d i r e c t l y  Genesis, already  refuted by e v o l u t i o n . Man was  f i n a l l y free from the "anthropocenrtic e r r o r , " or the b e l i e f that he  He  49  " i s the premeditated  aim of the c r e a t i o n of the earth."  59  To replace C h r i s t i a n i t y came the monistic r e l i g i o n o f science: "the sublime, p a n t h e i s t i c idea of the Unity of God and Nature." ^ 6  A  church i n i t s e l f , monism came complete with a pantheon containing such notables as Democritus, "the immortal founder of the Atomic theory," and Bruno, "the great martyr of the monistic theory." ''' 6  would now  lead man  and progress.  Science  i n t o a b r i g h t future of freedom, m o r a l i t y , c u l t u r e ,  Darwin had removed mind from nature, and man was  able eagerly to embrace the new t r u t h : space and time; God i s dead; man  finally  the universe i s i n f i n i t e i n  i s mortal; m o r a l i t y i s enlightened  s e l f - i n t e r e s t ; n a t u r a l i s t i c r e a l i s m replaces C h r i s t i a n idealism. Dawson was h o r r i f i e d by such ideas, and concluded that i f l i f e were worth l i v i n g i n the universe Haeckel described: then i t must be f o r the immediate and s e l f i s h g r a t i f i c a t i o n of our desires and passions; and since we are deprived of God and conscience, and r i g h t and wrong, and future reward or punishment, there can be nothing l e f t f o r us but to rend and f i g h t with our fellows . . . that we may reach such happiness as may be p o s s i b l e f o r us i n such an existence, ere we d r i f t i n t o nonentity.62  50  FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER I I  *C. Darwin, On the O r i g i n o f Species (Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1859), p. 482. 2 J . W. Dawson, "Review of 'Darwin On the O r i g i n of Species by Means of Natural S e l e c t i o n , ' " Canadian N a t u r a l i s t , V ( A p r i l , 1860), p. 100. 3 C. Darwin, O r i g i n , p. 420. I b i d . , p. 131.  4  ^ J . W. Dawson, "Review of Darwin," p. 115. C. Darwin, The V a r i a t i o n of Animals and Plants Under Domestication (2nd ed.; New York: D. Appleton § Co., 1896), v o l . I I , p. 345. 7  I b i d . , v o l . I I , p. 428.  \  8 C. Darwin, The Descent of Man (2nd ed. rev.; New York: J . A. H i l l $ Co., 1904), v o l . I I , p. 315. 9 J . W. Dawson, The Story of Earth and Man (London: Hodder § Stoughton, 1873), p. 395^ *^C. Darwin, The Descent of Man, v o l . I , p. 20. 1 ]  T b i d . , v o l . I , p. 83.  1 2  I b i d . , v o l . I , p. 120.  1 3  I b i d . , v o l . I I , p. 314. Ibid.  York:  *^T. H. Huxley, "The Darwinian Hypothesis," Darwiniana (New D. Appleton § Co., 1897), p. 21. 16 J . W. Dawson, The Natural and the S p i r i t u a l (n. p., 1895),  pp. 2f. 17 J . W. Dawson, Nature and the B i b l e (New York: £ Bros., 1882), p. 133.  Robert Carter  51 18 T. H. Huxley, " C r i t i c i s m s on The O r i g i n o f Species,"' Darwiniana, p. 84. 19 J . W. Dawson, The Story o f Earth and Man, p. 321. 20 H. Spencer, F i r s t P r i n c i p l e s (3rd ed.; London: Williams and Norgate, 1875), p. 396. 21 H. Spencer, The P r i n c i p l e s o f Biology (London: Williams and Norgate, 1865), v o l . I , p. 334. 22 J . W. Dawson, The Story o f Earth and Man, p. 330. 23 H. Spencer, The P r i n c i p l e s o f Biology, v o l . I , p. 309. 24 I b i d . , p. 59. 25 See J . W. Dawson, The Story o f Earth and Man, p. 325; and J. W. Dawson, Facts and Fancies i n Modern Science ( P h i l a d e l p h i a : American B a p t i s t P u b l i c a t i o n Society, 1882), pp. 89f. 26 H. Spencer, The P r i n c i p l e s o f Biology, p. 340. 27 D. Gasman, The S c i e n t i f i c Origins o f National S o c i a l i s m (London: Macdonald, 1971), p. x x i i . 28 E. Haeckel, The Evolution o f Man (3rd ed.; New York: D. Appleton § Co., 1886), v o l . I , p. 12. 2 9  I b i d . , p. 140.  30 J . W. Dawson, Facts and Fancies, p. 70. 31 E. Haeckel, Evolution o f Man, v o l . I I , p. 455. 32 J . W. Dawson, The Dawn of L i f e (Montreal: Dawson Bros., 1875), p. 218. 33 J . W. Dawson, "Haeckel on the Evolution of Man," Princeton Review, V (1880), pp. 446f. 3 4  J . W. Dawson, The Story o f Earth and Man, p. 368.  35 A. R. Wallace, "The Development o f Human Races Under the Law of Natural S e l e c t i o n , " Contributions to the Theory o f Natural Select i o n (London: Macmillan § Co., 1870), passim. 36 A. R. Wallace, Darwinism (2nd ed.; London: Macmillan & Co., 1889), pp. 474f. 3 7  I b i d . , p. 476.  38 J . Le Conte, Evolution and i t s R e l a t i o n t o R e l i g i o u s Thought (New York: D. Appleton £ Co., 1888), p. 284; p. 283.  52 39  I b i d . , p. 323.  °Ibid., p. 79. 41 J . W. Dawson, Modern Ideas o f Evolution (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1890), p. 166. 42 J. W. Dawson, The Story o f Earth and Man, p. 387. 43 St. George Mivart, On the Genesis o f Species (New York: D. Appleton § Co., 1871), p. 243. 44 I b i d . , p. 278. 45 A. Weismann, The Evolutionary Theory (trans, from 2nd German ed. by J . A. Thomson; London: Edward Arnold, 1904), v o l . I , p. 6. 46 J . Tyndall, "Address of John T y n d a l l , " Report of the B r i t i s h A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Advancement o f Science (1874), p. x c i i . 47 E. Haeckel, The Evolution o f Man, v o l . I I , p. 393. 48 G. Romanes, Thoughts on R e l i g i o n (4th ed., ed. by C. Gore; Chicago: Open Court, 1898), p. 29. 49 C. Darwin, The Descent o f Man, v o l . I , p. 96. ^ J . W. Dawson, Modern Ideas of E v o l u t i o n , p. 12. 4  ^ T . H. Huxley, "The O r i g i n of Species," Darwiniana, p. 52. 52 T. H. Huxley, "Evolution and E t h i c s , " Evolution and Ethics and Other Essays (London: Macmillan § Co., 1895), p. 81. 53 T. H. Huxley, "Lectures on Evolution," Science and Hebrew T r a d i t i o n (London: Macmillan § Co., 1893), p. 66. 54 T. H. Huxley, Science and Hebrew T r a d i t i o n , pp. i x f . ^ H . Spencer, F i r s t P r i n c i p l e s , p. 96. 5 6  I b i d . , p. 46.  5 7  I b i d . , p. 18.  58 J . W. Dawson, Facts and Fancies, p. 20. 59 E. Haeckel, H i s t o r y of Creation (trans, from 8th German ed. by Schmitz § Lankester; New York: D. Appleton § Co., 1903), v o l . I , p. 40. ^ I b i d . , v o l . I , p. 72. 6(  6  * J . W. Dawson, Facts and Fancies, p. 100.  53  CHAPTER I I I THE MAJOR PROBLEMS DAWSON SAW IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION  Although Dawson subjected the O r i g i n to a lengthy review when i t f i r s t came out, i n i t i a l l y he was not very a g i t a t e d by i t .  During  the 1860's he wrote l i t t l e on e v o l u t i o n and appears to have become s e r i o u s l y aroused by the spread of evolutionary thought only toward the end o f the decade.  In 1869 he wrote a s c i e n t i f i c a p p r a i s a l o f  "Modern Ideas of D e r i v a t i o n , " and i n 1873 he launched h i s popular campaign against e v o l u t i o n with The Story of Earth and Man. The next 26 years brought a flood of books, a r t i c l e s , and l e c t u r e s . Evolution by n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n challenged the foundations of Dawson's f a i t h .  The randomness inherent i n Darwinism was the major  threat, because i t was completely a n t a g o n i s t i c to b e l i e f i n the designing God. The naturalism inherent i n e v o l u t i o n was the second threat, because i t removed the n a t u r a l evidences of design and made nature capable o f producing l i f e without d i v i n e help.  Randomness and  naturalism were incompatible with Dawson's n a t u r a l theology.  They  were also incompatible with h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the Genesis c r e a t i o n n a r r a t i v e because he read i t as a type of n a t u r a l theology.  This  chapter explores the problems of randomness and naturalism which evolution presented to Dawson's f a i t h .  I t also places h i s perception  of these problems into the Canadian context of thought on the same issues.  54 I. Natural S e l e c t i o n and Design The n a t u r a l evidence of ultimacy, adaptation, and order l e d Dawson from nature to God.  He saw design i n nature with such  immediacy that i t was impossible f o r him to accept any theory which made out nature to be random.  From the l a s t h a l f of the 1860's when  he began to r e a l i z e that the idea of n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n implied p r e c i s e l y t h i s , he also decided i t was a t h e i s t i c .  Because Dawson  believed there could be no cosmos without God, and not even a h i n t of chaos with him, he could not have accepted Darwinism and his  maintained  faith. With the opening of h i s popular campaign against evolution i n  1873, Dawson presented the controversy as at root a debate over whether or not there was design i n nature: was a God.  over whether or not there  Was one to hold, with Democritus, that a chaos of atoms  could produce a- cosmos; or to hold that a cosmos must be designed? Darwinism led i n e l u c t a b l y to the former p o s i t i o n .  But because Dawson  saw the controversy as centering on the question of design, he had u n f a i r l y reduced the Darwinian p o s i t i o n to one which maintained development of l i f e to be a t o t a l l y random a f f a i r . his  the  For example, i n  popular book O r i g i n of the World, he admonished that: when e v o l u t i o n i s t s , i n t h e i r zeal to get r i d of c r e a t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n , trace a l l things to the i n t e r a c t i o n of insensate causes, they f a l l i n t o the absurdity of b e l i e v i n g i n absolute unmitigated chance as the cause of perfect order.^  This was inaccurate, however, f o r Darwinian randomness was always mitigated by law. This dichotomy between chance evolution and designed c r e a t i o n became somewhat ambiguous when Dawson considered the t h e i s t i c  55 evolutionists.  In 1873 he maintained that evolution was incompatible  with theism because evolution excludes "the idea of plan and design"  2 and resolves " a l l things i n t o the a c t i o n of u n i n t e l l i g e n t f o r c e s . " Later he o c c a s i o n a l l y was w i l l i n g to admit t h e i s t i c evolution as " e s s e n t i a l l y d i s t i n c t from Darwinism o r Neo-Lamarkianism," because 3 " i t n e c e s s a r i l y admits design and f i n a l causes."  Yet he could never  forget f o r long that i t was p r e c i s e l y Darwinism which had made evolutionary thought c r e d i b l e and that there was an "incongruity between the methods supposed by evolution  and the p r i n c i p l e s o f  design, f i n a l i t y , and e t h i c a l p u r i t y inseparable from a true and elevating r e l i g i o n . "  4  Aside from t h i s confusion on t h e i s t i c e v o l u t i o n , Dawson's p o s i t i o n on n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n and design was unchanging. two options. completely  There were  E i t h e r one could accept Darwinism, and b e l i e v e i n the  absurd universe; or one could r e j e c t Darwinism, and b e l i e v e  i n the completely  designed universe.  Natural s e l e c t i o n was incompatible  with b e l i e f i n God, and t h i s was the major reason why Dawson r e j e c t e d evolution.  In h i s b e l i e f i n design, Dawson came at the end of the natural theology t r a d i t i o n i n Canada. .Paleyism was moderately  represented  among Canadian i n t e l l e c t u a l s before Darwin, and i n e v i t a b l y l e d to a r e j e c t i o n o f Darwin, but i t d i d not survive him. Dawson was correct i n arguing that i t would be impossible to accept n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n , and yet b e l i e v e i n the d i v i n e designer. There were f i v e s i g n i f i c a n t Canadian p r o s e l y t i z e r s o f the  56 b e l i e f i n design who preceded the impact of Darwinism.  Henry Taylor  ( f l . 1770-1860), the Quebec author, was the f i r s t with h i s An Attempt to Form a System of the Creation (1836) which aimed both to prove design as w e l l as to r e c o n c i l e Genesis and uniformitarianism.  He  saw design i n the order and adaptations i n nature, and one of h i s major examples of t h i s , i r o n i c a l l y , was the v a r i a t i o n i n species which guaranteed that no two i n d i v i d u a l s would be a l i k e , and showed "a master and designing hand to have d i r e c t e d t h e i r formation."^ Doubtless, had he l i v e d long enough, Taylor would have found Darwin's ideas on v a r i a t i o n a s p e c i a l challenge. Thomas T r o t t e r (17817-1855), the Presbyterian pastor of Antigonish, also wanted to r e c o n c i l e Genesis and geology as w e l l as to show the mind behind nature.  His popular s t y l e d A T r e a t i s e on  Geology (1845) found God's i n t e l l i g e n t providence i n the h i s t o r y of the earth.  He argued that the succession of g e o l o g i c a l periods was  the unfolding of God's benevolent plan.  For example, he saw d i v i n e  purpose i n the carboniferous period which had l a s t e d j u s t long enough to provide man with the r i g h t amounts of c o a l , i r o n , and lime f o r h i s industries. But n a t u r a l theology only came i n t o i t s own i n Canada with the Elements of Natural Theology (1850), by James Beaven (1801-1875), which was concerned only with the question of design, and passed by the problem of r e c o n c i l i n g God's word with h i s work.  Beaven, an  Anglican clergyman and scholar, was professor of d i v i n i t y at King's College, Toronto, from 1843 u n t i l 1849 when he accepted the c h a i r of metaphysics at the U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto.  He wrote the Elements  as a d i d a c t i c book which aimed to r e l i e v e the b e l i e v e r of h i s  57 occasional doubts, and to convert the a t h e i s t i f h i s mind were not t o t a l l y warped. Beaven was very much l i k e Dawson.  