Editing Theistic evolution (section)

==Historical development==
{{further|Alternatives to evolution by natural selection}}

Historians of science (and authors of pre-evolutionary ideas) have pointed out that scientists had considered the concept of biological change well before Darwin.

In the 17th century, the English [[Nonconformist (Protestantism)|Nonconformist]]/[[Anglican]] priest and botanist [[John Ray]], in his book ''The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of Creation (1692)'', had wondered "why such different species should not only mingle together, but also generate an animal, and yet that that hybridous production should not again generate, and so a new race be carried on".<ref>[http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1960/JASA6-60Marsh.html On the Origins of New Forms of Life, A new Theory], by Eugene M. McCarthy.</ref>

18th-century scientist [[Carl Linnaeus]] (1707–1778) published ''Systema Naturae'' (1735), a book in which he considered that new varieties of plants could arise through [[hybrid (biology)|hybrid]]ization, but only under certain limits fixed by God. Linnaeus had initially embraced the Aristotelian idea of immutability of species (the idea that species never change), but later in his life he started to challenge it. Yet, as a Christian, he still defended "special creation", the belief that God created "every living creature" at the beginning, as read in Genesis, with the peculiarity a set of original species of which all the present species have descended.<ref>Compare: {{cite book |last1=Garner |first1=Paul A. |chapter=1: Evolving Christian Views of Species |editor1-last=Wood |editor1-first=Todd Charles |editor2-last=Garner |editor2-first=Paul A. |title=Genesis Kinds: Creationism and the Origin of Species |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8wpMAwAAQBAJ |series=Center for Origins Research Issues in Creation |volume=5 |location=Eugene, Oregon |publisher=Wipf and Stock |year=2009 |page=16 |isbn=9781606084908 |quote=In his ''Disquisitio de Sexu Plantarum'' (1756), Linnaeus had argued that the genera were the original units of creation and that the species within them had originated by subsequent hybridization. In 1766, he dropped his famous maxim about the permanance of species from the final edition of the ''Systema Naturae''. Glass (1959b, p. 151) summarizes his mature views this way: 'In the end he believed in the evolution of the smaller systematic categories, of the species as he knew species, and maybe of the genera. But the original Creation was still that of a multitude of forms, distinct then and forever.'}}</ref>

Linnaeus wrote:
{{Blockquote|Let us suppose that the Divine Being in the beginning progressed from the simpler to the complex; from few to many; similarly that He in the beginning of the plant kingdom created as many plants as there were natural orders. These plant orders He Himself, there from producing, mixed among themselves until from them originated those plants which today exist as genera. Nature then mixed up these plant genera among themselves through generations -of double origin (hybrids) and multiplied them into existing species, as many as possible (whereby the flower structures were not changed) excluding from the number of species the almost sterile hybrids, which are produced by the same mode of origin.|''Systema Vegetabilium'' (1774)<ref>Alistair Cameron Crombie, Michael A. Hoskin (1988), ''"History of Science"'' Science History Publications. p. 43</ref>}}

Linnaeus attributed the active process of biological change to God himself, as he stated:

{{Blockquote|We imagine that the Creator at the actual time of creation made only one single species for each natural order of plants, this species being different in habit and fructification from all the rest. That he made these mutually fertile, whence out of their progeny, fructification having been somewhat changed, Genera of natural classes have arisen as many in number as the different parents, and since this is not carried further, we regard this also as having been done by His Omnipotent hand directly in the beginning; thus all Genera were primeval and constituted a single Species. That as many Genera having arisen as there were individuals in the beginning, these plants in course of time became fertilised by others of different sort and thus arose Species until so many were produced as now exist ... these Species were sometimes fertilised out of congeners, that is other Species of the same Genus, whence have arisen Varieties.|From his '' Fundamenta fructificationis'' (1742)<ref>As quoted from Ramsbottom, (1938); in David Briggs (1997), ''"Plant Variation and Evolution"'', p. 16</ref>}}
[[File:Great Sea-Dragons.jpg|thumb|In the 19th century, [[geology]] and paleontology were still connected to Old Earth creationism. The above depicts a brutal world of deep time, existing before Adam and Eve, from [[Thomas Hawkins (geologist)|Thomas Hawkins]]' book on [[Plesiosauria|plesiosaurs]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.strangescience.net/thawkins.htm|title=Rocky Road: Thomas Hawkins|website=www.strangescience.net|access-date=2019-12-10}}</ref> Artist: [[John Martin (painter)|John Martin]], 1840]]
Jens Christian Clausen (1967), refers to Linnaeus' theory as a "forgotten evolutionary theory [that] antedates Darwin's by nearly 100 years", and reports that he was a pioneer in doing experiments about hybridization.<ref>Jens Christian Clausen (1967), "Stages in the Evolution of Plant Species", Harper, p. 5</ref>

