¹ The gap theory was put forward by the Scottish divine, Chalmers, Thomas in ‘Remarks on Cuvier's Theory of the Earth; in extracts from a Review of that Theory which was Contributed to The Christian Instructor in 1814’, The Select Works of Thomas Chalmers (New York, 1850), I, 180–193Google Scholar; the day-age theory was favoured by Miller, Hugh, The Testimony of the Rocks; or, Geology in Its Bearing on the Two Theologies, Natural and Revealed (Edinburgh, 1856)Google Scholar, and his American counterpart Silliman, Benjamin, ‘Suggestions Relative to the Philosophy of Geology as Deduced from the Facts and to the Consistency of Both the Facts and Theory of This Science with Sacred History’, Appendix in Bakewell, Robert, An Introduction to Geology (New Haven, 3rd American edition, 1839) 461–579Google Scholar; Wiseman, P. J. in Clues to Creation in Genesis (London, 1977)Google Scholar, argues that the days might refer to six daily visions. For a review of various harmonizing models see Numbers, Ronald L., Creation by Natural Law. Laplace's Nebular Hypothesis in American Thought (Seattle and London, 1977)Google Scholar.

² Pesch, Christian, De Deo Creante et Elevame, de Deo Fine Ultimo Tractatus Dogmatici (Freiburg, 1909).Google Scholar

³ de la Peyràre, Isaac, Men before Adam. Or a Discourse upon the Twelfth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Verses of the Fifth Chapter of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans. By Which are Prov'd, That Men were Created before Adam (London, 1656), 19.Google Scholar

⁴ Popkin, Richard H., The History of Scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza (Berkeley, 1979), 216Google Scholar. See especially the chapter on ‘Isaac la Peyrère and the Beginning of Religious Scepticism’. The biogeographical significance of Peyrère's proposals is discussed in Browne, Janet, The Secular Ark. Studies in the History of Biogeography (New Haven and London: 1983), 13–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Popkin, Richard H., ‘The Development of Religious Scepticism and the Influence of Isaac La Peyrere's Pre-Adamism and Bible Criticism’ in Classical Influences on European Culture, A.D. 1500–1700, ed. Bolgar, R. R. (Cambridge, 1976), 271–280Google Scholar; idem, ‘The Pre-Adamite Theory in the Renaissance’, in Philosophy and Humanism, Renaissance Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller, ed. Maloney, Edward P. (Leiden, 1976), 50–57.Google Scholar

⁵ Mass, A. J., ‘Preadamites’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia. An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline and History of the Catholic Church, ed. Herbermann, Charles G. et al. (New York, 1913), XII, 371.Google Scholar

⁶ Stillingfleet, Edward, Origines Sacrae, or a Rational Account of the Grounds of Christian Faith (London, 1662)Google Scholar; Poole, Matthew, Synopsis Criticorum Aliorumque Sacrae Scripturae Interpretum (London, 1669–1676)Google Scholar; Hale, Matthew, The Primitive Origination of Mankind Considered and Examined According to the Light of Nature (London, 1677)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For further discussion of Stillingfleet see Popkin, Richard H., ‘The Philosophy of Bishop Stillingfleet’, Journal of the History of Philosophy, 9 (1971), 303–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carroll, Robert, Edward Stillingfleet (The Hague, 1975)Google Scholar. It is interesting to note that Hugh Miller was later to use the following extract from Stillingfleet's work to support his own theory of a localized biblical flood: ‘I cannot see any urgent necessity from the Scriptures to assert that the Flood did spread over all the surface of the earth. That all mankind, those in the ark excepted, were destroyed by it, is most certain, according to the Scriptures. The Flood was universal as to mankind; but from thence follows no necessity at all of asserting the universality of it as to the globe of the earth, unless it be sufficiently proved that the whole earth was peopled before the Flood, which I despair of ever seeing proved.’ Likewise, Miller cited Poole to the effect that ‘it is not to be supposed that the entire globe of the earth was covered with water’; for ‘where was the need of overwhelming those regions in which there were no human beings?’ (Miller, , Testimony of the Rocks, pp. 288–289)Google Scholar.

