A newspaper reported that Rimmer drew hearty applause when he declared [that] the entire structure of the theory of evolution fell to pieces by the admission of its supporters that the inheritance ofacquired characteristicshas been proved exploded. Although Schmucker knew thatAugust Weismannswork had ruled out that particular mechanism, he probably thought there was still some environmental influence on genetic variation. Fundamentalists were unified around a plain reading of the Bible, adherence to the traditional orthodox teachings of 19th century Protestantism, and a new method of Biblical interpretation called "dispensationalism.". Yeah? They must have had families. A former high school science teacher, Ted studied history and philosophy of science at Indiana University, where his mentor was the late Richard S. Westfall, author of the definitive biography of Isaac Newton. Direct link to Grant Race-car 's post why nativesm a ting, Posted 2 years ago. 1887 Buchner Gold Coin (N284) #25 Billy Sunday. Indeed, in the broad sense of the term, many of . Most religious scientists from Schmuckers time embraced that position. Additional information comes from my introduction toThe Antievolution Pamphlets of Harry Rimmer(New York: Garland Publishing, 1995).Roger Schultz, All Things Made New: The Evolving Fundamentalism of Harry Rimmer, 1890-1952, a doctoral dissertation written for the University of Arkansas (1989), is the only full-length scholarly biography and the best source for many details of his life. While prosperous, middle-class Americans found much to celebrate about a new era of leisure and consumption, many Americansoften those in rural areasdisagreed on the meaning of a "good life" and how to achieve it. During the 1920s, three Republicans occupied the White House: Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover. Harry Rimmer at about age 40, from a brochure advertising the summer lecture series at the Winona Lake Bible Conference in 1934. When laws are challenged it shakes the town or city one is apart of. Some cultures, including the United States, have a mix of both. This means that professional scientists like Dawkins are perfectly capable of doing folk science; you dont need to be a Harry Rimmer or a Ken Ham. Without a transcendent lawgiver to stand apart from nature as our judge, it was not hard to see eugenic reforms as morally appropriate means to spread the kingdom of God on earth. This was especially relevant for those who were considered Christians. She quoted some of them in her book,Fire Inside: The Harry Rimmer Story(Berne, Indiana: Publishers Printing House, 1968); his comments about football are on pp. I learned about it in two books that provide excellent analyses of both creationism and naturalistic evolutionism as examples of folk science; seeHoward J. The Scopes Trial has never been forgotten, and its repercussions are evident. This material is adapted from Edward B. Davis, Fundamentalism and Folk Science Between the Wars,Religion and American Culture5 (1995): 217-48. If you enjoyed this article, we recommend you check out the following resources: Teaching My Students About Henrietta Lacks. Many women didn't want to give up the well-paying jobs and economic freedom they'd acquired during World War I. For many years Hearn has been a very active member of theAmerican Scientific Affiliation, an organization of evangelical scientists founded in 1941. Ive been sorting my pebbles and greasing my sling. Over a period of three hundred years of slavery in America White slave owners built a sophisticated structure to sustain their brutally corrupt and immoral system. The late Baptist theologianBernard Ramm, who attended one of Rimmers debates, remembered him as a superb humorist who had the crowd laughing along with him much of the time (quoting a letter from Ramm to the author). In retrospect, one of his most important engagements happened at Rice Institute (nowRice Universityin 1943. The modern culture encouraged more freedom for young people and women. This creates such a large gap with professional science that it can never be crossed: YECs will always be in conflict with many of the most important, well established conclusions of modern science. What exactly did he mean by a correlated body of absolute knowledge? Either way, varieties of folk science, including dinosaur religion, will continue to appeal to anyone who wants to use the Bible as if it were an authoritative scientific text or to inflate science into a form of religion. In an effort to put some nuance into our analysis of the debate, I turn to social philosopherJerome Ravetz, an astute critic of some of the excesses and shortcomings of modern science. Fundamentalists thought consumerism relaxed ethics and that the changing roles of women signaled a moral decline. The laws of nature, he said, are not the decisions of any man or group of men; not evenI say it reverentlyof God. Nature Study was intended for school children, and in Schmuckers hands it became a tool for religious instruction of a strongly pantheistic flavor. Sunday epitomized muscular Christianity. Harding worked to preserve the peace through international cooperation and the reduction of armaments around the world. This was exactly what had happened so many times before, in so many different places, with so many different opponents, and he was well prepared for it to happen again. The moment came during his rebuttal. Rimmer always pitted the facts of science against the mere theories of professional scientists. 