^{page 329 note 1} Hodge, Charles, What is Darwinism? (London and Edinburgh: T. Nelson and Sons, 1874), pp. 176–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 329 note 2} The details of Hodge's biography are available in Hodge, A. A., The life of Charles Hodge (New York: Scribner's, 1880).Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 3} Johnson, Deryl Freeman, ‘The attitude of the Princeton theologians toward Darwinism and evolution from 1859–1929’ (Unpub. Ph.D. thesis, University of Iowa, 1968), pp. 11fGoogle Scholar. A useful synopsis of the Scottish School's philosophy is to be found in McCosh, James, Agnosticism of Hume and Huxley with a notice of the Scottish School, Philosophic Series, No. VI (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1886).Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 4} See, for example, What is Darwinism?, p. 132.

^{page 330 note 5} Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology. Three volumes (New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1872–1873), I, pp. 57–58.Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 6} ibid., 11, pp. 3–41. These and other scientific objections to the Darwinian formulation are reviewed in Vorzimmer, P. J., Charles Darwin: the years of controversy (London: University of London Press, 1972)Google Scholar; Hull, David L., Darwin and his critics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973)Google Scholar; Kellogg, Vernon L., Darwinism today: a discussion of present day scientific criticism of the Darwinian selection theories, together with a brief account of the principal other proposed auxiliary and alternative theories of species forming (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1908).Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 7} Systematic Theology, I, p. 57.

^{page 331 note 8} Hodge, Charles, ‘Unity of mankind’, The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, 31 (1859), PP. 103–149.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 9} Systematic Theology, I, pp. 570–1.

^{page 331 note 10} Johnson, op. cit., p. 74.

^{page 331 note 11} What is Darwinism? p. 48.

^{page 332 note 12} ibid., p. 52. Exactly the same argument was earlier presented in his Systematic Theology in a section headed ‘The atheistic character of the theory’, II, pp. 15–19.

^{page 332 note 13} See Ellegard, Alvar, ‘The Darwinian theory and the argument from design’, Lychnos (1956), pp. 173–192.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 14} What is Darwinism?, pp. 50–1.

^{page 332 note 15} ibid., p. 106.

^{page 332 note 16} Thus he commented in his Systematic Theology, II, p. 16:‘In saying that this system atheistic, it is not said that Mr. Darwin is an atheist… Nor is it meant that everyone who adopts the theory does it in an atheistic sense. It has already been remarked that there is a theistic and an atheistic form of the nebular hypothesis as to the origin of the universe; so there may be a theistic interpretation of the Darwinian theory.’

^{page 333 note 17} What is Darwinism?, p. 70.

^{page 333 note 18} ibid., p. 174. The standard biography of Gray is Dupree, A. Hunter, Asa Gray (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959).Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 19} Gray, Asa, Natural selection not inconsistent with natural theology: a free examination Darwin's treatise on the origin of species and of its American reviewers (London: Trubner & Co., 1861).Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 20} See Morrison, William James, ‘George Frederick Wright: in defense of Darwinism and Fundamentalism 1838–1921’ (Ph.D. thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1971)Google Scholar. I have discussed this in David N. Livingstone, ‘B. B. Warfield, the theory of evolution and early Fundamentalism’, Evangelical Quarterly, in press.

^{page 333 note 21} What is Darwinism?, pp. 40–2, 59–60.

