Process and Providence: The Evolution Question at Princeton, 1845-1929

by Bradley J. Gundlach

Charles Hodge, James McCosh, B. B. Warfield -- these leading professors at Princeton College and Seminary in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are famous for their orthodox Protestant positions on the doctrine of evolution. In this book Bradley Gundlach explores the surprisingly positive embrace of developmental views by the whole community of thinkers at old Princeton, showing how they embraced the development not only of the cosmos and life-forms but also of Scripture and the history of doctrine, even as they defended their historic Christian creed.Decrying an intellectual world gone “evolution-mad,” the old Princetonians nevertheless welcomed evolution “properly limited and explained.” Rejecting historicism and Darwinism, they affirmed developmentalism and certain non-Darwinian evolutionary theories, finding process over time through the agency of second causes — God’s providential rule in the world -- both enlightening and polemically useful. They also took care to identify the pernicious causes and effects of antisupernatural evolutionisms. By the 1920s their nuanced distinctions, together with their advocacy of both biblical inerrancy and modern science, were overwhelmed by the brewing fundamentalist controversy.From the first American review of the pre-Darwinian Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation to the Scopes Trial and the forced reorganization of Princeton Seminary in 1929, Process and Providence reliably portrays the preeminent conservative Protestants in America as they defined, contested, and answered -- precisely and incisively -- the many facets of the evolution question.

Genres: History, Theology, History Of Science, Science

353 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 30, 2013

Reviews

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

An empathetic discussion of the Old Princetonians' attitudes towards evolution, based on a judicious use of both manuscript and printed sources. Stylistically, it is also a joy to read. One does not have to agree with Old Princeton's theistic evolutionary leanings - I certainly do not - but this book helps us to understand the nuances of their outlook.

[Russell Knapp · Rating 4 out of 5]

Process and Providence by Bradley Gundlach is an analysis of Princeton’s answer (or rather, answers) to the growing scientific theory of evolution in the second half of the 19th century, and the early 20th century. By Princeton, Gundlach means both the college and the seminary, and he specifically focuses on significant Princetonians from both institutions throughout the years. Gundlach considers his work a “group-biography” (14), and therefore traces a narrative of thought patterns regarding evolution at Princeton through people instead of arguing for something specific. In the conclusion, Gundlach states that he actively sought not to make claims about what the Princetonians believed, but to instead highlight what they themselves said (312). Nevertheless, Gundlach did have two themes that he consistently came back to. The first is that the discussion of evolution in Princeton was much more complex than people consider today, with thoughtful and God-honoring people that held many different positions. The second theme is that while specific views on evolution differed over time, the underminings of Princetonian thought were against pure naturalism and materialism, especially when they intruded into philosophy and theology, but not developmentalism.
In the narrative structure of Process and Providence, Gundlach focuses on specific people and thought-movements to tell his story of evolution. Chapter one begins with covering the origins of evolutionary thought. While the idea had been around since the ancient Greeks (24), Robert Chambers’ Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, published in 1844, first brought evolution to a widespread audience (22). Princeton professor Albert Dod reviewed and criticized it on mostly a philosophical level (28). Even before Darwin, the main arguments against evolution Dod made had to do with naturalism and metaphysical dualism, or the separation of the development of the physical/natural world and the mental/spiritual one (28).
Throughout the 40s and 50s, various evolutionary theories began popping up, including Darwin’s in 1959. Gundlach argues that Darwin’s works were not revolutionary at first, but one more in a trend of competing theories (52). The enemy of religion at the time to Princetonians was not evolution, but philosophical materialism - or natural sciences trying to explain things that were in the philosophical realm (76). With the growth of atheistic evolutionary theories such as Herbert Spencer’s, Princeton’s approach was to fight science with science; sometimes theistic, providential evolution against agnostic, random evolution. Some notable examples of this covered in the book are James McCosh, who became President of the college in 1868, Charles Aiken, an apologetics professor at the seminary who believed in evolution, and even Charles Hodge, who is commonly thought of as anti-evolutionary, but allowed it in a theistic sense, just not Darwin’s random development (110-111, 114, 123).
Eventually, developmentalism of some sort was accepted as fact by most of the scientific world, and it was often used by Princetonians as Calvinistic evidence of God’s providence. Evolution with a purpose was known as Lamarckism evolution (217). In the 1890s, Princeton Seminarians generally allowed evolution when still separated from supernaturalism, but natural science could not explain the soul, mind, miracles, etc. It was not until the 20th century that an evolution vs religion argument came to be a public debate when it became an issue in public school education (285) and various media battles in the 20s (295). While some Princetonians became antievolutionist at the time, most remained patient and confident, while ensuring that naturalism could not supersede the spiritual side of Christianity.