They both assumed, as  Beaven stated i t , that "contrivance must have a c o n t r i v e r ; design must have a designer."  6  And they both thought that t h i s contrivance and  design was r e a d i l y apparent i n nature.  Beaven found h i s p r i n c i p a l  evidence i n the order and adaptations o f biology and astronomy. For example, he saw God's purposive mind i n such structures as "the teeth and s a l i v a , admirably adapted f o r preparing the food before i t 7 enters the stomach."  He a l s o , as with Dawson, believed there was  a u n i f i e d plan i n nature, which he could t e l l from the f a c t that everything was adapted to some end. Outlines of Natural Theology (1859) by James Bovell (18171880) was s i m i l a r i n i t s views but d i f f e r e n t i n approach. taught n a t u r a l theology at T r i n i t y College,  B o v e l l , who  Toronto, shared Dawson's  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the f o s s i l record as progressive; and so he argued for design from the coordinated progression o f l i f e and i t s environment during the h i s t o r y of the earth. William L e i t c h (1814-1864), who was p r i n c i p a l o f Queen's U n i v e r s i t y , took the argument f o r design t o astronomy.  H i s God's  Glory i n the Heavens (1862) was a d i d a c t i c e x p o s i t i o n of the 'design which he discovered i n the arrangement and structures o f the planets and stars.  For example, he found a pattern on the moon i n the "endless  r e p e t i t i o n s of the t y p i c a l c r a t e r . w i t h the c e n t r a l cone."  He also  found purpose i n the universe, which could be evinced i n such as the moon's e f f e c t o f r a i s i n g and lowering the t i d e s of the earth. Although h i s book came out s h o r t l y a f t e r the O r i g i n , L e i t c h  58 had avoided i t s impact.  A f t e r Darwin the major problem f o r the n a t u r a l  theologians s h i f t e d from that o f demonstrating the plan o f c r e a t i o n , to that o f answering the challenge of randomness.  Before Darwin i t  was r e l a t i v e l y easy t o assume that the universe had to have been designed, p r e c i s e l y because the only a l t e r n a t e explanation f o r i t was chance, which could be immediately dismissed as r i d i c u l o u s .  With  Darwin the idea of randomness received s c i e n t i f i c c r e d i b i l i t y .  A  sample o f 19th century Canadian r e a c t i o n s t o the problem of randomness w i l l show t h i s issue to be a s i g n i f i c a n t one which Dawson was not alone i n facing. There were those who, l i k e Dawson, found Darwinism to be t o t a l l y antagonistic t o b e l i e f i n the divine designer.  William Hincks  (1794-1871), the brother o f S i r Francis Hincks and professor o f natural h i s t o r y at U n i v e r s i t y College, Toronto, elaborated on t h i s issue i n h i s p r e s i d e n t i a l address to the Canadian I n s t i t u t e , i n 1870. And he confessed that: i f my reason compelled me to adopt the Darwinian hypothesis, i t s opposition, as I understand i t , t o cherished and valued sentiments respecting c r e a t i v e wisdom and goodness, and a perfect d i v i n e plan i n nature, would cause me great pain.9 A f r i e n d o f Dawson, James Carmichael, who was dean of Montreal and a colleague of Dawson i n the Natural H i s t o r y S o c i e t y , shared Hinck's horror of Darwinism.  Carmichael, who seems t o have gained  most of h i s views on Darwinism from Dawson, wrote two pamphlets i n defense o f design:  Design and Darwinism  (1880), and Why Some F a i r l y  I n t e l l i g e n t Persons Do Not Endorse the Hypothesis o f E v o l u t i o n (1898) . He aimed t o make evident t o the naive that Darwinism was incompatible with design and thus untenable.  He argued that i t was:  59 a s e r i e s of hypothetical assumptions, which, sometimes speaking i n the dogmatic language of ascertained f a c t , has b o l d l y endeavoured to elevate the working of Disguised Accident i n t o the p o s i t i o n so long held by Divine Design.10 There were some t h i n k e r s , however, who d i d not share t h i s Dawsonian dichotomy of having to p i c t u r e the universe e i t h e r as a godless chaos or as a designed cosmos.  For example, Goldwin Smith  (1823-1910), the Toronto j o u r n a l i s t and h i s t o r i a n who was also an acquaintance of Dawson, accepted Darwinism and hoped f o r i t to be r e c o n c i l e d with r e l i g i o n .  He r e a l i z e d the a t h e i s t i c i m p l i c a t i o n s of  "the apparent evidences of the absence of design, waste and miscarriage i n the heavens and the earth, purposeless havoc and the e x t i n c t i o n o f races," but warned against leaping i n t o materialism."^  Smith hoped  that somehow randomness would be found to be incompatible only with the t r a d i t i o n a l dogma and s u p e r s t i t i o n s , and not with the essence of f a i t h which underlay them.  He was unable, however, convincingly to  show how t h i s might be the case. Where Smith only hoped f o r a s o l u t i o n to the problem of randomness, John Watson (1847-1939), the i d e a l i s t philosopher at Queen's U n i v e r s i t y , managed to carry i t out.  Instead of regarding  v a r i a t i o n as an accidental process which produced some good and some bad, Watson presented i t as a process which produced only d i f f e r i n g degrees of good.  Because v a r i a t i o n was always good, Watson could  conclude that l i f e was i n f a c t coordinated with i t s environment by mind rather than by chance.  Watson's only d i f f i c u l t y was that he  lacked any s c i e n t i f i c evidence to substantiate h i s claim. In sum, b e l i e f i n the divine designer had a h i s t o r y i n Canada before Darwin, and was severely challenged by him.  Dawson, as a  60 p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h i s t r a d i t i o n , shared with many others the perception of Darwinian randomness as a s i g n i f i c a n t threat to t h i s b e l i e f .  How  widespread t h i s perception was, however, i s d i f f i c u l t to say; but the four thinkers sampled here echo a common sentiment found i n the c o l l e g e s , s c i e n t i f i c s o c i e t i e s , and j o u r n a l s .  I I . Naturalism and Natural Theology Evolutionary naturalism would have doomed Dawson's n a t u r a l theology by removing the e m p i r i c a l evidence for. design. unacceptable  This  was  to him because h i s f a i t h was based as much on nature as  i t was on the B i b l e .  Dawson held that science and r e l i g i o n could be  r e c o n c i l e d ; Spencer and the Darwinians claimed that nature showed no trace of God.  Consequently, Dawson perceived t h e i r theories as  mad attempts to go beyond sound induction and to eliminate God from science.  From 1873 u n t i l h i s death Dawson repeatedly expounded on  how there were l i m i t s to science and how i t was that man know God.  could  He wanted to e s t a b l i s h C h r i s t i a n i t y as the metaphysics  of modern science.  He saw the main opposition to t h i s goal coming  from Spencer, Haeckel, and Huxley.  I t was Darwin who had n a t u r a l -  i z e d biology, but i t was these men who extended Darwinism to agnosticism or atheism. Dawson's p o s i t i o n on the r e l a t i o n of science and r e l i g i o n was constant throughout h i s career.  Science was s t r i c t l y i n d u c t i v e .  I t could discover laws and e x p l a i n the a c t i o n of e f f i c i e n t c a u s a l i t y , but the f i n a l explanation of the ultimacy, order, and which i t discovered,was r e l i g i o u s .  adaptations  Whether addressing a s c i e n t i f i c  61 or a popular audience, Dawson was adamant on t h i s p o i n t .  As p r e s i -  dent o f the B r i t i s h A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Advancement of Science he warned h i s peers that evolutionary speculation was bringing science into contact "with those great and awful questions of the ultimate destiny of humanity, and o f i t s r e l a t i o n s to i t s Creator," and that: In entering on such questions, we should proceed with caution and reverence, f e e l i n g that we are on holy ground; and that though, l i k e Moses o f o l d , we may be armed with a l l the l e a r n i n g o f our time, we are i n the presence of that which, while i t burns, i s not consumed; a mystery which n e i t h e r observation, experiment, nor induction can ever f u l l y solve.12 S i m i l a r l y , i n 1881, while l e c t u r i n g the students of Crozer Theol o g i c a l Seminary on the views of Spencer and Haeckel, Dawson admonished that: t h i s borderland between science and r e l i g i o n i s one which men cannot be prevented from entering; but what they may f i n d t h e r e i n depends very much on themselves. Under wise guidance i t may prove to us an Eden, the very gate of Heaven, . . . But on the other hand, i t may be found to be a b a t t l e f i e l d or a bedlam, a place of confused c r i e s and incoherent ravings, and strewn with the wrecks o f human hopes and aspirations.13 -At the s t a r t of h i s popular campaign against e v o l u t i o n , i n 1873,  Dawson considered Spencer to be h i s prime enemy. He was  reacting t o The P r i n c i p l e s of Biology which had replaced C h r i s t i a n i t y with an evolutionary metaphysics and had relegated r e l i g i o n to the realm of the unknowable.  I f we followed Spencer, he contended, we  would have to "hold that God i s 'unknowable, and c r e a t i o n 1  'unthink-  able,'" with the r e s u l t that "we are l e f t suspended on nothing over a bottomless v o i d . "  1 4  Huxley's Lay Sermons (1870) also came i n f o r  some abuse when they argued that r e l i g i o n was beyond the realm o f nature and knowledge, and that science proceeded best by l i m i t i n g  62 i t s e l f to m a t e r i a l i s t i c terminology. By 1880 Haeckel had become as dreaded an opponent as Spencer. The Evolution of Man had been t r a n s l a t e d i n t o English i n 1879, and Dawson subjected i t to a lengthy c r i t i c i s m the f o l l o w i n g year.  He  described Haeckel's monism as "a sort of a t h e i s t i c monotheism," which l e d "to a c o l d , mechanical, and unsympathetic view of man and nature." *' 1  Dawson countered Haeckel with both a c r i t i c a l  scientific  attack and also an attempt to show the f u t i l i t y of h i s a t h e i s t i c mechanical view of nature. He argued that even i f l i f e were but a machine, such a machine could not e x i s t without design: "The homely argument which Paley derived from the structure of a watch" would s t i l l "be f a t a l . "  1 6  Spencer and Haeckel remained Dawson's two p r i n c i p l e targets throughout the 1880's.  These two men had elaborated evolution i n t o  n a t u r a l i s t i c philosophies which Dawson found h o r r i f i c .  He c l e a r l y  regarded the r e l i g i o n of science as more t r y i n g than the science which ignored r e l i g i o n .  The p u b l i c a t i o n o f Spencer's The Data of  E t h i c s , i n 1879, exacerbated h i s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n .  This work based  e t h i c s on e v o l u t i o n , and Dawson remarked that: i t has contributed very much to open the eyes o f thoughtful men to the depth o f s p i r i t u a l , moral, and even s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l , r u i n i n t o which we s h a l l d r i f t under the guidance of t h i s philosophy.17 Dawson agreed with Spencer's naturalism i n so f a r as i t maintained that God was e s s e n t i a l l y unknowable. thing was unknowable i n essence.  He agreed that every-  We can, however, know things i n  t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s , r e l a t i o n s , and e f f e c t s .  I t was i l l i g i t i m a t e to  replace the s p i r i t u a l explanation o f l i f e with evolutionary naturalism, because God i s knowable through h i s e f f e c t s on, and r e l a t i o n s t o , the  63 world. design.  These r e l a t i o n s and e f f e c t s are apparent i n c r e a t i o n and In h i s elaborate denial of t h i s , Spencer had become f o r  Dawson a kind o f a r c h e t y p i c a l modern agnostic. Dawson o c c a s i o n a l l y stated that Spencer's n a t u r a l i s t i c agnosticism was worse than atheism.  I t was not an expression o f  doubt or d i s b e l i e f but a reasoned c o n v i c t i o n that God was unknowable and that nature lacked h i s impress.  I t i s c l e a r , however, that  Dawson was more disturbed by Haeckel's atheism.  When discussing  Haeckel, Dawson's r h e t o r i c often revealed a profound discontent. He never r e t r e a t e d from the view that i f Haeckel were r i g h t then we would be "face to face with the darkest and most dangerous moral 18 problem that has ever beset humanity." Dawson claimed that Haeckel's naturalism was not supported by science but that i t was rather the perspective through which he pursued h i s science.  In any event, Haeckel had f a i l e d because any  science which indulges i n a t h e i s t i c t h e o r i z i n g w i l l f a i l . i s mechanical then there i s no explanation f o r order, and the progressive development of l i f e .  For example:  If a l l  adaptations, "Ordinary  people f a i l to understand why a world o f mere dead matter should not go on to a l l e t e r n i t y obeying p h y s i c a l and chemical laws without 19 developing l i f e . "  A d d i t i o n a l l y , Haeckel's philosophy o f f e r e d an  unacceptable view of r e a l i t y .  Without the p o s s i b i l i t y o f discovering  eternal t r u t h s , science became p o i n t l e s s , and without God there arose 20 the serious "question whether l i f e i s worth l i v i n g . " Although Dawson had frequently c r i t i c i z e d Huxley since 1869, i t was not u n t i l the 1890's that t h i s s c i e n t i s t ' s naturalism came i n f o r the kind o f treatment Dawson had p r e v i o u s l y reserved f o r  64 Haeckel and Spencer.  