1-2 and 11; andThe Theories of Evolution and the Facts of Paleontology(1935), pp. The leading creationist of the next generation, the lateHenry Morris, said that accounts of Rimmers debates made it obvious that present-day debates are amazingly similar to those of his time (A History of Modern Creationism, note on p. 92). Basically, Rimmer was appealing to two related currents in American thinking about science, both of them quite influential in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and still to some extent today. Fundamentalism is usually characterized by scholars as a religious response to modernism, especially the theory of evolution as an explanation of human origins and the idea that solutions to problems can be found without regard to traditional religious values. This material is adapted from two articles by Edward B. Davis, Fundamentalism and Folk Science Between the Wars,Religion and American Culture5 (1995): 217-48, and Samuel Christian Schmuckers Christian Vocation,Seminary Ridge Review10 (Spring 2008): 59-75. What was Fundamentalism during the 1920's and what did they reject? To rural Americans, the ways of the city seemed sinful and extravagant. Secularism's premise is that social stability can be achieved without reliance on religion. The twenties were a time of great divide between rural and urban areas in America. Schmucker wrote five books about evolution, eugenics, and the environment for major publishing houses. The invitation came from a young instructor of engineering,Henry Morris, who went on to become the most influential young-earth creationist of his generation. The theory of evolution, developed by Charles Darwin, clashed with the description of creation found in the Bible. 386-87). In the 1920s, a backlash against immigrants and modernism led to the original culture wars. How did fundamentalism affect society in the 1920s? Come back to see what happens. I have not found a comparable body of literature from the first half of the twentieth century. That subtlety was probably lost on the audience, which responded precisely as Rimmer wanted and expected: with loud applause for an apparently crippling blow. Lets go further into this particular rhetorical move. The external groups for which a subject functions as folk-science can vary enormously in their size, sophistication and influence, necessitating different styles of communication. 188 and 121, their italics). Every immigrant was seen as an enemy fundamentalism clashed with the modern culture in many ways. Unlike Moore, he had no interest in a God who could create immanently through evolution but could also transcendently bring Christ back from the dead. Cities were swiftly becoming centers of opportunity, but the growth of citiesespecially the growth of immigrant populations in those citiessharpened rural discontent over the perception of rapid cultural change. What are the other names for the 1920s. TheChurch of the Open Dooroccupied this large building in downtown Los Angeles until 1985, when it moved to Glendora. As it happens, his opponent was Gregorys longtime friend Samuel Christian Schmucker, a very frequent speaker at the Museum and undoubtedly one of the two or three best known speakers and writers on scientific subjects in the United States. Morris associate, the lateDuane Gish, eagerly put on Rimmers mantle, using humor and ridicule to win an audience when genuine scientific arguments might not do the trickand (like Rimmer) he is alleged to have won every one of themore than 300 debates in which he participated. He expressed this in language that was more in tune with the boundless optimism of the French Enlightenment than with the awful carnage of theGreat Warthat was about to begin in Europe. He spelled it out in a pamphlet written a couple years later,Modern Science and the Youth of Today. This phenomenon, he argues, has made possible the persistence of religion in our highly scientific society. Next, an abiding sense of the existence of law, led to acceptance of an ancient earth, with forms of life evolving over eons of time. What of the billions of varieties that would be necessary for the gradual development of a horse out of a creature that