^{page 333 note 22} The metaphorical character of Darwin's theory is discussed in Livingstone, David N., ‘Evolution as metaphor and myth’, Christian Scholar's Review, 12 (1983), pp. 111–125Google Scholar; Young, R. M., ‘Darwin's metaphor: does nature select?’, The Monist, 55 (1971), pp. 442–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 333 note 23} See Young, Robert M., ‘The naturalization of value systems in the human sciences’, in Problems in the biological and human sciences (Milton Keynes: The Open University, 1981), pp. 63–110.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 24} [Geddes, Patrick], ‘Biology’ in Chambers' Encyclopaedia new edition, volume 2 (London and Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers, 1925), p. 164.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 25} For a useful review see Brooke, John Hedley, ‘Natural theology in Britain from Boyle to Paley’, in New interactions between theology and natural science (Milton Keynes: The Open University, 1974), pp. 5–54Google Scholar. On the impact of Darwin on this tradition see Young, Robert M., ‘Natural theology, Victorian periodicals and the fragmentation of a common context’, in Chant, Colin and Fauvel, John (eds), Darwin to Einstein. Historical studies on science and belief (Harlow: Longman, 1980), pp. 69–107Google Scholar; Young, Robert M., ‘The impact of Darwin on conventional thought’ in Symondson, Anthony (ed.) The Victorian crisis of faith (London: SPCK, 1970), pp. 13–35.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 26} See, for example, Yeo, Richard, ‘William Whewell, natural theology and the philosophy of science in mid-nineteenth century Britain’, Annals of Science, 36 (1979), pp. 493–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brooke, John Hedley, ‘The natural theology of the geologists: some theological strata’, in Jordanova, L. J. and Porter, R. S. (eds), Images of the earth. Essays in the history of the environmental sciences (Chalfont St. Giles: The British Society for the History of Science, 1979), PP. 39–64Google Scholar; Cannon, Walter, ‘The problem of miracles in the 1830's’, Victorian Studies, 4 (1960), pp. 5–32Google Scholar; Cannon, Walter, ‘The bases of Darwin's achievement’, Victorian Studies, 5 (1961), pp. 109–134Google Scholar; Livingstone, David N., ‘Natural theology and Neo-Lamarckism: the changing context of nineteenth century geography in the United States and Great Britain’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 74 (1984), pp. 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 335 note 27} Ospovat, Dov, ‘Perfect adaptation and teleological explanation: approaches to the problem of the history of life in the mid-nineteenth century’, Studies in the History of Biology, 2 (1978), pp. 33–56.Google ScholarPubMed

^{page 334 note 28} Ospovat, Dov, The development of Darwin's theory. Natural history, natural theology, and natural selection, 1838–1859 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 29} Ellegard, Alvar, Darwin and the general reader: the reception of Darwin's theory of evolution in the British periodical press, 1859–1871 (Gothenburg: Elanders Boktryeker Aktiebolag, 1958).Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 30} Bowler, Peter J., ‘Darwinism and the argument from design: suggestions for a re-evaluation’, Journal ofthe History of Biology, 10, (1977), pp. 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 335 note 31} See Peter Bowler, J., Fossils and progress: palaeontology and the idea of progressive evolution in the nineteenth century (New York: Science History Publications, 1976).Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 32} Swinburne, Richard, The existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), pp. 133.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 33} ibid., p. 135.

^{page 336 note 34} As Johnson, op. cit., pp. 100–1, points out: ‘According to Hodge's theory of providence, with God already working in the processes of life, it seems that the production of a new species whether of brute or man from a lower form of animal would have been far less complicated than the ordinary conception and birth of an individual … However, he did not use his doctrine of providence … to make a constructive effort to relate the theory of evolution to Christian doctrine.’

^{page 336 note 35} What is Darwinism? p. 173.

^{page 337 note 36} Sloane, William Milligan (ed.) The life of James McCosh. A record chiefly autobiographical (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1896), p. 234Google Scholar. The standard biography of McCosh is now Hoeveler, J. David Jr, James McCosh and the Scottish intellectual tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 337 note 37} Sloane, op. cit., pp. 184, 187.

^{page 337 note 38} Ormond, Alexander T., ‘James McCosh as thinker and educator’, Princeton Theological Review, 1 (1903), pp. 337–361Google Scholar. Reference on p. 345.

