Thursday, December 10, 2009

Dabney, Darwin, Science and Scripture


Introduction

Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) has been called the greatest theologian of the nineteenth century.[1] He was an Old School,[2] Southern Presbyterian.[3] He taught at Union Seminary, a leading Southern seminary of his day.[4] Yet, sadly, his works have been largely neglected and overlooked, so much so that later reformed theologians, who developed ideas strikingly similar to his, such as B. B. Warfield, John Murray and Cornelius Van Til, did so without interacting with Dabney’s works.[5] This is perhaps the greatest tragedy of all his life; that his brilliance in both theology and philosophy were so unappreciated that by the end of his life he could truthfully say, “I have no audience.”[6]

In 1859, Charles Darwin published his monumental work On the Origin of Species. Almost immediately, it shook nearly all the accepted scientific theories of its day. It gained popularity in Britain, spread to the northern states in America, but was largely overlooked in the South.[7] This was due to many reasons, not the least of which was the War Between the States (1861-1865) that came upon the heels of its publication. However, this avoidance of Darwin’s theories due to the War could not last, and when it did begin to make inroads in southern institutions, such as Columbia Seminary, it was immediately opposed by leading theologians, such as Dabney. Darwin’s theory of evolution required essentially two things to have happened historically in order for it to be considered credible: first, vast periods of time, and second, descent of species with modification. If a sufficiently vast amount of time is presupposed, during which Darwin’s laws of natural selection and modification could have worked, the result could be evolution of the highest forms of life.[8] The most prominent advocate for integration of evolution with Presbyterian theology was James Woodrow (1828-1907), professor of Natural Science in Connection with Revelation at Columbia Seminary. He was an opponent of Dabney for as long as the two men lived.[9] In this paper, I will analyze Dabney’s three-pronged attack against the evolutionism of his day: the first prong biblical, the second philosophical and the third scientific.

Dabney’s Biblical Argument

In 1861, Dabney wrote an article for the Southern Presbyterian entitled “Geology and the Bible.”[10] Though it was written two years after the publication of Darwin’s Origin, there is no evidence that Dabney intended to interact with that work or had even read it, yet.[11] Without knowing it, Dabney was attacking a foundational precept of Darwinian evolution: an old earth. In “Geology” he outlined his view of the “proper ‘metes and bounds’ of the two sciences” of geology and theology.[12] He did not view the two as contradictory, but believed that “all will agree” if each kept its proper place.[13]

Dabney believed it was not the place of pastors, who had been trained theologically, to enter into technical discussions of physical sciences.[14] However, if geology were to encroach upon the realm of theology, then the pastor must rightfully defend the teachings of Scripture.[15] He stated the reason theologians ought to defend Scripture and in so doing engage the geologists, thus: “[Geology] is virtually a theory of cosmogony; and cosmogony is intimately connected with the doctrine of creation, which is one of the modes by which God reveals himself to man, and one of the prime articles of every theology.”[16]

In short, when science, so called (in this case geology, later evolution), interfered with the doctrine of creation, it strayed into the realm of theology. “For, creation is not only a physical fact; it is a theological doctrine.”[17] Dabney, being a strict subscriptionist to the Westminster Confession, believed that God had made all things in the space of six ordinary days, roughly 6,000 years ago.[18]

More important to Dabney than intrusion upon the doctrine of creation was what modern science did to the authority of Scripture. First, by accommodating the latest scientific theories without regard to accepted biblical doctrine, bad exegesis had to be employed. Those theologians who had thus compromised had “adopted on half-evidence some new-fangled hypothesis of scientific fact, and then invented, on grounds equally insecure, some new-fangled explanations to twist God’s word into seeming agreement with the hypothesis.”[19]

Second, because scientific theories are constantly changing, attempts to reconcile theology with them results in a constantly shifting theology, which weakens the authority of Scripture. True science advances slowly and cautiously, Dabney asserted, and even once it has advanced, it is still not complete, as new research will further illuminate the original finding.[20] But the science of geology was rapidly changing in Dabney’s day. Therefore, if a pastor were to attempt to reconcile theology with it, his reconciliation, his new way of interpreting Scripture in light of the latest discoveries of science, would only be valid until that theory were overturned by the next great discovery of science. “If they [such pastors] are to be believed, then the word of God is but a sort of clay which may be moulded into any shape required by the purposes of priestcraft.”[21] What was true of the constantly changing field of geology would prove, in time, to be equally true of the constantly changing theory of evolution. If reinterpreting Scripture to fit the latest theories based on geologic discoveries weakened the authority of God’s Word, how much more would be the case when the Bible is twisted to accommodate the theory of evolution?