Dawson was r e a c t i n g to the a r t i c l e s which Huxley 21  began w r i t i n g i n the l a t e 1880*s on agnosticism.  Huxley had come  to the conclusion that although "the s c i e n t i f i c naturalism o f the l a t t e r part of the nineteenth century" did not deny the supernatural,  22 i t d i d deny that there was any evidence f o r i t .  He agreed with  Dawson that b e l i e f was an i n t e l l e c t u a l matter founded on evidence, but he was an agnostic because science provided him no evidence. Dawson considered Huxley's agnostic naturalism to be a "dread a l t e r n a t i v e " which leaves man "with no Heavenly Father, no d i v i n e 23 solace i n our present l i f e , and no immortal destiny." with a demonstration  He countered  o f design i n nature and an argument f o r the  p o s s i b i l i t y o f knowing God i n h i s e f f e c t s .  He also attempted to f i n d  analogies between nature and the Gospel, such as between "the s a c r i f i c e s made by animals i n the i n t e r e s t o f t h e i r progeny," and "the C h r i s t i a n 24 doctrine o f v i c a r i o u s s u f f e r i n g . "  He judged Huxley to have the  bias o f denying anything not demonstrable by sense data and thereby u n c r i t i c a l l y dismissing God. In 1896 Dawson probably had Huxley i n mind when he addressed the J u b i l e e Conference o f the Evangelical A l l i a n c e on "Science the A l l y of R e l i g i o n . " Among others, Huxley had argued that each discovery of a secondary cause l e d that much f u r t h e r to naturalism by reducing the supernatural God's area of operations.  Dawson's  address argued that we replace the word "supernatural" with the word " s p i r i t u a l " so as to avoid the problem.  Supernaturalism implies a  d i s t i n c t i o n between secondary c a u s a l i t y and God's immediate c a u s a l i t y . The word " s p i r i t u a l " r e f e r s to the i n t e l l i g e n t design behind the whole n a t u r a l world and i t s laws.  65 As Dawson saw the randomness i n evolution as i n h e r e n t l y a t h e i s t i c , so also he saw i t s naturalism as i n h e r e n t l y agnostic. not only eliminated the traces of God from nature and the record, but also eliminated him as a f i r s t cause. evolution tended toward materialism.  It  fossil  The naturalism of  Dawson knew that Darwin was  prepared to allow God the r o l e of f i r s t cause, but he also b e l i e v e d that the l o g i c of the theory precluded t h i s .  I f there were an  o r i g i n a l c r e a t i o n then there was no reason why there could not be an i n d e f i n i t e number of f u r t h e r ones.  A d d i t i o n a l l y , i t was  ridicu-  lous to suppose that God would leave an o r i g i n a l c r e a t i o n to be i n a random fashion.  evolved  As the matter stood, Spencer, Huxley, and Haeckel  had i n f a c t reduced l i f e to matter. With t h i s appraisal of the s i t u a t i o n , Dawson saw theories of evolution as s u i c i d a l compromises.  theistic  Even i f they were  s u c c e s s f u l l y to eliminate randomness from t h e i r t h e o r i e s , the t h e i s t i c e v o l u t i o n i s t s remained trapped w i t h i n a naturalism that l e f t proof f o r God.  no  He became, at best, a t h e o r e t i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y .  The  Story of Earth and Man warned that "the bare hard l o g i c of Spencer, . . . shows that the theory, c a r r i e d out to i t s l e g i t i m a t e consequences, excludes the knowledge of a Creator and the p o s s i b i l i t y of 25 His Work." Aside from which, Dawson did not want: t h i s God " a f a r o f f , " who has set the stone of nature r o l l i n g and then turned h i s back upon i t , but a present God, whose w i l l i s the law of nature, now as i n times past. 2 6  By 1890, when he was f a m i l i a r with a l l the major t h e i s t i c e v o l u t i o n i s t s , Dawson asserted that "despite the e f f o r t s of the so c a l l e d t h e i s t i c and C h r i s t i a n e v o l u t i o n i s t s , " the theory of evolut i o n "may  be, held to have tended constantly to a lower and lower  66 depth o f m a t e r i a l i s t i c agnosticism."  27  Le Conte, Mivart, Wallace,  and others had t r i e d to avoid t h i s e i t h e r by regarding the laws which guided evolution as d i v i n e , or by regarding the cause o f the process as some d i v i n e power inherent i n l i f e .  However, Dawson d i d not  think that they had offered any compelling reasons why such forces or laws might not be purely n a t u r a l . Dawson b e l i e v e d that there was a r a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e behind nature which man's reason could discover: i n nature.  that there was a design  The naturalism of evolution forbade him t h i s e m p i r i c a l  evidence f o r f a i t h .  This he could not accept.  Dawson did not n a i v e l y  believe that man could f u l l y understand God, but he did b e l i e v e that man could understand the f i n i t e design to which God had fashioned nature.  He also believed science to be out on a mad fantasy when  i t sought t o give a r a t i o n a l explanation o f nature while  simultane-  ously ignoring or seeking t o replace the God who had made i t rational: The f i n i t e cannot comprehend the i n f i n i t e , the temporal the e t e r n a l . We need not, however, on that account be agnostics, f o r i t i s s t i l l true t h a t , w i t h i n the scope of our narrow powers and o p p o r t u n i t i e s , the Supreme I n t e l l i g e n c e reveals to us i n nature His power and d i g n i t y ; and i t i s t h i s , and t h i s alone, that gives a t t r a c t i o n and d i g n i t y to n a t u r a l science.28 Naturalism came a f t e r randomness as the second reason f o r r e j e c t i n g evolution.  In denying that there was any evidence of God i n nature,  naturalism would eliminate n a t u r a l theology and lead t o agnosticism and materialism.  67 As with the issue of design and randomness, Dawson was  not  alone i n f i n d i n g evolutionary naturalism to be a s i g n i f i c a n t challenge. Canadian n a t u r a l theologians had faced the problem of naturalism, i n a minor way, before Darwin; i t was a major problem a f t e r him. also a problem which d i d not confront the n a t u r a l theologians  I t was alone,  for Darwinian naturalism assaulted the heart of C h r i s t i a n i t y by implying that God was not responsible f o r the development of l i f e and man. considered that t h i s meant the end of b e l i e f .  Some  Others hoped that at  most i t would necessitate a reformulation of b e l i e f . Before Darwin, some Canadian n a t u r a l theologians saw a n a t u r a l i s t i c threat i n the theories of Lamarck and Chambers.  Both  of these e v o l u t i o n i s t s believed that l i f e had o r i g i n a t e d i n a spontaneous generation and evolved by the agency of a p e r f e c t i n g power w i t h i n i t .  And while they both considered t h i s power to be  n a t u r a l , Chambers' p o s i t i o n was modified, i n theory at l e a s t , by h i s pantheism.  Taylor and Beaven r e a l i z e d that Lamarckism e n t a i l e d  a s u f f i c i e n t natural explanation f o r design, and so attacked i t as being s c i e n t i f i c a l l y u n s u b s t a n t i a l .  Moses Harvey (1820-1901), an  h i s t o r i a n of Newfoundland and a Presbyterian pastor i n St. John's, responded to Chambers i n Lectures on the Harmony of Science Revelation (1856).  and  Although t h i s work was concerned mainly with  r e c o n c i l i n g Genesis and geology, i t contained a r e b u t t a l of Chambers' thought because Harvey had concluded that i t would lead to "gross 29 materialism." Another source of the n a t u r a l i s t i c threat l a y i n philosophy. Bovell saw i n the epistemological r e l a t i v i s m of Hamilton and i n the Spinozism of German idealism, the death of n a t u r a l theology.  Hamilton  68 would have l i m i t e d knowledge to the phenomenal and the r e l a t i v e ; idealism eliminated the d i s t i n c t i o n between nature and  supernature.  Although B o v e l l did not counter these threats i n p h i l o s o p h i c a l argument, he wrote the Outlines of Natural Theology with the  express  intent of providing an a l t e r n a t i v e to such views. But the debate over naturalism only became widespread and s i g n i f i c a n t a f t e r the p u b l i c a t i o n of the O r i g i n .  The theories of  Lamarck and Chambers never gained s c i e n t i f i c r e s p e c t a b i l i t y .  And  Bovell had no need to be concerned, with e i t h e r Hamilton or German idealism, because Hamilton had l i t t l e impact on philosophy, and German idealism was i n serious d e c l i n e by the mid 19th century.  Darwinian  naturalism, on the other hand, d i d gain s c i e n t i f i c r e s p e c t a b i l i t y ; and Darwinism was so ably and widely defended that i t could not be ignored. One of the f i r s t Canadian responses to Darwin was a review of the O r i g i n by E. J . Chapman (1821-1904) i n 1860.  Chapman, who  was professor of mineralogy and geology at U n i v e r s i t y College, considered the major problem with Darwin's theory to be i t s n a t u r a l ism.  He p r a i s e d the book as a storehouse of knowledge, but  maintained  that Darwin was t r y i n g to answer questions which were beyond the range' of science.  In a manner s i m i l a r to that of Dawson, Chapman  explained that the nature of species was part of a d i v i n e plan which i s "unfathomable to us at present, and perhaps ever to remain 30 unfathomed by our r e s t r i c t e d powers of i n q u i r y . " I t was not s u f f i c i e n t , however, to r e j e c t e v o l u t i o n as a n a t u r a l i s t i c explanation of species without o f f e r i n g any argument.  scientific  S i r Daniel Wilson (1816-1892), who was a n a t u r a l h i s t o r i a n  of i n t e r n a t i o n a l reputation and president of the U n i v e r s i t y of  69 Toronto, understood t h i s .  A good f r i e n d of Dawson, he thought the  major challenge of Darwinism l a y i n i t s n a t u r a l i s t i c explanation of the o r i g i n of man.  I f man were a product of the apes, t h i s seemed  to deny h i s unique s p i r i t u a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n s t i t u t i o n , and thus by i m p l i c a t i o n h i s immortality.  Wilson's Caliban:  The Missing Link  (1873), which was w r i t t e n "in response to the Descent of Man,  aimed  to show that the idea of a t r a n s i t i o n a l mind between ape and man absurd.  was  Among other things, Wilson argued that reason could not  have evolved from a savage because i t would have been disadvantageous to h i s s u r v i v a l .  How could a being who depended on i n s t i n c t to  l i v e , get by i n a "hybrid c o n d i t i o n , with passions emancipated from the r e s t r a i n t of h a l f - o b l i t e r a t e d i n s t i n c t s , and uncontrolled by 31 the glimmering reason?" Another kind of response to Darwinian naturalism was to accept i t , and then also to separate r e l i g i o n from science.  For example,  John Buchan (1841-1885), the p r i n c i p a l of Upper Canada College, proposed that r e l i g i o n and science were two separate realms.  Thus  although Buchan could admit that Darwinism "seems to s t r i k e at the b e l i e f i n personal immortality and the other foundations of morals and r e l i g i o n , " he could also maintain that "the presence of the r e l i g i o u s and moral elements i n man i s at l e a s t as much a f a c t as the l i n k s of resemblance that e s t a b l i s h a l i n k between us and the 32 anthropoid apes."  Buchan's s o l u t i o n was to place r e l i g i o n and  science i n t o separate compartments rather than to r e c o n c i l e them. This would have h o r r i f i e d Dawson, both because i t removed the s c i e n t i f i c foundation of f a i t h , and also because i t produced a dichotomized and i n c o n s i s t e n t view of r e a l i t y .  70 I t was also p o s s i b l e to accept Darwinian naturalism and to r e c o n c i l e i t with b e l i e f .  Watson was prepared to accept that evolution  could explain the development o f l i f e without reference to r e l i g i o n . But as an i d e a l i s t he concluded that the very process o f evolution could be seen as "a phase, though not the highest phase, o f the s i n g l e self-conscious i n t e l l i g e n c e i n whom and through whom and by whom are  33 a l l things."  I f naturalism implied that-God bore no r e l a t i o n to  nature, Watson's i d e a l i s m solved the problem by making God immanent withi n nature.  However, f o r many s u p e r n a t u r a l i s t s , such as Dawson,  t h i s s o l u t i o n to the problem o f naturalism involved too r a d i c a l a restatement o f C h r i s t i a n i t y . Goldwin Smith took a more aggressive approach to the problem of naturalism.  While he accepted the idea o f e v o l u t i o n , he questioned  the p o s i t i v i s t i c presuppositions o f any science which divorced i t s e l f completely  from r e l i g i o n .  He argued that those who assumed metaphysics  or r e l i g i o n had nothing to do with science, were i n f a c t taking a metaphysical p o s i t i o n themselves.  The Darwinian, he claimed, had no  more r i g h t to assume that there was no i n t e l l i g e n c e behind evolution than d i d the b e l i e v e r have a r i g h t to assume that there was. In sum, there were many Canadian i n t e l l e c t u a l s , mostly s c i e n t i s t s , who believed that there were r e l i g i o u s l i m i t s to science, and also that the study o f nature should harmonize with b e l i e f . While they reacted to Darwinian naturalism i n various ways, they shared i n the view o f i t as a threat.  