^{page 338 note 39} McCosh, James, The method of the divine government. Physical and moral (Edinburgh: Sutherland and Knox, 3rd ed., 1852), p. 136CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In some ways McCosh's reinterpretation of design in idealist terms, and its adoption by later Princetonians, runs counter to Ruse's opinion that conservatives were unable to reconcile Darwinism with their version of final causes. See Ruse, Michael, ‘The relationship between science and religion in Britain, 1830–1870’, Church History, 44 (1973), pp. 505–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 338 note 40} ibid., p. 115. One of the most characteristic arguments of this ‘idealist’ school was the specification of a numerical order in the organic world. As McCosh put it, ‘There is a conformity of structure running through the whole vertebrate series, as seen, for instance, in the fore limbs … Thus, the normal or typical number of carpal bones is ten, or five in each row, corresponding to the typical number of the digits.’ ibid., p. 123.

^{page 338 note 41} Moore, James R., The post-Darwinian controversies: a study of the Protestant struggle to come to terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), p. 246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 339 note 42} McCosh, James and Dickie, George, Typical forms and special ends in creation (Edinburgh: Thomas Constable, 1856), p. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 43} ibid., p. 27.

^{page 339 note 44} Moore, op. cit., p. 246.

^{page 339 note 45} Dickie, it should be noted, remained hostile to Darwinism; but it is more in the work's conceptual framework — contributed by McCosh — that the modifications of conventional natural theology are to be detected.

^{page 339 note 46} Quoted in Sloane, op. cit., p. 142.

^{page 340 note 47} McCosh, James, Christianity and positivism. A series of lectures to the times on natural theology and Christian apologetics (London: Macmillan and Company, 1871), pp. 69–70.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 48} ibid., pp. 90–2.

^{page 341 note 49} McCosh, had already repeated that argument the previous year in Energy. Efficient and final cause. Philosophic Series — No. II (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1884).Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 50} McCosh, James, Development. What it can do and what it cannot do. Philosophic Series — No. III (Edinburgh: T. and T. clark, 1885), p. 38.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 51} See Pfeifer, E. J., ‘The genesis of American Neo-Lamarckism’, Isis, 56 (1965), pp. 156–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stocking, George W. Jr., ‘Lamarckianism in American social science: 1890–1915’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 23 (1962), pp. 239–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mayr, Ernst, ‘Lamarck revisited’, Journal of the History of Biology, 5, (1972), pp. 55–94CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Gould, Stephen Jay, Ontogeny and phytogeny (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977), pp. 85–100Google Scholar; Campbell, J. A. and Livingstone, D. N., ‘Neo-Lamarckism and the development of geography in the United States and Great Britain’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, N.S., 8 (1983), pp. 267–294.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 52} McCosh, James, The religious aspect of evolution (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1890Google Scholar. Enlarged and improved edition), p. 17.

^{page 343 note 53} Hodge, Archibald Alexander, Outlines of theology (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1866).Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 54} Hodge, Archibald Alexander, Outlines of theology rewritten and enlarged (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1891), p. 38f.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 55} ibid., p. 40.

^{page 343 note 56} Quoted in Johnson, op. cit., p. 140.

^{page 343 note 57} A. A. Hodge, Review of Natural science and religion by Gray, Asa. Presbyterian Review, I, (1880), pp. 586–589Google Scholar. In this piece, Hodge, characterised Gray as ‘a thorough evolutionist of the Darwinian variety, and at the same time a thoroughly loyal theist and Christian’, p. 586Google Scholar.

^{page 344 note 58} ibid., p. 586.

^{page 344 note 59} Van Dyke, Joseph, Theism and evolution. An examination of modern speculative theories as related to theistic conceptions of the universe (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1886), p. xviii.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 60} See H[arper], G. M., ‘Patton, Francis Landey’, Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. 14 (London: Oxford University Press), pp. 315–316.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 61} Patton, Francis L., ‘Charles Hodge’, Presbyterian Review, 2 (1881), pp. 349–377.Google Scholar

^{page 345 note 62} Patton, F. L., ‘Evolution and apologetics’, Presbyterian Review, 6 (1885), pp. 138–144Google Scholar. Reference on p. 140.

^{page 345 note 63} Warfield, Benjamin B., ‘Personal recollections of Princeton undergraduate life’, The Princeton Alumni Weekly, 16 (April 6, 1916), pp. 650–653.Google Scholar

^{page 345 note 64} Warfield, Benjamin B., ‘Charles Darwin's religious life. A sketch in spiritual biography’, in Studies in theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1932), pp. 541–582Google Scholar. Reference on p. 548. For further details regarding Warfield's evolutionism, see my ‘B. B. Warfield, the theory of evolution, and early Fundamentalism’, op. cit.

