Thread: B.B. Warfield on evolution !

Evolution
“I do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in Genesis 1 and 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution.” B. B. Warfield

Warfield's view of evolution may appear unusual for a conservative of his day. He was willing to accept that Darwin's theory might be true, but believed that God guided the process of evolution, and was as such an evolutionary creationist. His avid interest in amateur science was shared by many Victorian clerics and Warfield's views were not atypical.[1]

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At what point in his life did he say this? Do you have a date for that quote?

The problem with the wikipedia article is that it only provides a secondary source to back up the quote. At which point the quote itself is suspect until a testable reference is made to exactly where BBW said that. Then you can date the quote, see the full context of the statement, and begin to see whether this was an "immature" statement, made early in his consideration of the subject, or whether his views changed over time.

My own sources are not at hand at the moment, but I seem to remember that there was a book on BBW's views on evolution and science. Gary L.W. Johnson may also have separately commented on this in a different book that he edited. I can dig up titles if you need them.

Originally Posted by Wayne

At what point in his life did he say this? Do you have a date for that quote?

I'd be interested in tracking any subsequent changes or refinements in his views.

Sources are not at hand at the moment, but I seem to remember that there was a book on BBW's views on evolution and science. Gary L.W. Johnson may also have separately commented on this in a different book that he edited. I can dig up titles if you need them.

Looks like that quote is taken from a secondary source:

Alexander, Denis (2002). Rebuilding the Matrix: Science and faith in the 21st Century. pp. 177. ISBN 0 7459 5116 3.

Seth:

Thanks. I was amending my reply as you wrote!

-----Added 8/18/2009 at 12:05:55 EST-----

Here is the title of that book I mentioned:

B. B. Warfield: Evolution, Science and Scripture, Selected Writings
edited by Mark A. Noll and David N. Livingstone
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000
reviewed here: Touchstone Archives: The Evolving Debate over Origins

And for further discussion on the web, first off, a good counter-quote, for balance, from Michael Haykin's blog: "Warfield on the utter folly of Darwinian evolution"
[Fred Zaspel provided that quote, and he has a work on Warfield that is nearing publication]

Article in Modern Reformation

Evolution

Hodge, Warfield and evolution - Investigating what the great theologians believed | John Kilpatrick

Ralph:

I got a hold of a copy of the book by Denis Alexander in which that Warfield quote appears.
Turning to page 177 of Rebuilding the Matrix, there is the quote, but Mr. Alexander fails entirely to tell us where he got the quote.

So for all we know at the moment, the author could have made this up out of thin air.
Or mis-quoted some other author's account of what Warfield actually said. Without more information, we just don't know, and Mr. Alexander's quote of Warfield is worth nothing, at all!

Originally Posted by Wayne

Ralph:

I got a hold of a copy of the book by Denis Alexander in which that Warfield quote appears.
Turning to page 177 of Rebuilding the Matrix, there is the quote, but Mr. Alexander fails entirely to tell us where he got the quote.

Aww! Bad show! Who is Denis Alexander? I can only assume he should know better!


Edited to add: A quick Google search turned up this: http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/fara...raphy.php?ID=9

He should know better!

Thanks for this thread. I was once going to ask this same question about BBW (since I had seen that book in a bookstore), but forgot... (which was about a year ago, I think).

Anyway thanks...

Wayne: in Crossed Fingers, North writes (in Chapter 3):

This approach to the Bible led the Princetonians to make at least two crucial compromises in the series: adjusting the genealogies of Genesis to accommodate an ancient age for the earth (William Henry Green); and interpreting Genesis as supporting (or at least not denying) a kind of theistic evolution (Warfield).(89) Surely, these were examples of quietly importing evidence from outside the Bible into the exegesis of biblical texts--the most dangerous evidence of all: Darwinian conclusions.

(89) is: 89. Ibid., p. 24.

referring to (87), which is: 87. Hodge and Warfield, "Inspiration," Presbyterian Review, 2 (1881), p. 247; cited in ibid, p. 18.

referring to (86) which is: 86. Beecher, "The Logical Methods of Professor Kuenen" Presbyterian Review, 3 (Oct.1882), p. 704; cited in Noll, Between Faith and Criticism, p. 25.

Then, in Chapter 4, North writes:

Rev. James McCosh, president of the College of New Jersey (1868-88), was a theistic evolutionist. Yet Charles Hodge was the senior trustee at the College when it hired him; he preached the welcoming sermon.(97) Francis Patton agreed with McCosh on this point. He succeeded McCosh as president (1888-1902), and became president of Princeton Seminary in 1902. Also in the McCosh camp were Warfield, A. A. Hodge, and W. G. T. Shedd, who taught systematic theology at Union.(98) Princeton had capitulated on the crucial doctrine of origins.(99) Darwin's extended time scale met little resistance from American evangelicals.(100)

(98) is: 98. Gary Scott Smith, The Seeds of Secularization: Calvinism, Culture, and Pluralism in America, 1870-1915 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Christian University Press, a subsidiary of William B. Eerdmans, 1985), p. 98.