Dawson stood out among these  t h i n k e r s , however, i n h i s capable t h e o r i z i n g on the r e l a t i o n o f science and r e l i g i o n , and i n h i s aggressive defense o f the evidence for God i n nature.  71 III. Evolution and Genesis Dawson considered the theory of evolution to be completely incompatible with the Genesis creation narrative, and thus also that i t struck at the very roots of faith.  And because the Bible was as  fundamental to his faith as was natural theology, this by i t s e l f would have been sufficient reason for him to reject evolution. However, because Dawson interpreted the Genesis creation narrative as a type of natural theology, the disagreement which he saw between evolution and Genesis was essentially a problem between evolution and natural theology.  Genesis proclaimed the divine designer who had  fashioned  the world according to plan, but evolution assumed both that nature was random and also that natural causes could sufficiently explain l i f e . Had i t not been for this, Dawson could have reconciled evolution with his reading of the text of Genesis.  There.was no significant  difficulty between Genesis and evolution aside from the d i f f i c u l t i e s of randomness and naturalism. Dawson never saw the creation narrative as a primitive attempt at science, but always as a revelation that the universe is a designed cosmos.  Genesis established the belief in a designing  creator and a designed creation.  It warned against belief in  materialism, atheism, polytheism, and pantheism.  Genesis:  has no theories to support, except the general doctrine of an almighty Creator. Its notions are not warped by any superstition born of myth or idolatry. Nature is to i t neither a goddess nor a sport of chance,. . . but an ordered cosmos working out the designs of i t s Maker.34 In 1873 Dawson asserted that the Genesis idea of creation was: "Simply this; that a l l things have been produced by the Supreme  72  Creative W i l l , a c t i n g e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or through the agency of  35 the forces and materials of His own production."  And  again,  t h i s rather vague c o n v i c t i o n i s one which he never l e f t .  Genesis  does not state the precise methods of how l i f e developed. does describe the appearance of l i f e .  It  I t notes that the waters,  the land, and the atmosphere p a r t i c i p a t e i n the production of l i f e . But i t does not give the sequence of secondary causes which were involved i n producing l i f e .  The c r e a t i o n story t e l l s that God  created the world according to a plan; i t does not t e l l how plan was c a r r i e d out.  this  Dawson had no desire to be more s p e c i f i c  about Genesis than he had to. Yet Genesis did impinge on Dawson's science i n a minor way,  aside from committing him to a designing creator.  had proceeded i n a c e r t a i n order: before man. years ago.  Creation  the f i s h e s , f o r example, came  The c r e a t i o n of man was approximately  6,000 to 7,000  And the animals of the earth were s a i d to have come  f o r t h "according to t h e i r kinds," which seemed to imply that they were immutable species. The B i b l i c a l order of c r e a t i o n should have presented obstacle to Dawson's accepting e v o l u t i o n .  no  He had r e c o n c i l e d  t h i s order to the p a l a e o n t o l o g i c a l record which was i n turn one of the major supports of the e v o l u t i o n i s t s . m i l l i o n s of years was also no problem.  That evolution required Dawson had already  turned  73 the days of c r e a t i o n i n t o periods o f i n d e f i n i t e  extent.  Even the  l i m i t e d chronology which Genesis allows man should have been no problem; i t would merely have f i x e d the time at which the ape became human. Not even the apparent l i m i t a t i o n to v a r i a t i o n imposed by the words "according t o t h e i r kinds" should have been an obstacle to Dawson's accepting e v o l u t i o n . v a r i a t i o n was t i g h t l y l i m i t e d .  He could hardly maintain that Because he treated the a l l i e d species,  which e v o l u t i o n i s t s o f f e r e d as proof f o r transmutation, as being only v a r i e t i e s , h i s species had very wide l i m i t s .  In Modern Ideas of  Evolution he held that the "kinds" r e f e r r e d only t o c e r t a i n fundamental types, which were, nonetheless, h i g h l y v a r i a b l e w i t h i n t h e i r kind. I t was apparent that Genesis "does not commit i t s e l f as to the l i m i t s of species or as t o any s p e c i a l doctrine with respect to the precise 36 way i n which i t pleased God to make them."  While addressing an  audience at Union Theological Seminary, i n 1874, Dawson announced that the question of d e r i v a t i o n was of "comparatively  secondary importance"  to that of materialism, and that the Genesis doctrine o f c r e a t i o n 37 precluded only the l a t t e r .  I t i s c l e a r , then, that the "kinds"  i n Genesis were no obstacle between Dawson and e v o l u t i o n . The text o f Genesis could not have prevented Dawson from accepting e v o l u t i o n , and yet he was convinced that Darwinism was completely incompatible with i t . not have been i n exegesis.  His problems accordingly could  They l a y i n the antagonism between the  natural theology he had imported i n t o Genesis and the randomness and naturalism o f evolution.  Dawson accepted that the mode of  c r e a t i o n was unknown and that the c r e a t i o n took place over m i l l i o n s  74 of years.  He could have had no reason to deny evolution as the mode  of c r e a t i o n , were i t not that evolutionary randomness would have eliminated the creator altogether, and evolutionary naturalism would have denied him any r o l e .  Dawson could not be an e v o l u t i o n i s t and  maintain h i s f a i t h i n the B i b l e , but the opposition between evolution and Genesis introduced no i r r e c o n c i l a b l e problems other than those of h i s natural  theology.  Among those 19th century Canadians who published r e c o n c i l i a t i o n s between Genesis and science, Dawson stands with only one  other  i n being concerned with the challenge which evolution presented to Genesis.  Before Darwin, the threat to which the r e c o n c i l e r s were  responding was the apparent antagonism between uniformitarianism  and  Genesis.  and  A f t e r Darwin, the major threats were uniformitarianism  the doubt which the Higher C r i t i c i s m had r a i s e d about the i n s p i r a t i o n of Genesis. Uniformitarianism, i t w i l l be r e c a l l e d , was the theory which maintained that the h i s t o r y of the earth was one of gradual change over m i l l i o n s of years.  The p r i n c i p a l problem t h i s posed Genesis was  i t s antagonism to the short time span of s i x days which Genesis allows f o r the formation of the world.  Henry Taylor's An Attempt to  Form a System of the Creation of Our Globe (1836) solved the problem by arguing that Genesis allowed f o r an i n d e f i n i t e period of time between God's c r e a t i o n of the earth and the f i r s t day mentioned i n Genesis 1:5. gap.  He placed the ages of u n i f o r m i t a r i a n geology i n t o t h i s  Thomas T r o t t e r ' s A Treatise on Geology (1845) argued that  75 while uniformitarianism explains the recent h i s t o r y of the earth, i t could not explain the e a r l y h i s t o r y which was subject to quick and catastrophic forces.  The Mosaic Account of Creation (1856), by T. W.  Goldie, followed Taylor i n p l a c i n g an i n d e f i n i t e period between the creation and the f i r s t day, and also argued that the s i x days of the creation n a r r a t i v e a c t u a l l y r e f e r to vast eras. But only one response to uniformitarianism dealt as s e r i o u s l y with the h i s t o r y of l i f e as i t d i d with the h i s t o r y of the earth. Moses Harvey, who was a p r o g r e s s i o n i s t l i k e Dawson, i n t e r p r e t e d the days of Genesis as vast geological periods. Harmony of Science and Revelation  His Lectures on the  (1856) also contended that Genesis  and science agreed " i n the great general o u t l i n e s " of how "the earth has slowly and gradually advanced from a condition u n f i t t e d f o r 38 any animal existence to one i n which man i s denizen." There were two r e c o n c i l i a t i o n s of Genesis and geology w r i t t e n i n response to the Higher C r i t i c i s m .  E z e k i a l Wiggins (1839-1910), an  Ottawa c i v i l servant, wrote The A r c h i t e c t u r e of the Heavens (1864) i n r e a c t i o n to Colenso's d i s c r e d i t i n g of the authorship  and accuracy  of Genesis, i n the f i r s t part of h i s The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua C r i t i c a l l y Examined.  Wiggins sought to refute Colenso by  showing Genesis to be s c i e n t i f i c a l l y accurate.  His main concern was  the deluge, which Colenso had declared to be unbelievable.  Wiggins  attempted to v i n d i c a t e i t g e o l o g i c a l l y by l i m i t i n g i t to Europe, A s i a , and A f r i c a , and by explaining how i t r e s u l t e d from the earth on i t s a x i s .  tilting  Jacob H i r s c h f e l d e r (1819-1902), who lectured i n o r i e n t a l  languages at U n i v e r s i t y College, was also provoked by Colenso and, i n a d d i t i o n , Essays and Reviews and K a l i s c h i s Commentary on Genesis.  76 These l a s t two works r a i s e d serious questions about the i n s p i r a t i o n of Genesis and i t s geological claims.  H i r s c h f e l d e r countered these  c r i t i c s with The Creation (1874), an elaborate p h i l o l o g i c a l argument intending to show that the Hebrew of Genesis allowed f o r the ages of geology to have occurred before the f i r s t day i n Genesis 1:5.  This,  he maintained, made Genesis g e o l o g i c a l l y c r e d i b l e , and thus saved i t as God's r e v e l a t i o n . The one w r i t e r , aside from Dawson, who was both engaged i n the Genesis and geology issue and also responding to the threat of e v o l u t i o n , was William Cassidy.  His Age of Creation (1887) was mostly  concerned with v i n d i c a t i n g catastrophism  as a geological theory so  that he could, among other things, argue that the s i x c r e a t i o n days were a s u i t a b l e length of time f o r the formation of the earth.  But  Cassidy also took the attack against Darwinism i n defense of the Mosaic account of the c r e a t i o n of l i f e .  Although t h i s was a minor  part of h i s book, he r a i s e d several s c i e n t i f i c objections to Darwin, such as that evolution demanded more time than the h i s t o r y of the earth  allowed. But Cassidy d i d not consider evolution to be as serious a  threat to the B i b l e , as d i d Dawson.  For that matter, Dawson emerges  as the only Canadian r e c o n c i l e r of Genesis and science who  was  concerned with a l l three major problems which Genesis faced: formitarianism, the Higher C r i t i c i s m , and evolution.  uni-  His r e c o n c i l i a -  t i o n of Genesis amd uniformitarianism had been done p a r t l y i n r e a c t i o n to the Higher C r i t i c i s m as w e l l as to L y e l l .  And, as we s h a l l see i n  Chapter Four, he defended the doctrine of c r e a t i o n against the of evolution not only because i t was a base f o r h i s n a t u r a l  theory  theology,  but also because i t harmonized with Genesis.  In a d d i t i o n , Dawson  wrote Modern Science i n B i b l e Lands (1888) which had the sole i n t e n t i o n of proving • the Higher C r i t i c s wrong by attempting to corroborate various topographical, g e o l o g i c a l , and references i n Genesis.  historical  78  FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER I I I  '''J. W. Dawson, O r i g i n of the World (Montreal: Dawson Bros., 1877), p. 373. 2 J . W. Dawson, The Story of Earth and Man (London: Hodder ct Stoughton, 1873), p. 318. 3 J . W. Dawson, Modern Ideas~of Evolution (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1890), p. 227. 4  Ibid...  .  **H. Taylor, Ah Attempt to Form a System of the Creation (Toronto: W. J . Coates, 1836), p. 15. J . Beaven, Elements of Natural Theology (London: Francis § John Rivington, 1850), p. 58. 6  I b i d . , p. 96. g W. L e i t c h , God's Glory i n the Heavens (3rd ed.; London: Alexander Strahan, 1866), p. 60. 9 W. Hincks, "The President's Address," Canadian J o u r n a l , 2nd ser., XII(1870), p. 357. 7  " ^ J . Carmichael, Design and Darwinism (Toronto: Hunter, Rose S, Co., 1880), p. 16. ^G. Smith, "The Prospect of a Moral Interregnum," Rose Belford's Canadian Monthly, 111(1879), p. 656. 12 J . W. Dawson, " P r e s i d e n t i a l Address Before the B r i t i s h A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Advancement of Science, Sept., 1886," Canadian Record of Science II(0ct., 1886), p. 204. 13 J . W. Dawson, Facts and Fancies i n Modern Science (Philadelphia: American B a p t i s t P u b l i c a t i o n Society, 1882), p. 15. 14 J. W. Dawson, The Story of Earth and Man, p. 323. ^ J . W. Dawson, "Haeckel on the Evolution o f Man," Review V(1880), pp. 445 and 464. 1 6  I b i d . , p. 458.  Princeton  79 17 J . W. Dawson, Facts and Fancies i n Modern Science, p. 101. 18 J. W. Dawson, "Haeckel on the Evolution o f Man," p. 464. 19 J . W. Dawson, Facts and Fancies i n Modern Science, p. 82. 20 I b i d . , p. 100. 21 See the compilation of a r t i c l e s i n : T. H. Huxley, Science and the C h r i s t i a n T r a d i t i o n (London: Macmillan, 1894). 22 T. H. Huxley, "Prologue," Science and the C h r i s t i a n Tradit i o n , pp. 38f. ' 23 J . W. Dawson, The Natural and the S p i r i t u a l (n. p., 1895), p. 2. 24 I b i d . , p. 10. 25 J. W. Dawson, The Story o f Earth and Man, p. 321. I b i d . , p. 349. 2 6  27 J. W. Dawson, Modern Ideas o f E v o l u t i o n , p. .13. 28 J. W. Dawson, S a l i e n t Points i n the Science o f the Earth (Montreal: W. Drysdale & Co., 1893), p. 6. 