Gundlach’s primary goal in writing Process and Providence was to write a “group-biography” of Princeton college and seminary in the lens of the evolution question (14). In this pursuit, Gundlach did succeed, but with a few qualifications. In the sense that the book remained focused on Princeton while still focusing on a much broader issue, the book excelled. Gundlach expertly portrays how deeply involved Princeton was in the evolution question, and even when it wasn’t directly connected, Gundlach makes clear exactly where significant Princetonians stood. Where the “group-biography” idea falls short is that sometimes Gundlach portrays certain ideas that specific Princetonians had as the spirit of the whole school. And while Process and Providence does get into some inter-Princetonian conflicts, such as Charles Shields’ Final Philosophy (176-180), and the growth of fundamentalism and the evolution/religion split in the 20th century (chapter 9), Gundlach’s admiration for the Princetonians (which he readily admits, xi-xxi) leaks through as he minimizes conflicts and argues for consistent ideologies.
Gundlach supports his main themes in this book quite well. Those being: the evolution question being more complex than we commonly think of today, and the Princetonians’ fight against naturalism intruding into the realm of metaphysics and theology. He repeatedly reiterates these themes in different contexts and with different people, all while maintaining his focus on Princeton. He supports his theme of evolution being a complex issue by giving the perspectives of many different people and their different views on evolution, many of which were from conservative Calvinist Christians who saw no problem with the idea that species developed from other species, even over long times. He even made evident that supposed anti-evolutionists like Hodge who famously coined the phrase, “Darwinism is atheism” had much more complex views on what tenets of evolution were acceptable, and what were not (123).
One of Gundlach’s strengths is tracing the development of ideas throughout time. One (obvious) example is the growth of evolution throughout the narrative. First it was introduced as a new theory that was quickly dismissed, but not necessarily because Princetonians were inherently against developmentalism. It was then not one theory but many, most of which were teleological and compatible with Christianity. All the while there was a naturalistic undermining in some evolutionary theory that Princetonians repeatedly put down while still allowing–or even supporting–the basics of developmentalism. Gundlach kept coming back to Princetonians being uncomfortable with the idea of natural sciences intruding into studies of the mind and faith, such as philosophy and religion. Since Gundlach was able to point to examples of this again and again throughout the book’s time period, he made a convincing argument that Princetonians of different eras really did share this philosophical similarity, which provides context to how Princetonians responded to evolution.
Process and Providence is best read with some previous knowledge on the historiography regarding Princeton and Evolution. There are many names in this book, most of which are assumed the reader knows something about. The most evident example is the (apparently) invented conflict between James McCosh and Charles Hodge, who were in reality, according to the book, quite closely aligned intellectually. Gundlach also uses many terms common in Philosophy and Intellectual History and expects the reader to have some understanding of them. These are not necessarily negatives for a more experienced reader in this topic, but Gundlach’s prose can be dense with unfamiliar words at times, and is thus unfriendly for the uninitiated.
Process and Providence by Bradley J. Gundlach is a great book for getting an overview of the evolution question in the 19th century, especially in the context of Princeton. It supports its main themes well, and provides ample support for evolution being a much more complex and multifaceted issue than today’s polarization between religion and evolution. There are a few issues with understating some conflict within Princeton in favor of intellectual cohesiveness, but overall, this is an excellent work of scholarship.