^{page 345 note 65} These were reviewed respectively in Presbyterian Review, 9 (April, 1888), p. 355Google Scholar; (July, 1888), pp. 510–11.

^{page 346 note 66} See Johnson op. cit., pp. 195–6.

^{page 346 note 67} These were reviewed in Presbyterian and Reformed Review 6 (April, 1895), p. 366Google Scholar; and Princeton Theological Review, 14 (1916), p. 323.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 68} Iverach, James, Christianity and evolution (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 3rd ed., 1900), p. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 69} Shearman, J. N., The natural theology of evolution (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1915), p. 271.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 70} B. B. Warfield, Lectures on Anthropology. Mss held at Speer Library, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey.

^{page 346 note 71} B. B. Warfield, Review of Darwinism today by Kellogg, Vernon L.. Princeton Theological Review, 6 (1908), pp. 640–650Google Scholar. Reference on p. 650.

^{page 347 note 72} ibid., p. 649.

^{page 347 note 73} B. B. Warfield, Review of God's image in man by Orr, James. Princeton Theological Review, 4 (1906), pp. 555–558.Google Scholar

^{page 347 note 74} Warfield, B. B., ‘Editorial notes’, The Bible Student, 8 (1904), pp. 241–251Google Scholar. Reference on p. 243.

^{page 347 note 75} Warfield, B. B., ‘Calvin's doctrine of the creation’, Princeton Theological Review, 13 (1915), pp. 190–255Google Scholar. References on p. 208.

^{page 348 note 76} ibid., p. 209.

^{page 348 note 77} Murray, John, ‘Calvin's doctrine of creation’, Westminster Theological Journal, 17 (1954). pp. 21–43.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 78} Warfield, Benjamin B., ‘On the antiquity and the unity of the human race’, in Biblical and theological studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company), pp. 238–261Google Scholar. Reference on p. 255.

^{page 349 note 79} See Sloane, op. cit., pp. 117–24.

^{page 349 note 80} In addition to the articles specifically cited below see also Macloskie, G., ‘Concessions to science’, Presbyterian Review, 10 (1889), pp. 220–228Google Scholar; Macloskie, G., ‘;The testimony of nature’, Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1 (1890), pp. 587–597.Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 81} G. Macloskie, Review of From science to faith by Smith, Newman. Lowell Institute Lectures 1900, 1901. Princeton Theological Review, 1 (1903), pp. 294–295.Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 82} Macloskie, G., ‘Theistic evolution’, Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 9 (1898), pp. 1–22Google Scholar. Reference on p. 7.

^{page 349 note 83} ibid., p. 8.

^{page 350 note 84} Macloskie, George, ‘The outlook for science and faith’, Princeton Theological Review, (1903), pp. 597–615Google Scholar. Reference on p. 602.

^{page 350 note 85} ibid., p. 611. A rather similar debate is still being conducted today and centres on the concept of ‘teleonomy’ which seeks teleological explanation without finalistic implications. See the discussion by Bowker, John, ‘Did God create this universe?’, in Peacocke, A. R. (ed.), The sciences and theology in the twentieth century (Henley and London: Oriel Press, 1981), pp. 98–126.Google Scholar

^{page 350 note 86} M[aienschein], J[ane], ‘Entelechy’, in Bynum, W. F., Browne, E. J. and Porter, Roy (eds), Dictionary of the History of Science (London: Macmillan, 1983), p. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 350 note 87} Macloskie, George, ‘Mosaism and Darwinism’, Princeton Theological Review, 2 (1904), pp. 425–441Google Scholar. Reference on p. 429.

