Harmony Between Christianity and Science in the Late 19th Century
In modern day American higher education, it is uncommon for college classes to incorporate Christian theology with science-oriented subjects. Theology remains within the bounds of the humanities, and is generally taught in seminary or divinity school settings. However, this was not always the case in American colleges and universities. The early 20th century was a turning point for the relationship between Christian values and the study of science. In the late 19th century, there was still a harmonious relationship between Christianity and science. A natural theology that affirmed a mutualistic relationship between the Christian faith and an objective study of science was prevalent at the time. Essentially, truths about God (theology) were directly correlated with the discovery of his creation (science). This perspective of natural theology was applied in most leading liberal arts institutions, including universities such as Princeton, Harvard, and Yale. Yale and Harvard offered classes dedicated to revealed religion in nature, while Princeton even appointed a “Professor of the Harmony of Science and Religion.” The educators of the antebellum era held onto the evidentialist belief that the created world necessitates a divine creator. Thus, the further development of science was never considered a threat to Scripture, but rather more evidence for its message.[1]
In light of this, controversial scientific discoveries, such as evolution and geochronology, were not seen as posing much danger to the truth claims of the Bible in the 19th century. This is not to say there was no conflict. In 1874, for example, John Draper published his famous History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, and in 1896 Andrew Dickson White, then president of Cornell University, his A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. These types of arguments, coupled with German liberalism and American pragmatism, certainly set the trajectory for the divide between science and religion.But the general reaction among theologians and in higher education in the late 19th century to such supposed conflict was adaptive rather than antagonistic. When advancements in geological discovery heavily suggested that the earth is much older than their biblical presuppositions based on the creation narrative in Genesis, many Protestant scholars attempted to reconcile the science with Scripture rather than refuting it. Edward Hitchcock, the president of Amherst College and renowned geologist, published Elementary Geology in 1860 with a detailed section attempting to harmonize the geological data with the Genesis account. Similarly, a notable Yale geologist, James Dwight Dana, published Text-Book of Geology in 1863, which incorporated fossil records of prehistoric species to support biblical creationism and refute the claims of evolution. Even Darwin’s Origin of Species, published in 1859, did not receive widespread pushback from Protestants until around 1920, which means that it was not immediately received with Christian opposition.[2] Darwinian Christian natural theologians, such as George Frederick Wright and Charles Woodruff Shields, were convinced that a teleological apologetic is compatible with evolution.
It seems that the teaching of Christianity in American colleges did not diminish amidst new scientific discoveries that could potentially pose a danger to the message of Scripture. If anything, the growing need for Christian apologetics in an ever-changing world became all the more pressing.[3] As Daniel Williams remarks:
Thus, at the beginning of the twentieth century, both theologically liberal Protestants and those who were more conservative believed that religion and science were engaged in the same enterprise—the task of understanding God—and that insights from one sphere could affect one’s understanding of the other.[4]
Hostility Between Christianity and Science in the Early 20th Century
Within a span of two decades, however, a significant shift in the relationship between science and religion within American higher education occurred. Woodrow Wilson’s Princeton speech in 1896 hinted at what was to come, reducing the value of religious beliefs to merely encouraging higher moral ideals.[5] By 1920, the once mandatory apologetics courses on natural theology and professor position of “Harmony of Science and Religion” had been dropped in the university setting. While religion was still relevant in education, it was partitioned from the realm of the natural sciences. Theology came to be studied in the realm of philosophy, particularly ethics, and religion was studied in the realm of psychology or the social sciences. In those first two decades of the 20th century, serious debates erupted on the issue of maintaining compulsory chapels in colleges, while natural science began to solidify its place in the university as distinct from religious beliefs.
It was here that the advances in scientific knowledge really began to trouble some theologians. Prominent figures in American academia, such as Douglas Clyde MacIntosh and George William Knox, held the view that the empirical evidence of modern science compromises the accuracy of biblical claims. They believed a different approach to the faith in light of the increasing scientific knowledge must be taken. MacIntosh remarked:
As a matter of fact, belief in God depends not primarily upon argument, but upon experience. It is not the contribution of philosophy but of religion. It is based upon the experience of religious need and its satisfaction. Schleiermacher began right when he suggested substituting for the so-called theistic proofs an appeal to the universal human consciousness of absolute dependence.
Christianity, it was supposed, must look for its basis in religious experience rather than Scripture’s historical or scientific claims. The evidentialist argument of design and the divine creator of natural theology became irrelevant as personal experience and social transformation began to define Christianity. Christianity shared nothing in common with science; it belonged in the realm of practice instead of theory. In other words, science was secularized as faith was sacralized.[6] This marked the secularization of American higher education, as natural theology departed the field of science.