[Stinger · Rating 3 out of 5]

About the Author
    Bradley J. Gundlach is Professor of History and Director of the Division of Humanities at Trinity International University. He earned his A.B. at Princeton University, M.A. at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and M.A. & Ph.D. at the University of Rochester. While a senior in the history department at Princeton University, the author first came to recognize the importance of Princeton’s past relative to the development of ideas pertaining to the relationship of science and religion. This subject became the focus of his thesis, fitting well with the author’s long held interest in fossils and evolution as well as his (then recent) commitment to evangelical Christianity. Gundlach further examined the above topic as “The Evolution Question at Princeton” in his M.A. thesis at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and in his Ph.D. at the University of Rochester.
    Thus, given the author's sharp interest in the intersection of science and religion as well as his educational experiences, he is well qualified to delve into Princeton’s history regarding the question of evolution in relation to Christian theology. Gundlach, admittedly, admires the Princetonians and offers “this study of their explorations of the multifaceted evolution question out of more than antiquarian interest.” The author believes the Princetonians provide “a good model, on the whole, of thoughtful engagement between Christian faith and the thought currents of one’s time and place.” As one who is so heavily invested in the history of science and religion, Gundlach is motivated to set forth an example of healthy interaction between those fields from which we may gain insight to guide similar discourse today.

Summary
    In Process and Providence, Gundlach conducts a biographical exploration to answer the question of how the Princetonians of the mid 19th to early 20th century interacted and addressed the issue of evolution. The author notes that unlike current times in which diversity of opinion is celebrated within universities, at the time period under examination unity of doctrine was associated within each particular institution. Hence, one may “speak of ‘the Princetonians’ as a coherent group, and . . . approach the evolution question at Princeton as a sort of group odyssey.” Gundlach takes the reader through this group experience as they “considered, defined, refined, and revisited the issues they believed were involved in the evolution question in their generation.”
    Gundlach's book, apart from the introduction and conclusion, consists of nine chapters forming roughly four sections. Chapters 1-3 (“Natural History and the Moral Sphere”, “The Battle Cry” and “Seize and Master”) tell of Princeton’s assessment of the relation of science to religion as well as the latter’s specifically to evolution prior to the introduction of Darwinian theory. Chapters 4-6 (“McCosh and Hodge”, “To Mold the Age” and “Theism and Evolution”) cover the Princetonian’s response to the emergence of Darwin’s mode of evolution. Chapters 7 and 8 (“Natural Religion” and “Supernaturalism”) highlight “the relationship at Princeton between progressionism in evolutionary biology and progressionism in orthodox Calvinist theology.” Finally, chapter 9 (“Fundamentalism”) bears witness to the unwinding of the built up edifice of consensus relationship between theism and evolution. The following contains a more detailed summary of the material contained in Process and Providence.

Part I: Pre-Darwinian Developmentalism
    Chapter one features professor of mathematics, Albert B. Dod’s critical review of Robert Chamber’s Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Though the latter thought his book a contribution to natural theology, the former warned of the book’s monistic metaphysic - its methodological blindness to the spiritual realm. But while Dod rejected the Chamber’s evolutionism because of its materialistic entailments, a fellow Princetonian, Arnold Henry Guyot, set forth a progressive view of evolution that took seriously the framework of Genesis chapter one. Princeton was well pleased with how Guyot’s developmentalism managed to preserve the fundamental duality of matter and spirit - a view that comported with the Bible.
    “The Battle Cry” documents the Princetonians adverse reaction, not to Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, but to the materialism implied by the works of Herbert Spencer, Thomas H. Huxley and John Stuart Mill. Yet even then, only “reluctantly did the Princetonians describe the relations of science and religion in terms of conflict.” That they did so was a result of their “wariness against the abuse of natural science as rationalization for irreligious motives, and a dawning suspicion that the method of natural science itself might prejudice its outcome in religious matters. . . .”
    Chapter three outlines the defensive response of the Princetonians. The enemy of sound Calvinist doctrine was identified as nothing less than philosophical materialism, of late garbed in evolutionary theory. The plan of attack was the following:
“To unmask the real enemy as infidel philosophy for all to see;
To stand on the solid ground of faith in revealed, supernatural religion against a skeptical, materialistic truncation of reality; and
Positively to storm the enemy arsenal, seizing and mastering the weapons of attack, turning them to their proper use in fortifying the citadel of faith.”
Thus was the battle plan set forth, a plan conceived to free the natural sciences from control of materialistic philosophy.