^{page 350 note 88} ibid., p. 434. See also his review of The scientific creed of a theologian by Schmid, Rudolf, in Princeton Theological Review, 5 (1905), pp. 482–483.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 89} Macloskie, G., ‘Scientific speculation’, Presbyterian Review, 8 (1887), pp. 617–625.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 90} ibid., p. 439. For a review of the mutation theory see Bowler, Peter J., ‘Hugo De Vries and Thomas Hunt Morgan: the mutation theory and the spirit of Darwinism’, Annals of Science, 35 (1978), pp. 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 351 note 91} Johnson, William Hallock, ‘Evolution and theology today’, Princeton Theological Review, 1 (1903), pp. 403–422.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 92} Scott, Hugh M., ‘Has scientific investigation disturbed the basis of rational faith?’, Princeton Theological Review, 4 (1906), pp. 433–453.Google Scholar

^{page 352 note 93} D. F.Johnson, op. cit., pp. 249–80.

^{page 352 note 94} S. A. Martin, Review of Creative evolution by Bergson, Henri. Princeton Theological Review, 10 (1912), pp. 116–118.Google Scholar

^{page 352 note 93} William Brenton Greene Jr., Review of Christian faith in an age of science by Rice, William North. Princeton Theological Review, 2 (1904), pp. 504–507Google Scholar. Reference on p. 506.

^{page 353 note 96} William Brenton Greene Jr., Review of The religion of evolution by Carma, . Princeton Theological Review, 6 (1908), pp. 118–121Google Scholar. References on p. 119.

^{page 353 note 97} Greene, William Brenton Jr., ‘Yet another criticism of the theory of evolution’, Princeton Theological Review, 20 (1922), pp. 537–561.Google Scholar

^{page 353 note 98} ibid., p. 544.

^{page 353 note 99} ibid., p. 549.

^{page 354 note 100} Price, George McCready, ‘Modern botany and the theory of organic evolution’, Princeton Theological Review, 23 (1925), pp. 51–65Google Scholar. Price's role in the emergence of ‘Creation Science’ in America is discussed in Numbers, Ronald L., ‘Creationism in 20th-Century America’, Science, 218 (5 November 1982), pp. 538–544CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. See also Marsden, George M., ‘Creation versus Evolution: No Middle Way’, Nature, 305 (13 October, 1983), pp. 571–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 354 note 101} Hamilton, Floyd E., ‘Modern aspects of the theory of evolution’, Princeton Theological Review, 24 (1926), pp. 396–448Google Scholar. Reference on p. 447.

^{page 354 note 102} ibid., p. 448.

^{page 355 note 103} Hamilton, Floyd E., The basis of Christian faith (London and Edinburgh: Marshall, Morgan and Scott n.d.), p. 85.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 104} Wilson, Ambrose J., ‘What Charles Darwin really found’, Princeton Theological Review, 26 (1928), pp. 515–530.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 105} Clark, David S., ‘Theology and evolution’, Princeton Theological Review, 23 (1925), pp. 193–212Google Scholar. Reference on pp. 199–200.

^{page 355 note 106} ibid., p. 203.

^{page 355 note 107} Machen, J. Gresham, The Christian view of man (London: Banner of Truth, 1965Google Scholar; first published in 1937), p. 116.

^{page 356 note 108} See Marsden, George M., Fundamentalism and American culture. The shaping of twentieth century evangelicalism: 1870–1925 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 119.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 109} Wm. Hallock Johnson, Review of The dogma of evolution by Louis Trenchard More, and The spiritual interpretation of nature by Simpson, James Y., Princeton Theological Review, 23 (1925). pp. 476–480.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 110} See Bowler, Peter J., The eclipse of Darwinism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 111} Provine, W. B., The origins of theoretical population genetics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1973).Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 112} Floyd Hamilton is a case in point, for as well as attacking the theory of evolution, he wrote conservative tracts on the historical trustworthiness of the Scriptures, the reasonableness of supernaturalism and the modern historical and literary criticism of the Bible.

^{page 357 note 113} See, for example, Peter Bertocci, A., ‘Creation in religion’, in Wiener, Philip E. (ed.), Dictionary of the History of Ideas, Vol. I (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973), pp. 571–577.Google Scholar