⁷ Popkin, Richard H., ‘Pre-Adamism in 19th Century American Thought: “Speculative Biology” and Racism’, Philosophia, 8 (1978), 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ King, Edward, ‘Dissertation concerning the Creation of Man’, in Morsels of Criticism, Tending to Illustrate Some Few Passages in the Holy Scriptures upon Philosophical Principles and an Enlarged View of Things (London, 1800)Google Scholar; Home, Henry, Kames, Lord, Sketches of the History of Man 3 vols. (Glasgow, 1819)Google Scholar; Van Amringe, William Frederick, An Investigation of the Theories of the Natural History of Man, by Lawrence, Prichard, and Others Founded upon Animal Analogies: and an Outline of a New Natural History of Man Founded upon History, Anatomy, Physiology, and Human Analogies (New York, 1848)Google Scholar.

⁹ Poole, Reginald Stuart (ed.), The Genesis of the Earth and Man: A Critical Examination of Passages in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, Chiefly with a View to the Solution of the Question whether the Varieties of the Human Species be of More than One Origin; with a Supplementary Compendium of Physical, Chronological, Historical, and Philological Observations Relating to Ethnology [by Lane, Edward William] (Edinburgh, 1856)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ For various perspectives on polygenism see Stanton, William, The Leopard's Spots. Scientific Attitudes toward Race in America 1815–59 (Chicago and London, 1960)Google Scholar; Haller, John C. Jr., Outcasts from Evolution. Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority, 1859–1900 (Chicago and London, 1971)Google Scholar; Haller, Mark, Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought (New Brunswick, 1963)Google Scholar; Gossett, Thomas F., Race. The History of an Idea in America (Dallas, 1963)Google Scholar; Frederickson, George M., The Black Image in the White Mind (New York, 1971)Google Scholar; Stocking, George W. Jr., ‘The Persistence of Polygenist Thought in Post-Darwinian Anthropology’, in Race, Culture and Evolution: Essays in the History of Anthropology (London, 1968), 42–68Google Scholar. The links between preadamism and the polygenism of such figures as Morton, Nott and Agassiz have been discussed by Popkin, ‘Pre-adamism in 19th Century American Thought’ and are not repeated here.

¹¹ Poole, (ed.), Genesis of the Earth and Man, 46.Google Scholar

¹² ‘M'Causland, Dominick’, Dictionary of National Biography (London, 1893), Vol. XXXV, 2–3.Google Scholar

¹³ M'Causland, Dominick, Adam and the Adamite; or, the Harmony of Scripture and Ethnology (London, 1864), 153, 156, 185.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Thompson, Joseph Parrish, Man in Genesis and Geology: or, the Biblical Account of Man's Creation, Tested by Scientific Theories of his Origin and Antiquity (New York, 1870), 106–107.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Smith, John Pye, On the Relation between the Holy Scriptures and Some Parts of Geological Science (London, 2nd ed., 1840), 391–393.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The following portrait draws for biographical details on Davenport, F. Garvin, ‘Alexander Winchell: Michigan Scientist and Educator’, Michigan History, 35 (1951), 185–201Google Scholar; idem, ‘Scientific Interests in Kentucky and Tennessee, 1870–1890’, Journal of Southern History, 14 (1948), 500–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I have discussed Winchell's more general scientific outlook, particularly regarding the theory of evolution, in Darwin's Forgotten Defenders. The Encounter between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought (Edinburgh and Grand Rapids, forthcoming)Google Scholar. See also Conkin, Paul K., Gone with the Ivy. A Biography of Vanderbilt University (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1985), pp 50–51, 60–63.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Merrill, George P., Contributions to a History of American State Geological and Natural History Surveys, Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Bulletin 109 (Washington, 1920), 203–211.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For a discussion of the greater compatibility of Owen's natural theology, as compared with Paley's, with evolutionary thought, see Bowler, Peter J., ‘Darwinism and the Argument from Design: Suggestions for a Re-evaluation’, Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ Winchell, Alexander, The Doctrine of Evolution: Its Data, Its Principles, Its Speculations, and Its Theistic Bearings (New York: 1874), 8.Google Scholar

²⁰ Winchell, Alexander, Reconciliation of Science and Religion (New York: 1877), vGoogle Scholar. Cope's evolutionary outlook is discussed in Bowler, Peter J., ‘Edward Drinker Cope and the Changing Structure of Evolutionary Theory’, Isis, 68 (1977), 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ Winchell, Alexander, Preadamites; or a Demonstration of the Existence of Men Before Adam; Together with a Study of their Condition, Antiquity, Racial Affinities, and Progressive Dispersion over the Earth (Chicago, 1880), v.Google Scholar

²² Ibid., 191–92, vi, 412, 285, 289.