Part II: Darwin, Evolution, and Theism
    In chapter four, Gundlach chronicles the superficial differences but underlying agreement in position on evolution of influential Princetonians James McCosh and Charles Hodge. The former is known as the first prominent evangelical to accept evolution, and the latter is famous for his phrase, “What is Darwinism? It is atheism.” What McCosh in actuality had affirmed was that there was room in religion for the then tentatively possible theory as a method of creation. On the other hand, what Hodge rejected was the all sufficiency of evolution as to causation or as a world philosophy, and with this McCosh was in agreement.
    Continuing his biographical sketch of McCosh in chapter five, Gundlash tells how this president of Princeton sought to shape his institution into one that would “mold the age” philosophically, scientifically and religiously. He wanted to foster a generation of “Bright Young Men,” trained in piety and scholarship, who would take the best science had to offer and bring it back “under God” at Princeton. Chapter six recalls the work of Francis Landey Patton as he assumed a new chair endowed specifically as a platform for the theistic argument, the Stuart Professor of the Relations of Science and Philosophy to the Christian Religion. Patton, like his Princetonian forebearers, emphasized the hard choice between either a theistic or an antitheistic metaphysic - taking his enemy to be materialism, not necessarily evolution.

Part III: Progressionism
    By the 1890s, as the author conveys in chapter seven, a changing of the guard had occurred at Princeton. McCosh retired, and his “Bright Young Men,” including conservative theological luminary B.B. Warfield, had already begun to fill faculty positions. Patton assumed the presidency, and theism became the watchword of his tenure. “But just as the Princetonians renewed and intensified their commitment to natural theology, their old enemy, natural religion, returned with a vengeance, strengthened by the fantastic successes of evolutionism in biology and geology.” It was the evolution question that “helped to steer the Princeton theologians into their famous role as champions of the Bible in the 1890s, rejoining and escalating their oldest battle, the battle against deism.”
    In his chapter entitled “Supernaturalism,” Gundlach writes of the Princetonians’ wariness of the use of evolution as a means of doing away with divine intervention in religious experience as well as in nature. “The Princeton theologians embraced a negative evolutionism - a theory of degeneration . . . to counter liberal-tending paeans to ever-upward progress. Early in the new century a note of overt complaint entered Princetonian discourse about evolution - complaint against antisupernaturalism masquerading as science, complaint against a world one of Warfield’s comrades described as ‘evolution mad.’”

Part IV: Fundamentalism
    Chapter nine documents the final break in the consensus about theism and evolution. Darwinism had fallen out of favor, and a specific method of evolution was not agreed upon by the scientific community. In addition, German aggression in World War I had been linked to the Darwinian motif of struggle for existence. These factors spurred an antievolutionism movement led by populist William Jennings Bryan. “Some of old Princeton’s direst warnings seemed to be coming true - an important reason why fundamentalists flocked to the antievolutionist cause - as scientists used the theory of descent . . . to proclaim the intellectual triumph of naturalism, and worse, of theological liberalism.” But Princeton had its own worries as strongly differing receptiveness to theological liberalism began to tear asunder the seminary by the late 1920s.

Evaluation

Strengths
    Process and Providence has much to offer to even the most disinterested reader. While the subject of the history and relation of science and religion can be told in a dry manner, Gundlach demonstrates not only sufficient mastery of the topic of study but weaves a complex tale in an engaging manner. The book’s quality benefits from being told by an “inside man” since the author attended college at Princeton and used primary sources from its archives. Gundlach’s writing is the result of continuous study lasting not just months but years, being the subject of his graduate thesis and doctoral dissertation. Likewise, the author is to be commended for not bowing before peer pressure to conform to fellow historians’ opinions, such as those of Mark Noll and David Livingstone, concerning the Princetonians.
    His telling of a piece of the history of science and religion, via biographical sketches and the recounting of theological skirmishes, is easy to follow. Gundlach opts against telling his readers how science and religion should interact. Rather, he follows a select group of influential individuals, the Princetonians, and allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions based upon the history presented.

Weaknesses
What may be said by way of critique about Process and Providence? One would have appreciated more meaningful digestion of the stories conveyed, even if doing so was not a part of the author’s original intent. It is the idea of the interplay of process and providence for which the book is titled, yet the subject receives insufficient direct treatment in its conclusion. Though Process and Providence is over 300 pages (of mostly biographical sketches), a lengthier conclusion than 10 pages, as space to discuss the possible interpretations of the historical data and the potential lessons to be learned for science and religion interaction, would have proven fruitful for the reader. Nevertheless, in the author’s defense, he is careful to convey from the start his primary intent to seek understanding, not application, in order to minimize inserting bias into the history he shares.