Later observations by Protestant botanists [[Carl Friedrich von Gärtner]] (1772–1850) and [[Joseph Gottlieb Kölreuter]] (1733–1806) denied the immutability of species, which the Bible never teaches.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/species-change|title= Do Species Change?|work= Answers in Genesis}}</ref> Kölreuter used the term "[[transmutation of species]]" to refer to species which have experienced biological changes through hybridization,<ref name="plorenzano.files.wordpress.com">{{cite web|url= http://plorenzano.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/xxi-joseph-gottlieb-kc3b6lreuter-plorenzano.pdf |title= An Analysis of the Work of Joseph Gottlieb Kölreuter and its Relation to Gregor Mendel's Work |author= Pablo Lorenzano |publisher= Plorenzano.files.wordpress.com |access-date= 2015-08-11}}</ref>{{self-published inline|date=January 2018}} although they both were inclined to believe that hybrids would revert to the parental forms by a general law of reversion, and therefore, would not be responsible for the introduction of new species. Later, in a number of experiments carried out between 1856 and 1863, the Augustinian friar [[Gregor Mendel]] (1822–1884), aligning himself with the "new doctrine of special creation" proposed by Linnaeus,<ref name="plorenzano.files.wordpress.com"/> concluded that new species of plants could indeed arise, although limitedly and retaining their own stability.{{citation needed|date=April 2017}}

[[Georges Cuvier]]'s analysis of fossils and discovery of [[extinction]] disrupted static views of nature in the early 19th century, confirming geology as showing a historical sequence of life. British [[natural theology]], which sought examples of [[adaptation]] to show design by a benevolent Creator, adopted [[catastrophism]] to show earlier organisms being replaced in a series of creations by new organisms better adapted to a changed environment. [[Charles Lyell]] (1797–1875) also saw adaptation to changing environments as a sign of a benevolent Creator, but his [[uniformitarianism]] envisaged continuing extinctions, leaving unanswered the problem of providing replacements.<ref>{{cite book |author=Hallam, A. |year=1998 |chapter=Lyell's views on organic progression, evolution and extinction |editor1=Blundell, D. J. |editor2=Scott, A. C. |title=Lyell: the Past is the Key to the Present |publisher= Geological Society |location=London |series=Special Publications |volume=143 |pages=133–136 |chapter-url=https://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/143/1/133.full.pdf}}</ref> As seen in correspondence between Lyell and [[John Herschel]], scientists were looking for creation by laws rather than by miraculous interventions. In continental Europe, the idealism of philosophers including [[Lorenz Oken]] (1779–1851) developed a ''[[Naturphilosophie]]'' in which patterns of development from [[archetype]]s were a purposeful divine plan aimed at forming humanity.{{sfn|Bowler|2003|pp=108–109, 113–118, 133–134}} These scientists rejected [[transmutation of species]] as [[materialism|materialist]]{{sfn|Bowler|2003|pp=120–134}}{{sfn|Larson|2004|pp=42–46}}<ref>{{cite journal |last =van Wyhe|first = John|year =2007|pages=181–182|title = Mind the gap: Did Darwin avoid publishing his theory for many years?|journal = Notes and Records of the Royal Society|volume = 61 |issue = 2|doi = 10.1098/rsnr.2006.0171|s2cid = 202574857|url = http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A544&pageseq=1|url-access = subscription}}</ref> [[Radicalism (historical)|radicalism]] threatening the established hierarchies of society. The idealist [[Louis Agassiz]] (1807–1873), a persistent opponent of transmutation, saw mankind as the goal of a sequence of creations, but his concepts were the first to be adapted into a scheme of theistic evolutionism, when in ''[[Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation]]'' published in 1844, its anonymous author ([[Robert Chambers (publisher born 1802)|Robert Chambers]]) set out goal-centred progressive development as the Creator's divine plan, programmed to unfold without direct intervention or miracles. The book became a best-seller and popularised the idea of transmutation in a designed "law of progression". The scientific establishment strongly attacked ''Vestiges'' at the time, but later more sophisticated theistic evolutionists followed the same approach of looking for patterns of development as evidence of design.{{sfn|Bowler|1992|pp=47–49}}