29 M. Harvey, Lectures on the Harmony of Science and Revelat i o n ' (Halifax: James Barnes, 1856), p. 40. 30 E. J . Chapman, "On the O r i g i n of Species," Review-of On the O r i g i n of Species by C. Darwin, Canadian J o u r n a l , 2nd s e r . , V(1860), p. 386. 31 D. Wilson, Caliban: The Missing Link (London: Macmillan, 1873), p. 31. 32 J . M. Buchan, "The President's Address," Canadian J o u r n a l , 3rd s e r . , 1(1879-83), p. 379; pp. 379f. 33 J . Watson, An Outline o f Philosophy (2nd ed.; Glasgow: James Maclehose § Sons, 1898), p. 183. 34 J . W. Dawson, Modern Science i n B i b l e Lands (pop. ed. rev.; London: Hodder t> Stoughton, 1892), p. 3. 35 J . W. Dawson, The Story o f Earth and Man, p. 340. 36 J . W. Dawson, Modern Ideas o f E v o l u t i o n , p. 20; p. 17.  80  J . W. Dawson, Nature and the B i b l e (New York: Carter § Brothers, 1882), p. 201.  Robert  M. Harvey, Lectures on the Harmony: o f Science and Revelat i o n (Halifax::. James Barnes, 1856), p. 48; p. 30.  81  CHAPTER IV DAWSON'S SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF EVOLUTION  Because Dawson found the randomness and naturalism of evolution incompatible with h i s f a i t h , he r e j e c t e d i t .  But because  he was a P a l e y i t e and a dynamic a p o l o g i s t , he responded to i t by formulating a s c i e n t i f i c a l l y competitive theory o f c r e a t i o n which preserved the design i n l i f e and could be r e c o n c i l e d with Genesis. This theory stands out i n 19th century Canada as an aggressive and h i g h l y competent s o l u t i o n to the problem of e v o l u t i o n , which kept science and r e l i g i o n r e c o n c i l e d without surrendering t r a d i t i o n a l supernaturalism.  This chapter commences by examining a sample o f  Canadian s o l u t i o n s to the problem of e v o l u t i o n , and concludes with an examination of Dawson's s o l u t i o n .  I. A Sample o f Canadian Solutions to the Problem o f E v o l u t i o n Of a l l those who concluded that e v o l u t i o n presented s e r i o u s , i f not f a t a l , problems f o r C h r i s t i a n i t y , there were very few who had c o n s t r u c t i v e s o l u t i o n s to o f f e r .  Some sought to separate r e l i g i o n  into a realm separate from the science which threatened i t .  Others  only reaffirmed t h e i r o l d r e l i g i o u s views without any great attempt to r e i n f o r c e them before the challenge o f e v o l u t i o n . And there were those who accepted that e v o l u t i o n had damaged t h e i r b e l i e f , but clung on i n the hope o f some eventual r e s o l u t i o n .  On the other hand,  82 there were the p o s i t i v i s t s who antidote to r e l i g i o n .  embraced evolution as a welcome  There were also the German and B r i t i s h  i d e a l i s t s , and the s p i r i t u a l i s t s who  f e l t capable of  absorbing  evolution i n t o developmental views of l i f e , with God or s p i r i t somehow immanent i n the process of e v o l u t i o n i t s e l f . We have already touched upon some of the many responses to evolution, i n Chapter Three. h i s science from h i s r e l i g i o n . a counsel of despair.  There was John Buchan who  separated  But t h i s option cannot have been but  I t produced i n c o n s i s t e n t combinations of  b e l i e f such as that of J . Moffat, a member of the Hamilton Associat i o n , who both accepted Darwinism and i t s i m p l i c a t i o n that nature was mindless, while also holding that nature had to be designed. Writing i n the 1890's, he contended that r e l i g i o u s knowledge was d i f f e r e n t from s c i e n t i f i c knowledge, and that despite Darwin man could, and must,- continue to regard the universe as designed because: "nothing else that has ever been proposed can f u l l y meet the desperate needs, s a t i s f y the a s p i r a t i o n s and r e c o n c i l e the contrad i c t i o n s of h i s nature at a l l comparably with i t . " ^  But t h i s  was  to surrender the i n t e l l e c t u a l side of f a i t h , and with i t any coherent view of r e a l i t y . Those who r e j e c t e d e v o l u t i o n while keeping r e l i g i o n and science r e c o n c i l e d , however, were not always i n a much stronger position.  Very few were capable of making the doctrine of c r e a t i o n  s c i e n t i f i c a l l y competitive with the theory of e v o l u t i o n .  They were  able to s a t i s f y themselves of the v a l i d i t y of t h e i r p o s i t i o n , but they were unable s c i e n t i f i c a l l y to show i t as superior to evolution. For example, Carmichael,  a P a l e y i t e and c r e a t i o n i s t , took as h i s  83 major argument against evolution the f a c t that natural s e l e c t i o n was incompatible with design. He assumed i t : t o be f a l s e because the randomness i t posited i n nature, he argued, precluded the p o s s i b i l i t y of l i f e . e x h i b i t i n g the order and seemingly designed adaptations which i t does.  But t h i s was to do no more than to challenge Darwinism on  the basis o f an assumption which i t was p r e c i s e l y Darwin's breakthrough to have removed from science.  The s i g n i f i c a n c e of evolution  was that i t could explain by means o f n a t u r a l law and a random process that which the c r e a t i o n i s t s had taken to be designed. Another response to the problem o f evolution was b r i e f l y mentioned i n Chapter Three, namely that o f Goldwin Smith.  He accepted  that e v o l u t i o n , along with B i b l i c a l .criticism,.had destroyed much of the t r a d i t i o n a l dogma, s u p e r s t i t i o n s , and anthropomorphic outlook o f C h r i s t i a n i t y , but he d i d not conclude that t h i s meant the end o f belief.  The essence of r e l i g i o n was separable from r e v e l a t i o n and  theology, and could w e l l survive the overthrow o f i t s dogmatic formulations.  This essence was the b e l i e f :  that we have our being i n a Power whose character and purposes are i n d i c a t e d to us by our moral nature, i n whom we are united, and by the union made sacred to each other.^ Smith hoped that somehow a r a t i o n a l r e l i g i o n could be constructed on t h i s foundation which would prove compatible.with science.  He d i d  not know how to do t h i s himself, but urged s c i e n t i s t s and b e l i e v e r s to engage i n open discussion i n the attempt to reunite science and r e l i g i o n on some ground between the extremes o f untenable orthodoxy and f a n a t i c a l p o s i t i v i s m .  And he admonished that should evolution  completely d i s c r e d i t C h r i s t i a n i t y , the world would face the "considerable danger o f a desperate c o n f l i c t between d i f f e r e n t classes o f  84 society f o r the good things of that which people are coming to 3  believe i s the only world." But there were options which r e c o n c i l e d evolution and r e l i g i o n . The most noteworthy of these was John Watson's i d e a l i s t synthesis. Watson was one of the leading philosophers of h i s time.  He  had  studied under Edward Caird at Glasgow, and p a r t l y i n h e r i t e d from him a r e v u l s i o n f o r p o s i t i v i s m and materialism, and a desire f o r a rational i d e a l i s t i c faith.  He entered the evolution  controversy  i n the 1870's with a number of a r t i c l e s on such t o p i c s as evolution and m o r a l i t y , and science and materialism.  Beginning with Comte,  M i l l , , and Spencer, i n 1888, he issued a number of books which examined evolutionary speculation and C h r i s t i a n i t y , and attempted a r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of the  two.  While r e f u s i n g to commit himself to the theory of e v o l u t i o n , Watson t r i e d to show how i t could be r e c o n c i l e d with both teleology and also idealism.  He r e a l i z e d that Darwinism had rendered teleology  unnecessary i n the study of i n d i v i d u a l species, and so he attempted to reintroduce i t on a higher l e v e l .  Watson wanted to demonstrate  that an i n t e l l i g e n t teleology was immanent w i t h i n the organic realm as a whole, that e v o l u t i o n , i f t r u e , was i t s e l f a t e l e o l o g i c a l process.  But before doing t h i s he had to account f o r the chance  i m p l i c i t i n Darwinism.  As was mentioned i n Chapter Three, he  accomplished t h i s by regarding v a r i a t i o n as a process which produced only varying degrees of good, and not as one which produced both good and bad.  He could consequently i n t e r p r e t v a r i a t i o n as t e l i c  rather than random. Teleology could now be s a f e l y reintroduced i n t o evolution.  85  Watson took t h e f a c t o f the harmony between l i f e and i t s environment as h i s f i r s t  example o f purpose.  Because a l l v a r i a t i o n adapts  organisms t o t h e i r environments, and because a l l organisms a r e i n harmony w i t h t h e i r environments, t h e r e must be a f i n a l behind t h i s c o o r d i n a t i o n .  cause  Purpose c a n a l s o be d i s c o v e r e d  i n the  impulse f o r s u r v i v a l , which Darwinism assumes t o e x i s t i n each organism.  And l a s t l y , purpose can be seen i n t h e f a c t t h a t  forms o f l i f e are n o t as w e l l adapted as h i g h e r not  forms.  lower  Were t h i s  t h e case t h e r e would be no e v o l u t i o n from lower t o h i g h e r  forms.  There i s , a c c o r d i n g l y ,  tion o f evolution  t e l e o l o g y i n the p r o g r e s s i v e  direc-  itself.  Watson next wanted t o show t h a t t h i s t e l i c p r o c e s s was a manifestation and  o f mind.  He assumed t h a t matter c o u l d n o t produce mind,  then argued t h a t because e x i s t e n c e  contained  t h e same p r i n c i p l e  o f r a t i o n a l i t y as d i d the mind, t h a t a l l e x i s t e n c e must be a p r o d u c t of i t . And  Evolution,  i f t r u e , would thus a l s o be a product o f mind.  so Watson c o u l d r e c o n c i l e i t w i t h h i s i d e a l i s t i c  panentheism.  E v o l u t i o n would be a phase o f t h a t i n t e l l i g e n c e which i s God. S i m i l a r i n approach t o Watson, a l t h o u g h not i n a b i l i t y , was S t i n s o n J a r v i s (1854-1926), a T o r o n t o lawyer and n o v e l i s t who moved t o the U.  S. A. i n 1891.  J a r v i s was a s p i r i t u a l i s t who b e l i e v e d  r e l i g i o n and s c i e n c e were b o t h w e l l served H i s The Ascent o f L i f e  (1894)  o f evolution.  o p i n e d t h a t Darwin c o u l d n o t s u c c e s s -  f u l l y e x p l a i n why animals s h o u l d he o f f e r e d , evolves  by the t h e o r y  vary  i n a progressive  way.  Life,  because t h e s o u l o f each organism c o n t i n u a l l y  s t r i v e s t o d i s c o v e r and then a c h i e v e i d e a l s which a r e i n g r e a t e r harmony with s p i r i t .  that  E v o l u t i o n i s fundamentally a r e l i g i o u s  86 process. Both Watson, i n h i s b r i l l i a n c e , and Stinson, i n h i s naivety, however, made two mistakes. was progressive.  F i r s t , they both assumed that evolution  But t h i s was not a necessary part o f Darwin's  theory, which could j u s t as e a s i l y account f o r a regressive d i r e c t i o n i n l i f e , and d i d not state that a l l forms o f l i f e were always improving.  Watson appears t o have been less influenced by Darwin  than he was by- the none too s c i e n t i f i c evolutionary optimism o f Spencer.  Second, Stinson and Watson had not solved the problem o f  randomness.  Stinson merely ignored i t . And Watson maintained the  contradictory p o s i t i o n that l i f e was a manifestation o f i n t e l l i g e n c e and yet had evolved by n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n . I f there were mind behind nature, i f i t were i n f a c t not random, then there was no need f o r any n a t u r a l mechanism o f s e l e c t i o n . D i a m e t r i c a l l y opposed t o Watson, was the s o l u t i o n o f f e r e d by W i l l i a m Le Sueur (1840-1917). which' strengthened  He embraced e v o l u t i o n as a theory  h i s p o s i t i v i s t i c view o f l i f e .  Le Sueur was an  author and a c i v i l servant who was one o f the most vocal e v o l u t i o n i s t s i n Canada.  A follower o f Comte, he had an o p t i m i s t i c view o f man and  "the great church of science" which was t o provide "the common home 4 and s h e l t e r o f humanity."  He ignored r e l i g i o n as something beyond  the realm o f science and knowledge, and saw i n evolution the proof of h i s c o n v i c t i o n that God was not needed to explain man. Le Sueur r e v e l l e d i n controversy.  From the l a t e 1870's  u n t i l 1880, he used Rose Belford's Canadian Monthly and the Canadian Journal as a medium t o debate such questions as the r e l a t i o n o f  87 morality to r e l i g i o n and the e f f i c a c y of prayer i n a world governed by n a t u r a l law.  His views that m o r a l i t y was unrelated to r e l i g i o n ,  which has a h i s t o r y of much e v i l i n any event, and that prayer could accomplish no changes i n the p h y s i c a l world, provoked many responses. In 1884 he made h i s general views on science and r e l i g i o n e x p l i c i t i n an argumentative pamphlet w r i t t e n i n response to an attack on agnosticism by the bishop of Ontario.  He maintained that the world  was witnessing a change toward r a t i o n a l i s m and the r e j e c t i o n of miracle.  E v o l u t i o n was a r e s u l t of t h i s process.  A l s o , while the  burgeoning r a t i o n a l s c i e n t i f i c point of view d i d not disprove b e l i e f i n God and immortality, i t d i d render them i n c r e d i b l e "as part and parcel of a supernatural system miraculously revealed to mankind."