Goal Achievement
As Gundlach states in the preface, he greatly admires the Princetonians and offers as a model of healthy relationship between science and religion their thoughtful response to the scientific currents of the mid 19th through early 20th century. Thus, Gundlach succeeds in offering the Princetonians as a model, both positive and negative, for the way in which science and religion might relate. Process and Providence is a group biography centering the question, “How did the most prominent Princetonians of 1845-1929 address, rebuff and integrate the emerging concepts of evolution?” It is in answer to that query the book is devoted. As such, the author’s delving into the history of Princeton is an entertaining and intellectually fruitful exploration.
    But did Gundlach prove his underlying thesis? Did strong Calvinistic doctrine drive these men’s methods of selectively accepting some aspects of evolution, folding it into a larger theme of developmentalism? The answer is yes, yet the evidence provided by the author in defense of his thesis could have been consolidated and further explained.
    Gundlach states, “Providence grounded and explained process, and the Princetonians . . . had no problem thinking in terms of change over time - but how one thought in terms of change could take many forms, many of them unacceptable to orthodoxy. . . . Process was an inherent part of the idea of providence, but providence required certain definite understandings of process.” A further development and deeper devotion to the above theme, even if only in the book’s conclusion, would have strengthened the author’s case for his thesis.
   
Recommendation
    Surprisingly, Process and Providence, has a fairly wide appeal. Those concerned with the question of how evolutionary theory should be treated in response to an essential commitment to the truth contained in Christian doctrine would be interested in this book. Also, anyone attracted to learning the history of science would enjoy reading this book. Actually, as far as storytelling goes, this book is fascinating enough to snare just about any history buff, especially those who enjoy American history of the mid 19th to early 20th century. Christian apologists would be better equipped by reading Process and Providence. Lastly, scientists and theologians in particular will find much food for thought contained within its pages.
    Given such a large audience, the task of making so much material understandable to laypersons, yet challenging to professionals in the history of science, would appear daunting, but Gundlach has succeeded in this work by taking a complex subject and developing a story that is thoroughly detailed yet immanently readable by almost any audience. Books on the subject of the history of science and religion can be dry and boring, but I found the reading of Process and Providence engaging from beginning to end. Perhaps I am biased by my own awe experienced at having visited Princeton a decade ago, but truly the author’s prose and original material should prove inviting to many readers. Hence, I recommend this book to those keenly interested in science and religion as well as to those Christians with questions about how to discern and integrate the content of contemporary scientific trends into their belief system.

[Denise Kettering · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a masterful institutional history that provides in-depth analysis of the various ways that Princeton Seminary and Princeton University approached the question of evolution. He clearly identifies the clear theological objections that arose at various points and in doing so demonstrates the complexity of the experience that many people had of the evolutionary debate. The book is clear and well-written and provides excellent details and bibliography for anyone that might want to delve deeper in this subject. That said, this is a book that can be dry at times because of the depth of institutional history and historical theology. If you really want to understand, at more than a passing level, the complexities of the debate around evolution, this book will be helpful.

[Brad Belschner]

Didn't finish this book, because I'm more interested in how to interpret Genesis well and less interested in historical philosophical debates at Princeton. I was hoping I could get more of the former out of this book, but it seems to be mostly the latter. Which is fine. That's pretty much exactly what the title and book description advertised, so I can't find fault in that.

[Derrick Ousley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well written and thoughtful

Well written and thoughtful. Illuminating for the modern debate on Young Earth and Old Earth Creationism. Orthodoxy has not always been exclusively, or even primarily, tied to Young Earth Creationism.

[David Carlson · Rating 5 out of 5]

this is a great work. He traces how Princeton Theologians, primarily Charles Hodge, James McCosh and B. B. Warfield faced the theological challenge of Darwinism. The issue was not for them the age of the earth, but that fact that Darwin did not leave room for a Creator (other than to create a germ from which life developed). there is no purpose and no design in Darwinsim. So Hodge opposed, McCosh accommodated where he could and Warfield dialogues with out deciding.

the responses of opposition, dialogue and accommodation are yet with us. Their reading of Darwinism as a philosophy are insightful.

see FreshRead blog for a flavor http://freshread.wordpress.com/catego...

[Jon Ludwick · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are looking for a well-researched understanding of what was happening at Old Princeton with regard to science and religion, this book is for you. I highly encourage this read if metaphysics is something that interests you.