²³ Ibid., 244. See the discussion of anthropometric measurements in Gould, Stephen Jay, The Mismeasure of Man (New York, 1981)Google Scholar; Livingstone, David N., ‘Science and Society: Nathaniel S. Shaler and Racial Ideology’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, N.S., 9 (1984), 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Winchell, , Preadamites, 153.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid., 81, 85.1 have discussed Winchell's use of the ‘laws of nature’ and of ‘natural theology’ to justify racism in ‘The History of Science and the History of Geography: Interactions and Implications’, History of Science, 22 (1984), 271–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ See Bucke, Emory Stevens (ed.), The History of American Methodism. In Three Volumes (New York, 1964), II, 189–190.Google Scholar

²⁷ [Daniel D. Whedon], Review of Adam and the Adamite by M'Causland, Dominick, Methodist Quarterly Review, 53 (1871), 153–155.Google Scholar

²⁸ Quoted in Winchell, Preadamites, 471.

²⁹ W[inchell], A[lexander], ‘Preadamite’, in Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, eds. McClintock, John and Strong, James (New York, 1877; reprint 1969), VIII, 484–494.Google Scholar

³⁰ Shields, Charles Woodruff, Philosophia Ultima or Science of the Sciences. 2 vols. (Philadelphia 1861; London, 3rd ed., 1889), II, 445.Google Scholar

³¹ Shields, Charles Woodruff, The Scientific Evidences of Revealed Religion (New York, The Bishop Paddock Lectures for 1900), 124.Google Scholar

³² See Noll, Mark A., ‘Common Sense Traditions and American Evangelical Thought’, American Quarterly, 37 (1985), 216–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Introduction’, in The Princeton Theology 1812–1921. Scripture, Science, and Theological Method from Archibald Alexander to Benjamin Warfield (Grand Rapids, 1983), 11–54.Google Scholar

³³ The way in which the Old School Princetonians came to espouse evolution is outlined in Livingstone, David N., ‘The Idea of Design: The Vicissitudes of a Key Concept in the Princeton Response to Darwin’, Scottish Journal of Theology, 37 (1984), 329–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ Warfield, B. B., ‘Calvin's Doctrine of the Creation’, Princeton Theological Review, 13 (1915), 208, 209Google Scholar; idem, Review of God's Image in Man, by Orr, James, Princeton Theological Review, 4, (1906), 555–558.Google Scholar

³⁵ Warfield, B. B., ‘On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race’, Princeton Theological Review, 9 (1911), 1–25.Google Scholar

³⁶ Simpson, James Y., Man and the Attainment of Immortality (London, 1923), 88.Google Scholar

³⁷ See Marsden, George M., Fundamentalism and American Culture. The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870–1925 (Oxford, 1980), 47–48.Google Scholar

³⁸ Torrey, R. A., Difficulties and Alleged Errors and Contradictions in the Bible (London, n.d., circa 1907), 31, 36.Google Scholar

³⁹ Mass, , ‘Preadamites’, 370Google Scholar; Garrigan, O. W., ‘Preadamites’, in New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1967), XI, 702.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Keith, Sir Arthur, Darwinism and Its Critics (London, 1935), 20Google Scholar. Fleming traces his own distinguished scientific career in Fleming, Sir Ambrose, Memories of a Scientific Life (London and Edinburgh, 1934)Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Gilley, Sheridan and Loades, Ann, ‘Thomas Henry Huxley: The War between Science and Religion’, The Journal of Religion, 61 (1981), 298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴² Short, A. Rendle, The Bible and Modern Research (London and Edinburgh, n.d.), 57.Google Scholar

⁴³ Short, A. Rendle, Modern Discovery and the Bible (London, 1942; revised 1961 ed.), 114.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Kidner, Derek, Genesis. An Introduction and Commentary (London, 1967), 30.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Stott, John R. W., Understanding the Bible. The Story of the Old Testament (London, 1978), 5.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Berry, R. J., Adam and the Ape. A Christian Approach to the Theory of Evolution (London, 1975), 44.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Pearce, R. K. Victor, Who was Adam? (Exeter, 1969), 52, 54.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ This must not be taken to mean that the preadamite theory has been universally accepted by evangelicals and fundamentalists. Latter-day proponents of ‘scientific creationism’, for example, reject it. Thus the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School includes in its fourth tenet of Biblical Creationism: ‘The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were specially created by God, and all other men and women are their descendants’. Quoted in Morris, Henry M., History of Modern Creationism (San Diego, 1984), 364Google Scholar. Other anti-evolutionists who are critical of ‘scientific creationism’ take the same view. See Hayward, Alan, Creation and Evolution. The Facts and Fallacies (London, 1985), 197–198.Google Scholar