The solution to this cycle of constant reinterpretation of Scripture based on the latest scientific discoveries is to “commit the credit and authority of God’s Word to no theory except such as is absolutely established by the laws of sound exegesis.”[22] Sound exegesis of the text determines which theories of geology ought to be accepted or not. It was a question of authority: will Scripture set the boundaries of science or will science dictate to us what parts of Scripture are in need of reinterpretation? Dabney saw the Bible as authoritative of itself, not because human science establishes it as such.[23] Since the exegesis of Scripture demonstrated that creation occurred 6,000 years ago, then the vast periods of time presupposed by the uniformitarian geology of Charles Lyell[24] (1797-1875) were incorrect and the entire theory of an old earth false. If the universe was not millions of years old, then Darwin’s theory of evolution did not have the time necessary for the accumulation of millions of mutations needed to transmute one species into another, let alone a single cell into man.

Dabney’s Philosophical Argument

Dabney was committed to the Scottish Common Sense school of philosophy.[25] When discussing the absurdity of evolution, Dabney makes appeal several times to common sense.[26] But, though he made this appeal, his philosophical argument against evolution was much stronger than a simple appeal to reasonableness.

In a sermon on Colossians 2:8 preached before the Synod of Virginia in 1871, Dabney warned his fellow ministers against being spoiled “through philosophy and vain deceit.”[27] Evolution was a false philosophy which endangered the eternal state of the soul.

As a committed, thoroughgoing Calvinist, Dabney acknowledged the affects of sin upon all the faculties of man, including his ability to properly interpret the data of creation which he encounters. Therefore, the first error of the scientist, using his latest interpretation of data to challenge the statements of Scripture, is to assume that he can correctly interpret the data with unaided human reason apart from God’s Word and Spirit. “This finite, fallen, imperfect reason is incompetent to invent an infallible method of investigation, or to apply it with unfailing correctness, if it were given to us.”[28] To assume that the scientific method was infallible was to underestimate the noetic effects of sin.

Dabney posited three processes of logic from which a sound philosophy could infer the existence of an infinite, personal Creator God.[29] First, that an effect cannot arise without a cause, ex nihilo nihil. Thus, there must be an absolute First Cause. Second, a plan, of which we see the evidence all around us, must have a Planner. Third, conscience teaches us that we are obliged to certain duties. Obligation implies an Obligor.[30] On the contrary, atheism posits that as beings now exist, they must have always existed, “like producing like.” It attempts to brush aside the need for an infinite, personal Creator God as the First Cause, Planner and Obligor.[31] This presents a problem, for how did the first effect, the first being come into existence? The answer is either an infinite series, which is a logical fallacy, or the atheist must “attempt to prove that, ‘like produces like,’ is not the whole explanation of the series.”[32] And this is exactly what evolution seeks to do.

This idea of the eternal existence of physical matter, however, was nothing new to Dabney. It was a revival of the atomistic theory of the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus.[33] Further, it had been proposed by recent naturalists such as La Marck and Robert Chambers and ultimately, Darwin. In Darwin’s theory, “like producing like” was modified by “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest.” Blind chance, working with these laws over vast amounts of time could produce the entire organized universe.[34] Common sense, according to Dabney, contradicted this, though, for it “teaches us that blind chance cannot be the cause of an ordered result.”[35] Appeals to blind chance were attempts to rob the Christian of the teleological argument.[36]

Appeals to atomistic philosophy made by advocates of evolution differed from the classic Greek philosophy in one important way: Democritus proposed that man had a soul; whereas, evolutionists posited that “the soul” Democritus referred to was actually the nervous system whose existence was unknown to the ancient Greek.[37]

Dabney correctly demonstrated that this new atomistic philosophy, based on the evolution of Darwin, was materialistic. It completely did away with all things spiritual, leaving only an inadequate physical explanation. It obliterated all distinction between mind and matter, seeking to explain all things in material terms alone.[38] It took the attributes properly ascribed to the non-physical, such as thought, motive and idea and claimed that these were products of chemical reactions.

Dabney’s Scientific Argument

Often overlooked is the fact that Dabney, in addition to his philosophical and biblical arguments against evolution, appealed to the leading scientific theories of his day, as well. This is important, because it shows that while Dabney valued Scripture and theology above all else, he did not regard science as an enterprise unworthy of a Christian’s time and effort.

Dabney repeatedly makes references to Louis Agassiz (1807-1873), a leading scientist of his day and professor of zoology and geology at Harvard.[39] Dabney noted also the lack of support Darwin’s theory found in the fossil record.[40] He appealed to observations of hybrid animals unable to produce offspring, such as the mule.[41] He used the science of paleontology to show its lack of support for evolution.[42] He referenced the observation of cells through the microscope as a proof against Darwin’s theory.[43] He even noted that a very similar theory to that of Darwin’s proposed only a few years earlier in the work Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation had been “rejected as generally by the Sensualistic school as by sound philosophers.”[44]

Conclusion

Robert Lewis Dabney has been called the leading theologian of the nineteenth century. He used the full force of his theology to combat encroachment of new, unproven scientific theories into the domain of Scripture. He was a brilliant philosopher and wrote one of the most scathing critiques of nineteenth century thought in his Sensualistic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century, Considered. However, Dabney also saw the benefit of proper science as a handmaid to theology and used the leading scientific theories of his day in his critiques of “science falsely so called.”[45] Scripture, philosophy and true science worked together for Dabney to defend the truth and authority of Scripture against Darwin’s theory of evolution.