is more like a civet cat than any other living creature? The telephone connected families and friends. Rimmer wasnt actually from Kansas, but he liked to advertise a formal connection he had made with asmall state college there. Fundamentalists thought consumerism relaxed ethics and that the changing roles of women signaled a moral decline. A second idea embedded in Rimmers rhetoric was emblazoned on the gondola in the balloon cartoon: Science Falsely So-Called, which references 1 Timothy 6:20, O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called. For centuries, Christian authors have used this phrase derisively to label various philosophical views that they saw as opposed to the Bible, including Gnosticism, but since the early nineteenth century natural history has probably been the most common target. We shouldnt be surprised by this. For more than thirty years, Schmucker lectured at theWagner Free Institute of Science, located just a mile away from the Metropolitan Opera House in north Philadelphia. Rimmers mission was to give students the knowledge they needed to defend and to keep their faith. 92-3. Young, Portraits of Creation: Biblical and ScientificPerspectives on the Worlds Formation(Eerdmans, 1990), pp, 147-51, and 186-202. The reform movement was established in central Arabia and later in South Western Arabia. The twin horns of that dilemma still substantially shape religious responses to evolution. When the boxer and the biologist collided that November evening, they both had a substantial following, and they presented a sharp contrast to the audience: a pugilistic, self-educated fundamentalist evangelist against a suave, sophisticated science writer. Innocent youth faced challenges from faculty intent on ripping out their faith by the roots. A former Methodist lay preacher whohelped launchthe field of developmental biology in the United States, Princeton professorEdwin Grant Conklinwas one of the leading public voices for science in the 1920s and 1930s. In passages such as these, Schmucker stripped God of transcendence and removed from the laws of nature every ounce of contingency that has been so important for thedevelopment of modern science. Two of his books were used as national course texts by theChautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle, and his lectures, illustrated with numerousglass lantern slides, got top billing in advertisements for a quarter century. If there is just one take-away message, it is this: the warfare view grossly oversimplifies complex historical situations, to such an extent that it has to be laid to rest. Indeed, hes the leading exponent of dinosaur religion today. I believe there is a kinship between all living things. Is this really surprising? As more of the population flocked to cities for jobs and quality of life, many left behind in rural areas felt that their way of life was being threatened. How should we understand the Rimmer-Schmucker debate? Fundamentalists looked to the Bible with every important question they had . With seating for about 4,000 people, it was more than half full when Rimmer debated Schmucker about evolution in November 1930. For the moment, however, I will call attention to a position that gave him high visibility in Philadelphia, a long trip by local rail from his home in West Chester. To understand this more fully, lets examine Rimmers view of scientific knowledge. Fundamentalism and modernism clashed in the Scopes Trial of 1925. For more about Compton and design, see my article, Prophet of Science Part Two: Arthur Holly Compton on Science, Freedom, Religion, and Morality [PDF],Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith61 (September 2009): 175-90. The trial was exacerbated and publicized to draw attention to Dayton, Tennessee, as well as the fundamentalism vs. evolution argument. Scientists themselves were, in the 1920s, among the most outspoken voices in this exchange. How did us change in the 1920s how important were those changes? If this were Schmuckers final word on divine immanence, it would be hard for me to be too critical. Out of these negotiations came a number of treaties designed to foster cooperation in the Far East, reduce the size of navies around the world, and establish guidelines for submarine usage. But modern science is the opinion of current thought on many subjects, and has not yet been tested or proved. Cultural Changes during the 1920's. For decades prior, people began to abandon and move away from the traditional rural life style and began to flock towards the allure of the growing cities. The problem with the New Atheists isnt their science, its the folk science that they pass off as science. I have also quoted newspaper accounts of the debate, Kansan [Rimmer] Wins in Debate on Theory of Evolution,Philadelphia Public Ledger, 23 November 1930, part II, 2; and See Divine