^ Later the same year he issued another pamphlet which defended the views of h i s f i r s t from a r e b u t t a l by the bishop.  Concentrating  more on the issue of e v o l u t i o n , he argued f o r i t as the most probable explanation of l i f e i n a universe run by n a t u r a l law.  He allowed as  how evolution l e f t room f o r a h y p o t h e t i c a l God at the beginning of l i f e , but continued by emphasizing how evolution had no need f o r the ideas of design and providence.  He concluded by d e c l a r i n g himself a  b e l i e v e r i n science, and i n v i t e d others "to taste and see whether the laws of the f i n i t e are not s u f f i c i e n t f o r f i n i t e man."  6  I I . Dawson's S o l u t i o n to the Problem of Evolution There were no t r a d i t i o n a l s u p e r n a t u r a l i s t s i n Canada, aside from Dawson, who were capable o f grounding t h e i r f a i t h i n science s u f f i c i e n t l y w e l l to challenge the e v o l u t i o n i s t s .  For that matter  88 there were few anywhere.  And those who accepted evolution and s t i l l  believed u s u a l l y d i d so at the expense of any i n t e l l e c t u a l l y complete and coherent view of r e a l i t y .  The options of i d e a l i s m and  s p i r i t u a l i s m were not without problems, and such a r a d i c a l and complex reformulation of the f a i t h as Watson's was e i t h e r beyond, or repugnant t o , most.  But without such a coherent view of r e a l i t y ,  the p o s i t i v i s t i c a l t e r n a t i v e gained i n c r e a s i n g c r e d i b i l i t y . Dawson's s i g n i f i c a n c e l i e s i n the f a c t that he produced one of the most reasonable and compelling defenses of t r a d i t i o n a l supernatur a l ism.  He very capably defended the concept of designed c r e a t i o n  as an a l t e r n a t i v e explanation of l i f e to that of evolution.  And he  formulated t h i s i n t o a coherent view of r e a l i t y i n which science and r e l i g i o n were r e c o n c i l e d .  E s s e n t i a l l y c r e a t i o n meant there was a  supernatural author f o r the designed development of l i f e .  Dawson set  t h i s f o r t h i n a s c i e n t i f i c theory o f " c r e a t i o n by law" which was antagonistic to e v o l u t i o n , preserved design, and could be r e c o n c i l e d with Genesis. The question of the o r i g i n of the universe and i t s i n h a b i tants was always important to Dawson.  He not only believed that  the universe would be chaotic without design, but also as a supern a t u r a l i s t he placed the source o f design outside o f nature.  He  found i t inconceivable that nature might have i t s own p r i n c i p l e of order, or that order might be the chance r e s u l t of a conflux of atoms dancing through i n f i n i t e time.  Without b e l i e f i n a creator  there arose the absurd a l t e r n a t i v e s of pantheism, idealism, and materialism.  With a creator man gained a heavenly Father, d i s -  covered the source of design, and became part of a r a t i o n a l ,  89 purposeful world.  Or, as Dawson t o l d h i s audience at Crozer Theo-  l o g i c a l Seminary, i n 1882: I f the universe has been created, then, j u s t laws must be i n harmony with the w i l l of the so must our mental c o n s t i t u t i o n ; and man, as ing and conscious being, must be made i n the h i s Maker.7  as i t s Creator, a reasonimage of  As with design, so also c r e a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d a border between science and r e l i g i o n . idea.  I t was at once a s c i e n t i f i c and a r e l i g i o u s  Science discovered beginnings which i t could not e x p l a i n ,  and which manifested the workings of God.  The p a l a e o n t o l o g i c a l  record d i s c l o s e d the i n t r o d u c t i o n of species.  Thermodynamics t e l l s  us the universe i s d i s s i p a t i n g energy, and so we must assume i t to have had a beginning.  The speed of the earth's r o t a t i o n i s diminish-  ing, which implies that the world i s f i n i t e .  And geology, which  p r i o r to the O r i g i n Dawson believed to be a science which had discovered no i n d i c a t i o n of a beginning, came to be one which: by t r a c i n g back a l l present things to t h e i r o r i g i n , was the f i r s t science to e s t a b l i s h on a b a s i s of observed f a c t s the necessity of a beginning and end of the world.^ Dawson was also forced to make c r e a t i o n a s c i e n t i f i c a l l y respectable theory i n biology, i n order to confront h i s foes' d i s m i s s a l of the supernatural.  Haeckel's a t h e i s t i c monism passed i t over as  primitive superstition.  Huxley considered i t beyond the realm of  a n e c e s s a r i l y n a t u r a l i s t i c science.  Darwin admitted the p o s s i b i l i t y  of an o r i g i n a l c r e a t i o n but found i t u n l i k e l y that "at innumerable periods i n the earth's h i s t o r y c e r t a i n elemental atoms have been 9 commanded suddenly to f l a s h i n t o l i v i n g t i s s u e s . "  And Spencer, whom  Dawson considered the most outrageous, not only made e x p l i c i t Darwin's b e l i e f that c r e a t i o n meant some i n c r e d i b l e and miraculous  departure  90  from n a t u r a l law, but also considered i t an unthinkable r e l i g i o u s idea. Dawson's major arguments f o r c r e a t i o n were from the gaps i n the p a l a e o n t o l o g i c a l record and the apparently q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s between man and the other animals.  The f o s s i l record d i d not reveal  a s e r i e s of species slowly gradating i n t o each other through time. It revealed d i s t i n c t species which a r r i v e d f u l l y formed i n one era and disappeared i n the next.  While the e v o l u t i o n i s t s could argue the  record was incomplete, Dawson argued i t supported h i s contention of c r e a t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n . There were gaps between species, a gap between vegetable and animal l i f e , and a gap between dead and l i v i n g matter. Surely t h i s was evidence of God's d i s c r e t e species r a t h e r than an evolutionary continuum. As Spencer and the Darwinians  included man i n e v o l u t i o n ,  Dawson was also at pains to show him as r a d i c a l l y d i s t i n c t from the other animals.  The Story of Earth and Man, published two years a f t e r  The Descent of Man,  argued man was "a 'new departure' i n c r e a t i o n . " ^ 1  There was a huge g u l f between "the mechanical, unconscious,  repetitive  nature of the animal" and a human who could t h i n k , t a l k , make moral d e c i s i o n s , and have r e l i g i o u s f e e l i n g s .  1 1  The Story of Earth and Man also contained the i n i t i a l t i o n of Dawson's proposal of c r e a t i o n by law.  elabora-  With an eye e s p e c i a l l y  on Spencer's P r i n c i p l e s of Biology, which had dismissed c r e a t i o n as ludicrous and unthinkable, Dawson t r i e d to r e - e s t a b l i s h "the o l d idea 12 of c r e a t i v e design, which undoubtedly r e s t s on an i n d u c t i v e b a s i s . " It was not, however, u n t i l 1875 that h i s thoughts were polished and he was able to present them i n an impassioned address to the American A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Advancement of Science.  Dawson defined the c r e a t i o n  91 of species as "the continuous i n t r o d u c t i o n of new forms of l i f e under d e f i n i t e laws, but by a power not emanating from w i t h i n themselves, 13 nor from the inanimate nature surrounding them."  He wanted to  show that c r e a t i o n was not some miracle repugnant to science. C e r t a i n l y "the seen can be explained only by reference to the unseen," but t h i s did  not mean that God encroached on n a t u r a l law i n a sporadic and  a r b i t r a r y manner. Creation by law was an elaboration of the progressionism Dawson had adopted before the O r i g i n . The process was now presented as one regulated and s t a b i l i z e d by a number of laws which Dawson had generali z e d from the f o s s i l record. evolution.  A l l of these laws were incompatible with  The development of l i f e was not a continuous a f f a i r but  rather marked by the a l t e r n a t i o n of periods of r a p i d production of species with periods of e x t i n c t i o n .  Species were u s u a l l y introduced  i n intermediate types, from which they q u i c k l y v a r i e d , w i t h i n l i m i t s , e i t h e r toward degradation or e l e v a t i o n . A l l i e d species were introduced simultaneously i n d i f f e r e n t a r e a s . ^  And so i t went, with God's  a c t i v i t i e s being discovered as s c i e n t i f i c , and e v o l u t i o n d i s c r e d i t e d as wrong. There was i n a l l of t h i s , however, one area Dawson s t u d i o u s l y avoided. it.  He never described the mode of creation nor even guessed at  But t h i s was i n keeping with the mysterious realm between science  and r e l i g i o n which c r e a t i o n occupied. s u l t s of c r e a t i o n but not the process.  Science could examine the r e Dawson maintained the p o s i t i o n  he had f i r s t announced i n 1863 i n response to Darwin's O r i g i n :  92 I t may be found, a f t e r a l l , that the question whether the c r e a t i v e force manifested i t s e l f i n c a l l i n g c e r t a i n species i n t o existence from nothing, from dead matter, whether by an i n s t a n t and miraculous a c t , by more sudden n a t u r a l change, or by slow and gradual processes, i s i n s o l u b l e by us; or that a l l or many of these modes may have been concerned i n making l i v i n g beings, what they are.16 Creation by law provided Dawson with a supernatural explanation of the o r i g i n of l i f e which was s c i e n t i f i c a l l y c r e d i b l e .  I t was a more  coherent theory than evolution because i t not only explained the o r i g i n of species but also the o r i g i n of l i f e .  Evolution had e i t h e r to  assume an o r i g i n a l c r e a t i o n or to argue f o r spontaneous generation. The former option Dawson considered to be incompatible with e v o l u t i o n , and the l a t t e r he considered absurd.  Huxley might "make the grandeur  of the m a t e r i a l universe h i s highest object of adoration," and Haeckel might adopt the " a l t e r n a t i v e of s e l f - e x i s t e n c e or causelessness f o r the universe and a l l i t s phenomena," but t h i s was r i d i c u l o u s presump17 t i o n which explained nothing. Creation "provides i n ' w i l l , ' the only source of power a c t u a l l y known to us by ordinary experience, an i n t e l l i g i b l e o r i g i n 18 of nature."  I t does not leave man's u l t i m a t e questions u n s a t i s f i e d  or unanswered, but i s rather an e l e v a t i n g r a t i o n a l view of species which prevents "the deceptions of pseudo-scientists from doing t h e i r 19 e v i l work."  Creation brings God i n t o h i s t o r y r a t h e r than leaving  him an o t i o s e f i r s t cause or o m i t t i n g him altogether.  The o r i g i n of  species shows that: the w i l l of God has been a c t i v e and operative as the sole cause throughout a l l ages of the world's c r e a t i o n and h i s t o r y , and that the v i s i b l e universe i s not a mere product of i t s own phenomena.20 The design i n nature now gained a f i r m s c i e n t i f i c foundation.  93 The evidences f o r order and adaptation were v i n d i c a t e d , and  the  o r i g i n of species seen as part of a plan: The plans of the c r e a t i v e mind c o n s t i t u t e the true l i n k of connection between the d i f f e r e n t states and developments of inorganic and organic objects. This i s the r e a l meaning of c r e a t i o n by law, as d i s t i n g u i s h e d from mere chance on the one hand, and a r b i t r a r y and capricious i n t e r v e n t i o n on the other.21 Creation by law could also be r e c o n c i l e d with the Genesis cosmogony which Dawson had come to see as "not r e c o n c i l a b l e with the  supposition 22  of a s e r i e s of a r b i t r a r y acts any more than the s c i e n t i f i c idea." In underpinning n a t u r a l theology and the B i b l e , c r e a t i o n by law, as Dawson pleaded f o r i t to the American A s s o c i a t i o n , i s the nexus where: natural science meets with theology, not as an antagonist, but as a f r i e n d and a l l y i n i t s greatest time of need, . . . neither men of science nor theologians have a r i g h t to separate what God i n Holy S c r i p t u r e has j o i n e d together, or to b u i l d up a w a l l between nature and r e l i g i o n , and w r i t e upon i t "no thoroughfare." The science that does t h i s must be impotent to explain nature and without hold on the higher sentiments of man. The theology that does t h i s must sink i n t o mere superstition.23 But by the time of S i r William Dawson's death, i n 1899, era of Paleyism was drawing to a close.  the  Although h i s theory was  as  s c i e n t i f i c a l l y sound as that of evolution, i t belonged to t h i s dying perspective.  Science was becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y n a t u r a l i s t i c  and  u n w i l l i n g to t o l e r a t e r e l i g i o u s interferences with i t s expanding domain. And naturalism demanded evolution as much as evolution made naturalism feasible.  Science and r e l i g i o n were separating i n t o independent, and  sometimes i n c o n s i s t e n t , views of r e a l i t y . r e l i g i o n which Dawson had fought f o r , was  The harmony of science defeated.  and  94  FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER IV  """J. Moffat, "Man S c i e n t i f i c a l l y Considered," Journal and Proceedings of the Hamilton A s s o c i a t i o n , VIII(1891-2), p. 51. 2 G. Smith, Lectures and Essays (Toronto: Hunter, Rose § Co., 1881), p. 106. 