Works Cited

Dabney, Robert Lewis. “A Caution Against Anti-Christian Science.” Discussions: Evangelical and Theological. London: Banner of Truth, 1967.

———. Discussions: Evangelical and Theological. London: Banner of Truth, 1967.

———. “Geology and the Bible.” Discussions: Evangelical and Theological. London: Banner of Truth, 1967.

———. The Sensualistic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century, Considered. New York: Randolph, 1875.

Johnson, Thomas Cary. The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977.

Kelly, Douglas. “Robert Lewis Dabney” in David Wells, Reformed Theology in America: A History of Its Modern Development. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997.

Overy, David. “Robert Lewis Dabney: Apostle of the South.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin, 1967.

Smith, Morton. Studies in Southern Presbyterian Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987.

Street, T. Watson. “The Evolution Controversy in the Southern Presbyterian Church with Attention to the Theological and Ecclesiastical Issues Raised.” Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society 37 (1959): 232-50.

Thompson, Ernest Trice. Presbyterians in the South. 3 vols. Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1963.

Zenos, Andrew. “Presbyterian Churches in the United States of America.” in J. N. Ogilvie. The Presbyterian Churches: Their Place and Power in Modern Christendom. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1897.



[1] Thomas Cary Johnson, The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 557.

[2] The Dictionary of the Reformed and Presbyterian Tradition in America defines Old School Presbyterianism as strict adherence to the Westminster Confession.

[3] Morton Smith, Studies in Southern Presbyterian Theology, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987), 216

[4] Andrew C. Zenos, “Presbyterian Churches in the United States of America” in J. N. Ogilvie, The Presbyterian Churches: Their Place and Power in Modern Christendom, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1897), 118.

[5] Douglas Kelly, “Robert Lewis Dabney,” in David Wells, Reformed Theology in America (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 211.

[6] Robert Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, 3 vols (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1962), 2:558 quoted by Douglas Kelly, “Robert Lewis Dabney.”

[7] Ernest Trice Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, vol. 1, 1607-1861 (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1963), 508.

[8] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century, Considered (New York: Randolph, 1875), 110.

[9] T. Watson Street, “The Evolution Controversy in the Southern Presbyterian Church with Attention to the Theological and Ecclesiastical Issues Raised,” Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society 37 (1959): 233.

[10] Dabney, “Geology and the Bible,” in Discussions: Evangelical and Theological (London: Banner of Truth, 1967), 3:127.

[11] Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, 1:508.

[12] Dabney, “Geology and the Bible,” 127.

[13] David Overy, “Robert Lewis Dabney: Apostle of the Old South” (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin, 1967), 246.

[14] Dabney, “Geology and the Bible,” 127.

[15] Dabney, “Geology and the Bible,” 136.

[16] Dabney, “Geology and the Bible,” 129.

[17] Dabney, “Geology and the Bible,” 133.

[18] Westminster Confession of Faith 4.1.

[19] Dabney, “Geology and the Bible,” 130.

[20] Dabney, “Geology and the Bible,” 130.

[21] Dabney, “Geology and the Bible,” 130.

[22] Dabney, “Geology and the Bible,” 131.

[23] Dabney, “Geology and the Bible,” 134.

[24] The full title of Lyell’s work was The Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth’s Surface by Reference to Causes now in Operation. Uniformitarian geology asserted that the processes now at work on earth had always been at work. In order to explain the geologic phenomena around us the earth must be much older than 6,000 years.

[25] Smith, Studies in Southern Presbyterian Theology, 190-1. Common Sense Realism taught that there are facts that can be accepted on the basis of common sense and do not require proof.

[26] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 111 and 130.

[27] Johnson, The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, 343.

[28] Dabney, “A Caution Against Anti-Christian Science,” in Discussions: Evangelical and Theological (London: Banner of Truth, 1967), 3:160.

[29] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 107.

[30] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 107.

[31] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 108.

[32] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 109.

[33] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 109. Democritus proposed that all things are made of physical atoms, and that only the physical exists.

[34] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 111.

[35] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 111.

[36] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 112. The teleological argument infers on the basis of design a Designer.

[37] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 115.

[38] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 116.

[39] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 173.

[40] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 173-4.

[41] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 176.

[42] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 178.

[43] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 168.

[44] Dabney, The Sensualistic Philosophy, 165.

[45] Dabney, “A Caution Against Anti-Christian Science,” 152.