(100) is: 100. David N. Livingstone, "B. B. Warfield, the Theory of Evolution and Early Fundamentalism," Evangelical Quarterly, 58 (Jan. 1986); Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987).

I don't have the references handy, but it is fairly well established that Warfield was caught up in the new science of evolution in his youth. As he grew older, I think his view became more nuanced and distant from it.

A similar, though not as extreme case, was the elder Hodge. They were dealing with different issues in their day, and did not necessarily see where this new way of thinking would lead.

We should be careful about pulling quotes from famous (and not so famous) figures and attributing that as the last word on what they believed. I used to keep a journal from my teen years until my 30s. Sometimes I read through those entries and cringe at my foolish thinking--and sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised. Such is the "evolution" of a man's life.

(sorry for not supplying page numbers for Crossed Fingers references. I only have the PDF version, not a hard copy).

Seth:

With thanks to Princeton for putting The Presbyterian Review online:
Princeton Seminary--Library

I am nonetheless finding Dr. North's footnotes baffling when I try to locate his sources in this instance. I've got the book in hard copy, and it follows what you provided above, from page 175 of the book. Footnote 86 checks out. But f.87 is a mystery.
Can someone help?

North's footnote should have read:

87. Hodge and Warfield, "Inspiration," Presbyterian Review, 2 (April 1881), p. 237, cited in ibid, p. 18.

p. 237, NOT p. 247.

Originally Posted by Wayne

North's footnote should have read:

87. Hodge and Warfield, "Inspiration," Presbyterian Review, 2 (April 1881), p. 237, cited in ibid, p. 18.

p. 237, NOT p. 247.

I'm still not clear how this supports North's statement:

interpreting Genesis as supporting (or at least not denying) a kind of theistic evolution (Warfield)

Any suggestions?

I have a statement from Fred Zaspel which will help, I think. Awaiting his permission to quote his email from this afternoon.

Originally Posted by victorbravo

We should be careful about pulling quotes from famous (and not so famous) figures and attributing that as the last word on what they believed. I used to keep a journal from my teen years until my 30s. Sometimes I read through those entries and cringe at my foolish thinking--and sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised. Such is the "evolution" of a man's life.

I never kept a journal, but I sometimes read the notes I wrote in the margin of my books and cringe in similar fashion. Sadly, I don't think I'm ever pleasantly surprised.

In Warfield's defense evolution was not as well defined as it is today. Today evolution is defined by random chance and in fact the name has been changed to reflect this it is now properly referred to as naturalistic evolution which posits unguided random chance. The idea that God sovereignly controlled changes in animals forms would not have been a difficult position in Warfield's time.

Warfield was not alone in being unsure how to deal with evolution. James Orr's The Christian View of God and the World contains a good bit of speculation about how the new evolutionary ideas might actually support Christianity! I think that these men generally believed in science and wanted to mesh their ideas with it. They didn't have the benefit of time to see how opposed evolution is to Christianity, nor were they used to thinking in "presuppositional" categories about the scientific method.

Fred Zaspel's reply regarding this quote of BBW on Wikipedia:

"Yes, that quote is correct. But it is not enough by itself to represent Warfield rightly. It is from his class lecture on evolution prepared in 1888 and used for the remainder of his years teaching of that course--at least the early 1900's. The whole force of that lecture is to say that evolution is unproved and that it would be rash to accept it as proven. The quote you gave is followed immediately by this statement--

"The sole passage which appears to bar the way is the very detailed account of the creation of Eve. . .We may as well admit that the account of the creation of Eve is a very serious bar in the way of a doctrine of creation by evolution."

Fred continues:
"He also said in the same lecture that evolution could not account for the origin of the human soul. . .Warfield held a rather agnostic position in regard to evolution. He specifically disallowed it as a sufficient explanation, but he allowed the theoretical possibility of it. He insisted that it had not been proven and that it would be ill-advised to accept it as such. He also said on several occasions that Scripture could allow it, and if it is proven at some point it would pose no problem to the Christian. But he had his doubts. Short version--he thought it could fit if it had to, but he had serious doubts. Nothing like today's creationists, but hardly qualifies as theistic evolution either."

My comment: As one or more previous posters noted, Warfield's comments date to a time when the theory of evolution was still somewhat in its infancy, plus his own examination of it was still somewhat unformed or at least not fully examined. Best not to put weight on it, therefore.