3 G. Smith, "The Prospect o f a Moral Interregnum," Rose Belford's Canadian Monthly, 111(1879), p. 656. 4 W. Le Sueur, "The S c i e n t i f i c S p i r i t , " Rose Belford's Canadian Monthly, 111(1879), p. 438; p. 441. W. Le Sueur, A Defense o f Modern Thought (Toronto: Rose § Co., 1884), p. 7. 5  Hunter,  W. Le Sueur, Evolution and the P o s i t i v e Aspects o f Modern Thought (Ottawa: A. S. Woodburn, 1884), p. 36. 7 J . W. Dawson, Facts and Fancies i n Modern Science ( P h i l a d e l p h i a : American B a p t i s t P u b l i c a t i o n Society, 1882), p. 15. g J . W. Dawson, "Address of J . W. Dawson, Vice-President," Proceedings o f the American A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Advancement o f Science, XXIV]' • p t . 2(1875), p. 23. 9 C. Darwin, On the O r i g i n o f Species (Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1859), p. 483. J . W. Dawson, The Story o f Earth and Man (London: Hodder § Stoughton, 1873), p. 366. 6  1 0  1 1  I b i d . , p. 370.  1 2  I b i d . , p. 145.  13 J . W. Dawson, "Address o f J . W. Dawson, Vice-President," p. 4. 14 I b i d . , p. 22. " ^ I b i d . , p. 25. J . W. Dawson, Air-Breathers o f the Coal Period (Montreal: Dawson Bros., 1863), p. 76. 1 6  95  J . W. Dawson, Modern Ideas o f Evolution (London: Religious Tract Society, 1890), p. 161; p. 120. 1 8  The  J . W. Dawson, The Story of Earth and Man, p. 342.  19 J . W. Dawson, The Chain of L i f e i n Geological Time (London: The Religious Tract Society, n. d.), p. v i . 20 J . W. Dawson, O r i g i n of the World (Montreal: Dawson Bros., 1877), p. 14. 21 I b i d . , p. 376. 2 2  I b i d . , p. 377.  23 J . W. Dawson, "Address of J . W. Dawson, Vice-President," p. 24.  96  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Primary Sources Agassiz, Louis. "Evolution and Permanence of Type." XXXIII (1874):92-101. Beaven, James. Elements of Natural Theology. John Rivington, 1850.  A t l a n t i c Monthly  London: Francis §  B o v e l l , James. Outlines of Natural Theology: For the Use of the Canadian Student, Selected and Arranged from the Most Authentic Sources. Toronto: Rowsell & E l l i s , 1859. Buchan, J . M. "The President's Address f o r the Session 1882-83." Canadian Journal, 3rd ser., I (1879):361-380. Carmichael, James. Co., 1880.  Design and Darwinism.  Toronto: Hunter, Rose §  . Why Some F a i r l y I n t e l l i g e n t Persons Do Not Endorse the Hypothesis of Evolution: a Plea f o r Divine Intervention. Montreal: Gazette P r i n t i n g Co., 1898. Cassidy, W i l l i a m J .  Age of Creation.  Toronto:  William Briggs, 1887.  Chalmers, Thomas. The Evidence and Authority of the C h r i s t i a n Revelat i o n . (6th ed.) Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1818. . On the Power Wisdom and Goodness of God as Manifested i n the Adaptation of External Nature to the Moral and I n t e l l e c t u a l C o n s t i t u t i o n of Man. 2 v o l s . London: William P i c k e r i n g , 1839. Chambers, Robert. Vestiges of the Natural H i s t o r y of Creation. W. § R. Chambers, 1884.  London:  Cope, Edward. " O r i g i n of Genera." Proceedings of the Academy of Natural H i s t o r y , (1868):242-300. Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man: and S e l e c t i o n i n Relation to Sex. 2 v o l s . (2nd ed.) New York: J . A. H i l l $ Co., 1904. The Expression of the Emotions i n Man and Animals. "Francis Darwin.) London: John Murray, 1892.  (ed.  97 . On the O r i g i n of Species by Charles Darwin: a Facsimile o f the F i r s t E d i t i o n with an Introduction by Ernst Mayr. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1859. . The O r i g i n of Species: by Means of Natural S e l e c t i o n or the Preservation of Favoured Races i n the Struggle f o r L i f e . (6th ed.) London: John Murray, 1900. . The V a r i a t i o n of Animals and Plants Under Domestication. 2 v o l s . (2nd ed.) New York: D. Appleton § Co., 1896. Dawson, William. "Address o f J . W. Dawson, Vice-President." Proceedings o f the American A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Advancement o f Science XXIV, p t . 2, (1875):3-26. . Addresses o f P r i n c i p a l Dawson and Rev. D. H. M'Vicar Delivered at the B i b l e Society Meeting, 27th January, 1864. Co-authored with D. H. M'Vicar. Montreal: John L o v e l l , 1864. . "Agassiz's Contributions to the Natural H i s t o r y o f the United States." Review of Contributions to the Natural H i s t o r y of the United States, by Louis Agassiz. Canadian N a t u r a l i s t and Geologist I I I , #3 (1858):201-212; & I I I , #4 (1858):241-260. . Air-Breathers of the Coal Period. 1863.  Montreal:  Dawson Bros.,  . "Annual Address of the President of the Natural H i s t o r y Society of Montreal, P r i n c i p a l Dawson, L. L. D., F. R. S., 'May' 1872." Canadian N a t u r a l i s t and Quarterly Journal o f Science, n. s., VII(1875):1-11. . Archaia: o r , Studies of the Cosmogony and Natural H i s t o r y of the Hebrew S c r i p t u r e s . Montreal: B. Dawson, 1860. . The Chain o f L i f e i n Geological Time. Tract Society, n. d. (c. 1880).  London: The R e l i g i o u s  . "Continental and Island L i f e : Their Present and Past H i s t o r y . " Princeton Review VIII(1881):l-29. .  Creative Development and E v o l u t i o n , The Dawn of L i f e . Eden Lost and Won.  Montreal: London:  n. p., n. d.  Dawson Bros., 1875. Hodder and Stoughton, 1895.  . "Elementary Views of the C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Animals." Canadian N a t u r a l i s t and Geologist, n. s., I(1864):241-258. . Facts and Fancies i n Modern Science. P h i l a d e l p h i a : "American Baptist P u b l i c a t i o n Society, 1882.  98 . F i f t y Years of Work i n Canada. '§ Co., 1901. F o s s i l Men.  Montreal:  London:  Ballantyne, Hanson,  Dawson Bros., 1880.  The F o s s i l Plants o f the Devonian and Upper S i l u r i a n Formations of Canada. Montreal: Dawson Bros., 1871. "Genesis and Modern Thought." "(June 19, 1880):387-388.  The Sunday School Times  "Haeckel on the Evolution o f Man." "(1880) : 444-464.  Princeton Review V  The H i s t o r i c a l Deluge, i n i t s R e l a t i o n to S c i e n t i f i c Discovery and to Present Questions. New York: Fleming H. Revel1, n. d. (c. 1894). "Insectivorous P l a n t s . " Review of Insectivorous Plants by Charles Darwin. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Review III(1876):64-72. The Meeting Place o f Geology and H i s t o r y . Drysdale § Co., 1894.  Montreal:  W.  "Modern Ideas o f D e r i v a t i o n . " Canadian N a t u r a l i s t and "Quarterly Journal of Science, n. s., IV(1869):121-138. Modern Ideas of Evolution: As Related to Revelation and Science. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1890. Modern Science i n B i b l e Lands. "1888.  London:  Hodder § Stoughton,  The Natural and the S p i r i t u a l : as Presented to Us i n Science and Revelation, n. p., n. d. (1895). "Natural H i s t o r y i n i t s Educational Aspects." Journal of Education I I I (1857):428-436. Nature and the B i b l e . "1882.  New York:  American  Robert Carter £ Brothers,  "Notes on the F l o r a of the White Mountains, i n i t s Geographical and Geological R e l a t i o n s . " Canadian N a t u r a l i s t and Geologist V I I , #2(1862):410-416. "On the Bearings o f Devonian Botany on Questions as to the O r i g i n and E x t i n c t i o n o f Species." American Journal of Science, 3rd ser., II(1871):259-271. "On the Destruction and P a r t i a l Reproduction o f Forests i n B r i t i s h North America." Edinburgh New P h i l o s o p h i c a l Journal XLII(1847):259-271.  99 O r i g i n o f the World According to Revelation and Science. Montreal: Dawson Bros., 1877. "Points of Contact Between Science and Revelation." "Princeton Review, 4th s e r . , IV(1879):579-606. "The Post-Pliocene Geology o f Canada." Canadian N a t u r a l i s t and Quarterly Journal of Science, n. s., VI(1872):19-42; 166187; 247-259; 369-416. "The Present Aspect of I n q u i r i e s as to the Introduction of Genera and Species i n Geological Time." Canadian Monthly and National Review II(1872):154-156. "The Present Rights and Duties o f Science." Review, 4th s e r . , II(1878):673-696.  Princeton  "Professor Huxley i n New York." I n t e r n a t i o n a l Review IV "(1877):34-50. R e l i c s of Primeval L i f e . "1897.  New York:  Fleming H. R e v e l l Co.,  "Review o f Darwin On the O r i g i n of Species by Means o f Natural S e l e c t i o n . " Review o f On the O r i g i n o f Species by Means o f Natural S e l e c t i o n by Charles Darwin. Canadian N a t u r a l i s t and Geologist V, #3(1860):100-120. "Review of Hooker's Outlines o f the D i s t r i b u t i o n o f A r c t i c P l a n t s . " Review of Outlines of the D i s t r i b u t i o n o f A r c t i c Plants by Joseph Hooker. Canadian N a t u r a l i s t and Geologist V I I , #5(1862):334-344. S a l i e n t Points i n the Science o f the Earth. "Drysdale S Co., 1893. .  Science the A l l y of R e l i g i o n ,  Montreal:  W.  n. p., n. d. (c. 1896).  . The Seer of Patmos and the Twentieth Century. Funk § Wagnalls, 1898.  New York:  . "Some Unsolved Problems i n Geology." 449-555.  Nature XXVIII(1883):  . The Story o f Earth and Man. 1873.  Hodder $ Stoughton,  London:  . "The Testimony o f the Rocks, by Hugh M i l l e r . " Review of The Testimony of the Rocks by Hugh M i l l e r . Canadian N a t u r a l i s t and Geologist I I , #2(1857):81-92. Essays and Reviews. 1970.  Westmead, Hunts.: Gregg I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s ,  100 Goldie, T. W. The Mosaic Account of the Creation of the World and the Noachian Deluge, G e o l o g i c a l l y Explained. (2nd ed.) Quebec: Peter S i n c l a i r , 1856. Gray, Asa. Natural Science and R e l i g i o n : Two Lectures Delivered to the Theological School o f Yale College. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1880. H., W.  Review of On the O r i g i n of Species, or the Causes of the Phenomena of Organic Nature: a Course of Lectures to Working Men by Thomas Huxley. Canadian J o u r n a l , 2nd ser., VIII(1863): 390-404.  Haeckel, Ernst. The Evolution of Man: a Popular Exposition of the P r i n c i p a l Parts of Human Ontogeny and Phylogeny. 2 v o l s . (3rd ed.) New York: D. Appleton, 1886. . The H i s t o r y of Creation: or the Development of the Earth and I t s Inhabitants by the A c t i o n of Natural Causes; a Popular E x p o s i t i o n of the Doctrine of Evolution i n General, and that of Darwin, Goethe, and Lamarck i n P a r t i c u l a r . Translated by Schmitz and Lankester from the 8th German ed. 2 v o l s . (4th ed.) New York: D. Appleton § Co., 1903. . The Riddle of the Universe: at the Close of the Nineteenth Century. Translated by Joseph McCabe. New York: Harper $ Bros., 1900. H a r r i s , John. The Bible Read by the Light of Ideal Science. Montreal: L o v e l l , 1874. Harvey, Moses. Lectures on the Harmony of Science and Revelation. H a l i f a x : James Barnes, 1856. H i r s c h f e l d e r , Jacob M. The Creation: Being Two Lectures on the Mosaic Account of the Creation as Recorded i n Genesis I. Toronto: Rowsell § Hutchison, 1874. Hitchcock, Edward. The R e l i g i o n o f Geology and I t s Connected Sciences. Glasgow: William C o l l i n s , n. d. (c. 1851). Hodge, Charles. What i s Darwinism? & Co., 1874. Huxley, Thomas. 1897.  Darwini ana:  Ess ays.  New York:  Scribner, Armstrong,  New York:  D. Appleton § Co.,  . Evolution and Ethics and Other Essays. § Co., 1895. * "  Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews. Co., 1887.  London:  London:  Macmillan  Macmillan §  101  . Man's Place i n Nature and Other Anthropological Essays. Akron, Ohio: The Werner C o . , n. d. (c. 1890). . Science and Hebrew T r a d i t i o n . 1893.  London:  . Science and the C h r i s t i a n T r a d i t i o n . C o . , 1894.  Macmillan § C o . ,  London:  Macmillan §  J a r v i s , Stinson. The Ascent of L i f e : or the Psychic Laws and Forces i n Nature. Boston: Arena, 1894. Le Conte, Joseph. New York:  Evolution and i t s Relation to Religious Thought. D. Appleton § C o . , 1888.  L e i t c h , William. God's Glory i n the Heavens. . (3rd ed.) Alexander Strahan, 1866.  London:  Le Sueur, William. A Defence of Modern Thought: i n Reply to a Recent Pamphlet, by the Bishop of Ontario, on "Agnosticism." Toronto: Hunter, Rose, S C o . , 1884. "  Evolution and the Positive Aspects of Modern Thought: i n Reply to the Bishop of Ontario's Second Lecture on Agnosticism. Ottawa: A. S. Woodburn, 1884. . "The S c i e n t i f i c S p i r i t . " I I I ( 0 c t . , 1879):437-441.  Rose Belford's Canadian Monthly  L y e l l , Charles. The Geological Evidences of the"Antiquity of Man With Remarks on Theories of the Origin of Species by V a r i a t i o n . (2nd ed.) London: John Murray, 1863. McCosh, J . The Religious Aspect of Evolution. Charles Scribner's Sons, 1870.  (rev.  ed.)  New York:  McMullen, J . Mercier. The Supremacy of the Bible: and Its Relations to Speculative Science, Remote Ancient History, and the Higher C r i t i c i s m ; a Brief Appeal to Facts, Inductive Reason, and Common-Sense. New York: Fleming H. R e v e l l , 1905. Marshall, John G. Fictions and E r r o r s , i n a Book on "The Origin of the World According to Revelation and Science, by J . W. Dawson, L. L . P . , P r i n c i p a l of McGill University, Montreal," Exposed and Condemned, on the Authority of Divine Revelation. Halifax: Methodist Book Room, 1877. M i l l e r , Hugh. Footprints of the Creator: or the Asterolepsis of Stromness. Edinburgh: W. P. Nimmo, Hay, § M i t c h e l l , 1896. . The Testimony of the Rocks: or, Geology i n Its Bearings on the Two Theologies, Natural and Revealed. Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1857.  102 Mivart, St. George. On the Genesis o f Species. Appleton § Co., 1871.  New York:  D.  