Yale University: A Case Study in the Secularization of American Higher Education
This trend of the renunciation of religion from science in the secularization of American higher education be demonstrated by a look at the history of Yale University. In the 1890s, Yale was committed to the study of Christian evidences in natural theology. Their “Professor of the Harmony of Science and Religion,” Charles Woodruff Shields, had published his argument for the reconciliation between science and religion in 1861, titled Philosophia Ultima. He reasoned that both science and theology are necessary in the quest for the ultimate unity of truth. Furthermore, George Barker Stevens and Samuel Harris were key players in expanding the Christian apologetics taught at Yale. Stevens incorporated scientific evidence in order to defend Christianity, as the 1904 Yale University catalogue declared “the aim in [the systematic theology] department is to set forth the grounds and content of the Christian faith in a method at once historical, critical, and constructive.”[7] Harris also believed and taught that “the existence of the personal God or the Supreme Reason energizing in the universe in a necessary datum of scientific knowledge.”[8]
At the beginning of the 20th century, then, the future of Christianity’s relationship with science looked promising at Yale. Under the direction of Douglas MacIntosh, who was Stevens’ successor, however, the shift toward secularization occurred. MacIntosh’ influence from German liberal theology and American pragmatism resulted in a different approach to Christianity in the college classroom. Christianity, according to MacIntosh, was not supported by empirical evidence, as previously believed, but rather simply offered noble teachings of love and morality. At the hands of MacIntosh, Christianity was reduced to religious experience and a system of ethics. As such, it could not offer any factual claims of objective truth and revelation as science does. While apologetics courses were still offered at Yale, none of them mentioned the connection between science and theology as they previously had. The distinction of Yale Divinity School from the university reveals that they still recognize their Christian roots and the necessity of theological education, but it also reveals the secularization of their educational mission in separating religion to its own field. This is not a trend exclusive to Yale, but can also be seen in institutions such as Harvard and Princeton.[9]
Conclusion
While Christianity is still recognized as an indispensable area of study in American education, it has ultimately lost its recognition within the realm of scientific data and research. New subjects such as biology, chemistry, physics, psychology, economics, and mathematics have dominated the fields of education in American institutions to this day, with absolutely no application of or connection to Christian values. Williams makes the keen observation that the secularization of the university is not a result of scientific discoveries, but rather directly related to the mainline Protestant abandonment of natural theology.[10] The abolishment of mandatory natural theology courses in American colleges might have led to the inevitable demise of secularization of science.
Many today will argue that theology has no constructive role in scientific study, or, worse, that it may even be obstructive to scientific study, and hence needs to be discretely sequestered from it. Yet, there is a moral and telos vacuum in the sciences created by theology’s absence. Christianity, along with other religions, has certainly held wrong presuppositions regarding the natural world that hindered scientific thought, but the very advancement of the study of natural science can be credited to the role of Christianity in history and culture. As the Westminster Confession of Faith has it: “The works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God…” If this is true, then redeveloping a natural theology in the American education system is imperative for reconciling Christianity with science; or, rather, for showing that the two have never really been estranged.
Steve Yoo is currently pursuing his Master of Divinity at Westminster Seminary California. He is serving as the Jr. High director at Cerritos Presbyterian Church (KAPC).
[1] See, for example, Bradley J. Gundlach, Process and Providence: The Evolution Question at Princeton, 1845-1929. The famous example of this approach is William Paley’s Natural Theology, (1802).
[2] See Edward J. Larson, Trial and Error: the American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution.
[3] Bradley J. Longfield, “From Evangelicalism to Liberalism: Public Midwestern Universities in Nineteenth-Century America” in The Secularization of the Academy.
[4] Daniel K. Williams, “When Science Turned Secular: The Mainline Protestant Abandonment of Natural Theology and the Secularization of American Colleges in the Early Twentieth Century,” Fides et Historia 51 (2) (2019): 6.
[5] See George M. Marsden, “The Soul of the American University: A Historical Overview” in The Secularization in the Academy, 19. Woodrow Wilson’s speech referenced is his “Princeton in the Nation’s Service” in 1896.
[6] Williams, “When Science Turned Secular,” 2.
[7] Catalogue of Yale University, 1904-1905.
[8] Samuel Harris, The Philosophical Basis of Theism, 560.
[9] Williams, “When Science Turned Secular,” 11-12.
[10] Williams, “When Science Turned Secular,” 11-12