The comparative anatomist [[Richard Owen]] (1804–1892), a prominent figure in the Victorian era scientific establishment, opposed transmutation throughout his life. When formulating [[Homology (biology)|homology]] he adapted idealist philosophy to reconcile natural theology with development, unifying nature as divergence from an underlying form in a process demonstrating design. His conclusion to his ''On the Nature of Limbs'' of 1849 suggested that divine laws could have controlled the development of life, but he did not expand this idea after objections from his conservative patrons. Others supported the idea of development by law, including the botanist [[Hewett Watson]] (1804–1881) and the Reverend [[Baden Powell (mathematician)|Baden Powell]] (1796–1860), who wrote in 1855 that such laws better illustrated the powers of the Creator.{{sfn|Bowler|2003|pp=125–126, 139}} In 1858 Owen in his speech as President of the [[British Science Association|British Association]] said that in "continuous operation of Creative power" through geological time, new species of animals appeared in a "successive and continuous fashion" through birth from their antecedents by a Creative law rather than through slow transmutation.{{sfn|Desmond|Moore|1991|pp=428–429}}

===''On the Origin of Species''===
{{See also|Religious views of Charles Darwin}}
When [[Charles Darwin]] published ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'' in 1859, many [[liberal Christianity|liberal Christians]] accepted evolution provided they could reconcile it with divine design. The clergymen [[Charles Kingsley]] (1819–1875) and [[Frederick Temple]] (1821–1902), both conservative Christians in the [[Church of England]], promoted a theology of creation as an indirect process controlled by divine laws. Some strict [[Calvinism|Calvinists]] welcomed the idea of [[natural selection]], as it did not entail inevitable progress and humanity could be seen as a fallen race requiring [[salvation]]. The [[Anglo-Catholicism|Anglo-Catholic]] [[Aubrey Moore]] (1848–1890) also accepted the theory of natural selection, incorporating it into his Christian beliefs as merely the way God worked. Darwin's friend [[Asa Gray]] (1810–1888) defended natural selection as compatible with design.{{sfn|Bowler|2003|pp=203–205}}

Darwin himself, in his second edition of the ''Origin'' (January 1860), had written in the conclusion:
{{Blockquote|I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the [[Creator deity|Creator]]. |Chapter XIV: "Conclusions", page 428.<ref>
Compare:
{{cite book
 | last1 = Darwin
 | first1 = Charles
 | author-link1 = Charles Darwin
 | year = 1859
 | title = On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection
 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=m0g6AQAAMAAJ
 | series = Landmarks of science
 | edition = 5
 | location = New York
 | publisher = D. Appleton and Company
 | publication-date = 1860
 | pages = 431–432
 | access-date = 9 December 2018
 | quote = Page 420, fifteen lines from top, after 'deceitful guide,' [...] omit whole remainder of paragraph, and insert, instead, as follows: Nevertheless, all living things have much in common; in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. [...] Therefore I should infer that probably all organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator.
 }}
</ref>
}}

Within a decade most scientists had started espousing evolution, but from the outset some expressed opposition to the concept of natural selection and searched for a more [[teleology|purposeful]] mechanism. In 1860 [[Richard Owen]] attacked Darwin's ''Origin of Species'' in an anonymous review while praising "Professor Owen" for "the establishment of the axiom of ''the continuous operation of the ordained becoming of living things''".<ref>Owen, Richard. 1860. [http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=12&itemID=A30&viewtype=text Review of Origin & other works.] ''Edinburgh Review'' 111: 487–532, p. 500.</ref> In December 1859 Darwin had been disappointed to hear that Sir [[John Herschel]] apparently dismissed the book as "the law of higgledy-pigglety<!--sic, t not d-->",<ref>Letter from Charles Darwin to [[Charles Lyell]] [10 December 1859], Darwin Correspondence Project, [http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2575 Letter no. 2575]", accessed on 10 February 2019,</ref> and in 1861 Herschel wrote of evolution that "[a]n intelligence, guided by a purpose, must be continually in action to bias the direction of the steps of change—to regulate their amount—to limit their divergence—and to continue them in a definite course". He added "On the other hand, we do not mean to deny that such intelligence may act according to law (that is to say, on a preconceived and definite plan)".{{sfn|Bowler|2003|pp=186, 204}} The scientist Sir [[David Brewster]] (1781–1868), a member of the [[Free Church of Scotland (1843–1900)|Free Church of Scotland]], wrote an article called "[[s:The Facts and Fancies of Mr. Darwin|The Facts and Fancies of Mr. Darwin]]" (1862) in which he rejected many Darwinian ideas, such as those concerning vestigial organs or questioning God's perfection in his work. Brewster concluded that Darwin's book contained both "much valuable knowledge and much wild speculation", although accepting that "every part of the human frame had been fashioned by the Divine hand and exhibited the most marvellous and beneficent adaptions for the use of men".<ref>''[https://books.google.com/books?id=D8khAQAAIAAJ Good Words]'' (1862), Volume 3. p. 170.</ref>