Moffat, J . A l s t o n . "Man S c i e n t i f i c a l l y Considered." Journal and Proceedings o f the Hamilton A s s o c i a t i o n VIII(1891-92):36-51. Paley, William. Natural Theology: or, Evidences o f the Existence and A t t r i b u t e s o f the Deity, C o l l e c t e d from the Appearances o f Nature. (13th ed.) London: J . Faulder, 1810. . Paley's View o f the Evidences o f C h r i s t i a n i t y , Comprising the Text o f W i l l i a m Paley, Verbatim. Edited by G. F i s k . (9th ed.) Cambridge: J . H a l l S Son, 1890. Romanes, George. Mental Evolution i n Man: O r i g i n o f Human Faculty. London: Kegan Paul, Trench § Co., 1888. .  Thoughts on R e l i g i o n .  Chicago: Smith, Goldwin.  Edited by Charles Gore.  (4th ed.)  The Open Court P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1898. Lectures and Essays.  Toronto:  Hunter Rose, 1881.  . "Pessimism." Rose Belford's Canadian Monthly IV(1880):303319. . "The Prospect o f a Moral Interregnum." Rose Belford's Canadian Monthly.Ill(1879):651-663. Smith, John Pye. The R e l a t i o n Between the Holy S c r i p t u r e s and Some Parts o f Geological Science. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1852. Spencer, Herbert. The Data o f E t h i c s . Son, n. d. (c. 1879). __. First Principles. gate, 1875.  New York:  P. F. C o l l i e r 8,  London:  Williams § Nor-  (3rd ed.)  . The P r i n c i p l e s o f Biology. 2 v o l s . London: Norgate, v o l . I , 1865; v o l . I I , 1867.  Williams £  Taylor, Henry. An Attempt to Form a System o f the Creation o f Our Globe, o f the Planets, and the Sun o f Our System: Founded on the F i r s t Chapter o f Genesis, on the Geology o f the Earth, and on the Modern Discoveries i n that Science and the Known Operations o f the Laws o f Nature, as Evinced by the Discoveries of L a v o i s i e r and Others i n Pneumatic Chemistry. Toronto: W. J . Coates, 1836. T r o t t e r , Thomas. A Treatise on Geology; that Science are Reconciled with Ancient Revolutions o f the Earth Benefit t o Man. P i c t o u , N. S.:  i n Which the Discoveries o f the S c r i p t u r e s , and the are Shown to be Sources o f Geldert § Patterson, 1845.-  103  Tyndall, John. "Address of John T y n d a l l . " Report o f the B r i t i s h A s s o c i a t i o n f o r t h e Advancement o f S c i e n c e . (1874)lxvi-xcvii. Wallace, A l f r e d Russel'. , C o n t r i b u t i o n s to the Theory o f N a t u r a l S e l e c tion: a Series of Essays. London: M a c m i l l a n § C o . , 1870. Darwinism: an E x p o s i t i o n o f t h e T h e o r y o f N a t u r a l S e l e c t i o n W i t h Some o f i t s A p p l i c a t i o n s . (2nd ed.) London: Macmillan 5 C o . , 1889. Watson, J o h n . An O u t l i n e o f P h i l o s o p h y : W i t h Notes H i s t o r i c a l and Critical. (2nd ed.) Glasgow: James M a c l e h o s e § S o n s , 1898. Weismann, A u g u s t . The E v o l u t i o n T h e o r y . Thomson f r o m t h e 2 n d German e d . A r n o l d , 1904.  T r a n s l a t e d by J . A r t h u r 2 vols. London: Edward  Wiggins,  E z e k i a l Stone. The A r c h i t e c t u r e o f t h e H e a v e n s : Containing New T h e o r y o f t h e U n i v e r s e a n d t h e E x t e n t o f t h e D e l u g e , a n d t h e T e s t i m o n y o f t h e B i b l e and G e o l o g y i n O p p o s i t i o n t o t h e Views o f Dr. C o l e n s o . Montreal: J . L o v e l l , 1864.  Wilson,  Daniel. Caliban: C o . , 1873.  Wright,  R. n.  Young,  The M i s s i n g  Link.  London:  Ramsay. "Haeckel's 'Anthropogenie. " ' s., XV(1878):231-248.  Macmillan §  Canadian J o u r n a l ,  George. " L e c t u r e on t h e P h i l o s o p h i c a l P r i n c i p l e s o f N a t u r a l Religion." The Home a n d F o r e i g n R e c o r d o f t h e • C a n a d a • P r e s b y t e r i a n Church II(Dec. 1862):29-38. . " T y p i c a l Forms a n d S p e c i a l E n d s i n C r e a t i o n . " R e v i e w o f T y p i c a l Forms a n d S p e c i a l E n d s i n C r e a t i o n b y J a m e s M c C o s h a n d George D i c k i e . C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l , 2nd s e r . , I ( 1 8 5 6 ) : 5 2 8 - 5 4 1 .  Secondary  Adams,  a  Sources  F r a n k Dawson. The B i r t h a n d D e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e G e o l o g i c a l Sciences. New York.:'-:. D o v e r , . 1-938.  A m i , H. M. A B r i e f B i o g r a p h i c a l S k e t c h o f S i r J o h n W i l l i a m Dawson. Minneapolis: The A m e r i c a n G e o l o g i s t , 1 9 0 0 . Angrave,  James. " W i l l i a m Dawson, George G r a n t and t h e L e g a c y o f S c o t t i s h Higher Education." Queen's Q u a r t e r l y LXXXII(Spring, 1975):77-91.  Bailey,  Edward.  Charles  Lyell.  London:  Thomas N e l s o n  § Sons,  1962.  104 Barber, Bernard. "Resistance by S c i e n t i s t s to S c i e n t i f i c Discovery." . Science CXXXIV(1961):596-602. Barbour, Ian. Issues i n Science and R e l i g i o n . P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1966.  Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . :  Bartholomew, Michael. " L y e l l and Evolution: an Account o f L y e l l ' s Response to the Prospect of an Evolutionary Ancestry f o r Man." B r i t i s h Journal f o r the H i s t o r y of Science VI(1972-73):261-303. Baumer, F r a n k l i n . R e l i g i o n and the Rise of Scepticism. Harcourt, Brace § World, 1960. Bibby, C y r i l . "Huxley and the Reception o f the O r i g i n . " Studies 111(1959-60):76-86. . Thomas Huxley: Watts, 1959.  New Haven: Victorian  S c i e n t i s t , Humanist and Educator.  Cannon, Walter F. "The Basis of Darwin's Achievement: V i c t o r i a n Studies V(1961-62):109-134. Carter, Paul A. The S p i r i t u a l C r i s i s of the Gilded Age. Northern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1971.  London:  a Revaluation." De Kalb:  Chadwick, Owen. The S e c u l a r i z a t i o n of the European Mind i n the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1975. Cohen, I. B. "Orthodoxy and S c i e n t i f i c Progress." Proceedings of the American P h i l o s o p h i c a l Society XCVI(1952):505-512. Coleman, William. Georges Cuvier Zoologist: a Study i n the H i s t o r y of Evolution Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1964.. Dillenberger, John. Protestant Thought and Natural Science: c a l Study. New York: Doubleday £ Co., 1960. Dupree, Hunter. Asa Gray 1810-1888. U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1959.  Cambridge, Mass.:  a Histori-  Harvard  E i s e l e y , Loren. Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered I t . New York: Anchor Books, 1961. The Firmament of Time. F i f t y Years Retrospect,  New York:  Atheneum, 1970.  n. p., 1932.  Fleming, Donald. John William Draper: and the R e l i g i o n of Science. P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y of Pennsylvania Press, 1950.  105 Gasman, Daniel. The S c i e n t i f i c Origins of National Socialism: S o c i a l Darwinism i n Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League. London: Macdonald, 1971. Geikie, Archibald. The Founders of Modern Geology. £ Co., 1897.  London:  Macmillan  G i l l i s p i e , Charles. The Edge of O b j e c t i v i t y : an Essay i n the H i s t o r y of S c i e n t i f i c Ideas. Princeton: Princeton U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1960. . Genesis and Geology: a Study in'the Relations of S c i e n t i f i c Thought, Natural Theology and S o c i a l Opinion i n Great B r i t a i n , 1790-1850. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1951. Glass, Bentley; Temkin, Oswei; and Straus, W i l l i a m , eds. Forerunners of Darwin 1745-1859. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1959. G l i c k , Thomas F., ed. The Comparative Reception of Darwinism. U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, 1972.  Austin:  Grant, John. The Church i n the Canadian Era: the F i r s t Century of Confederation. Toronto: McGraw H i l l Ryerson, 1972. Greene, John C. The Death of Adam: Evolution and i t s Impact on Western Thought. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1959. Gruber, Jacob W. A Conscience i n C o n f l i c t : The L i f e of St. George Jackson Mivart. New York: Temple U n i v e r s i t y P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1960. Gundry, D. W. "The Bridgewater Treatises and Their Authors." H i s t o r y XXXI(1946):140-152. Haber, Francis C. The Age of the World: Johns Hopkins Press, 1959.  Moses to Darwin.  Baltimore:  Harvey, D.C. "Dr. Thomas McCullogh and L i b e r a l Education." Dalhousie Review XXIII, #3(1943-44):352-362. Himmelfarb, Gertrude. Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution. Mass.: Peter Smith, 1967. H u r l b u r t t , Robert. Hume, Newton, and the Design Argument. Neb.: U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska Press, 1965.  Gloucester, Lincoln,  I r v i n e , William. Apes, Angels and V i c t o r i a n s : a J o i n t Biography of Darwin and Huxley. London: Weidenfeld § Nicolson, 1955. I r v i n g , John A. "The Development of Philosophy i n Central Canada from 1850 to 1900." Canadian H i s t o r i c a l Review XXXI,'#3(1950):252287.  106  LeMahieu, D. L. The Mind o f W i l l i a m P a l e y : a P h i l o s o p h e r and H i s Age. L i n c o l n , Neb.: U n i v e r s i t y o f Nebraska P r e s s , 1976. Lowenberg, Bert James. "The C o n t r o v e r s y Over E v o l u t i o n i n New England, 1859-1873." New England Q u a r t e r l y V I I I (1935)-.232-257. . "Darwinism Comes t o America, 1859-1900." H i s t o r i c a l Review XXVIII(1941):339-368. . "The Mosaic o f Darwinian Thought." #1(1959):4-18.  Mississippi Valley  V i c t o r i a n Studies I I I ,  L u r i e , Edward. L o u i s A g a s s i z : a L i f e i n Science. o f Chicago P r e s s , 1960.  Chicago:  . " L o u i s A g a s s i z and the Idea o f E v o l u t i o n . " I I I , #1(1959):87-108. McCulloch, William. 1920.  V i c t o r i a n Studies  L i f e o f Thomas M c C u l l o c h , D. P., P i c t o u .  Maclennan, Hugh. M c G i l l : The S t o r y o f a U n i v e r s i t y . A l l e n § Unwin, 1960.  University  London:  Truro:  George  McMurrich, J . P l a y f a i r . " P r e s i d e n t ' s A d d r e s s - F i f t y Years o f Canadian Zoology." Proceedings and T r a n s a c t i o n s o f t h e Royal S o c i e t y o f Canada, 3rd s e r . , XI, s e c t . IV(1917):1-15. M c N e i l l , J . T. The P r e s b y t e r i a n Church i n Canada 1875-1925. P r e s b y t e r i a n Church, 1925.  Toronto:  MacPhie, J . P i c t o n i a n s a t Home and Abroad; Sketches o f P r o f e s s i o n a l Men and Women o f P i c t o u - - I t s H i s t o r y and I n s t i t u t i o n s . Boston: Pinkham P r e s s , 1914. MacVicar, John H. L i f e and Work o f Donald Harvey MacVicar D. P., L. L. D. T o r o n t o : The Westminster Co., 1904. Mandelbaum, M. "Darwin's R e l i g i o u s Views." Ideas XIX(1958):363-378. Mason, Stephen F. A H i s t o r y o f t h e S c i e n c e s . C o l l i e r Books, 1962.  Journal  o f the History o f  ( r e v . ed.) New York:  M i l l h a u s e r , M i l t o n . J u s t Before Darwin: Robert Chambers and " V e s t i g e s . " Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1959. Needham, J . , ed. S c i e n c e ,  R e l i g i o n and R e a l i t y .  London:  The Sheldon  P r e s s , 1926. O'Brien, C h a r l e s . S i r W i l l i a m Dawson: a L i f e i n S c i e n c e and R e l i g i o n . Philadelphia: American P h i l o s o p h i c a l S o c i e t y , 1971.  10 7 Peel, J . D. Y. Herbert Spencer: the Evolution of a S o c i o l o g i s t . New York: Basic Books, 1971. P e l i k a n , J a r o s l a v . "Creation and C a u s a l i t y i n the H i s t o r y of C h r i s t i a n Thought." Sol Tax ed., Evolution A f t e r Darwin: the U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Centennial, v o l . 3 of 3 v o l s . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1960. Persons, Stow, ed. Evolutionary Thought i n America. George B r a z i l l e r , 1956.  New York:  Reimer, Howard. "Darwinism i n Canadian L i t e r a t u r e . " d i s s e r t a t i o n , McMaster U n i v e r s i t y , 1975.  Unpublished Ph. D.  Ronish, Donna. "The Development of Higher Education f o r Women at M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y from 1857 to 1899 With Special Reference to the Role of S i r John William Dawson." Unpublished Ph. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. Scammell, Harold. "The Rise and F a l l o f a College." XXXII, #1(1952):35-44.  Dalhousie Review  Shortt, Samuel Edward. "Conviction i n an Age of T r a n s i t i o n : a Study of Selected Canadian I n t e l l e c t u a l s , 1890-1930." Unpublished Ph. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Queen's U n i v e r s i t y , 1973. Stanley, G. F. G., ed. Pioneers of Canadian Science: Symposium Presented to the Royal Society o f Canada i n 1964. Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1966. Stanton, William. The Leopard's Spots: S c i e n t i f i c A t t i t u d e s Toward Race i n America 1815-59. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1960. Toulmin, Stephen; Goodfield, June. Harper § Row, 1966.  The Discovery of Time.  New York:  Turner, Frank. Between Science and R e l i g i o n : the Reaction to S c i e n t i f i c Naturalism in-Late V i c t o r i a n England. New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1974. Vorzimmer, Peter. Charles Darwin: the Years of Controversy, the " O r i g i n of Species" and i t s C r i t i c s 1859-1882. P h i l a d e l p h i a : Temple U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1970. Wagar, W. Warren. Good Tidings: the B e l i e f i n Progress from Darwin to Marcuse. Bloomington: Indiana U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1972. Wallace, E l i z a b e t h . Goldwin Smith: V i c t o r i a n L i b e r a l . U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1957.  Toronto:  Walsh, H. H.  Ryerson, 1956.  The C h r i s t i a n Church i n Canada.  Toronto:  Wilson, Leonard G. Charles L y e l l : The Years to 1841, the Revolution i n Geology. New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1972.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094053/manifest

Comment

Related Items