In the 1860s theistic evolutionism became a popular compromise in science and gained widespread support from the general public. Between 1866 and 1868 Owen published a theory of derivation, proposing that species had an innate tendency to change in ways that resulted in variety and beauty showing creative purpose. Both Owen and [[St. George Jackson Mivart|Mivart]] (1827–1900) insisted that natural selection could not explain patterns and variation, which they saw as resulting from divine purpose. In 1867 the [[George Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll|Duke of Argyll]] published ''The Reign of Law'', which explained beauty in [[plumage]] without any [[adaptation|adaptive benefit]] as design generated by the Creator's laws of nature for the delight of humans. Argyll attempted to reconcile evolution with design by suggesting that the laws of variation prepared [[Vestigiality|rudimentary organs]] for a future need.{{sfn|Bowler|2003|pp=204–207}}

Cardinal [[John Henry Newman]] wrote in 1868: "Mr Darwin's theory need not then to be [[atheism|atheistical]], be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill ... and I do not [see] that 'the accidental evolution of organic beings' is inconsistent with divine design—It is accidental to us, not to God."<ref>{{cite book|chapter = John Henry Newman to J. Walker of Scarborough on Darwin's Theory of Evolution  |title =The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman|editor1-first= C.S.|editor1-last= Dessain |editor2-first= T. |editor2-last=Gornall|volume= XXIV |location =Oxford|publisher= Clarendon Press|publication-date= 1973|pages= 77–78|chapter-url= http://www.inters.org/Newman-Scarborough-Darwin-Evolution|first=John Henry |last=Newman|date=22 May 1868}}</ref>

In 1871 Darwin published his own research on human ancestry in [[The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex|''The Descent of Man'']], concluding that humans "descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears", which would be classified amongst the [[Quadrumana]] along with monkeys, and in turn descended "through a long line of diversified forms" going back to something like the larvae of [[Ascidiacea|sea squirts]].<ref>Darwin (1871), ''The Descent of Man'', p. [http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=406&itemID=F937.2&viewtype=text 389]</ref> Critics{{which|date=December 2018}} promptly complained that this "degrading" image "tears the crown from our heads",{{citation needed|date=December 2018}} but there is little evidence that it led to loss of faith. Among the few who did record the impact of Darwin's writings, the naturalist [[Joseph LeConte]] struggled with "distress and doubt" following the death of his daughter in 1861, before enthusiastically saying in the late 1870s there was "not a single philosophical question connected with our highest and dearest religious and spiritual interests that is fundamentally affected, or even put in any new light, by the theory of evolution", and in the late 1880s embracing the view that "evolution is entirely consistent with a rational theism". Similarly, [[George Frederick Wright]] (1838–1921) responded to Darwin's ''Origin of Species'' and [[Charles Lyell]]'s 1863 ''Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man''<ref>{{ws | [[s:Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man|''Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man'']]}} 1 vol. 1st edition, Feb. 1863 (John Murray, London)</ref> by turning to Asa Gray's belief that God had set the rules at the start and only intervened on rare occasions, as a way to harmonise evolution with theology. The idea of evolution did not seriously shake Wright's faith, but he later suffered a crisis when confronted with [[historical criticism]] of the Bible.<ref>
{{cite web
 |url= https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/107-wrestling-with-doubt/
 |title= Wrestling with doubt – Christian History Magazine
 |work= Christian History Institute
}}
</ref>