Will Behind All of Life,Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, 24 November 1930, 16. Unfortunately, Rimmer sometimes used even pseudo-scientific facts to defend the reliability of Scripture against scientists and biblical critics. Going well beyond this discussion, I recommend a penetrating critique of religious aspects of naturalistic evolutionism by historianDavid N. Livingstone, Evolution as Metaphor and Myth,Christian Scholars Review12 (1983): 111-25. Direct link to hailey jade's post Why not just put them in , Posted 5 months ago. The two books of God came perfectly together in modern scienceprovided that we were prepared to embrace a higher conception of God alongside a clearer reverence for [scientific] investigation. Elaborating his position, he identified three very distinct stages in our belief as to the relation between God and His creation. First was the primitive belief based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. After introducing the combatants, McCormick announced the proposition to be debated: That the facts of biology sustain the theory of evolution., Schmucker wanted to accomplish two things: to state the evidence for adaptation and natural selection and to refute the claim that evolution is irreligious. Fundamentalism focused on Protestant teachings and the total belief that everything said in the Bible was the absolute truth. With Rimmer and his crowd decrying good science, and Schmucker and his crowd denying good theology, American Christians of the Scopes era faced a grim choice. Years later, Morris expressed disappointment that he didnt get a chance to talk to Rimmer afterward, owing to another commitment: he had been eagerly looking forward to getting to know [Rimmer] personally, hoping to secure his guidance for what I hoped might become a future testimony in the university world somewhat like his own (A History of Modern Creationism, p. 91). How did fundamentalism and nativism affect society in 1920s? Like most fundamentalists then and now, he saw high schools, colleges, and universities as hotbeds of religious doubt. Even though Rimmer wasnt a YEChe advocated the gap theory, the same view that Morris himself endorsed at that pointhis Research Science Bureau was a direct ancestor of Morris organizations: in each case, the goal is (or was) to promote research that supports the scientific reliability of the Bible. MrDonovan. . The last two parts examined some of Rimmers activities and ideas. The radio was used extensively during the 1920's which altered society's culture. During the 1920's, a new religious approach to Christianity emerged that challenged the modern ways of society. Both groups differed in viewpoints on almost every topic. BioLogos gets it right: we understand the importance of creation, contingency, and divine transcendence. Direct link to David Alexander's post We can reject things for , Posted 4 years ago. Societal Changes in the 1920s. Religious fundamentalism revived as new moral and social attitudes came into vogue. When then asked to stand again if they found Schmucker more persuasive, it seemed that only this same small group stood up and those who voted seemed not to have had their preconceived ideas changed by the debate. Rimmers own account (in a letter to his wife) differed markedly; he claimed that Schmuckers support nearly disappeared, while gloating over his rhetorical conquest. Direct link to Jacob Aznavoorian's post who opposed nativism in t, Posted 3 years ago. Fundamentalism was first talked about during the debate by the Fundamentalist-Modernist in the 1920's. Fundamentalism is defined as a type of religion that upholds very strict beliefs from the scripture they worship. This article explores fundamentalists, modernists, and evolution in the 1920s. Direct link to Keira's post There has always been nat, Posted 3 years ago. Rimmer dearly hoped that things would get even warmer before the night was over. In a book written many years ago, four faculty members from Calvin College pointed out that folk science provides a standing invitation to the unwary to confuse science with religionsomething that still happens all too often. A regular at several prestigious venues in the Northeast, he was best known for his annual week-long series at theChautauqua Institution, the mother of all American bully pulpits. For more than thirty years, historians have been probing beneath the surface of apparent conflicts, searching for the underlying reasons why people with different beliefs have sometimes clashed over matters involving science. This was especially relevant for those who were considered Christians. Fundamentalists also rejected the modernity of the "Roaring Twenties" that increased the impulse to break with tradition and witnessed Americans beginning to value convenience and leisure over hard work and self-denial. For reliable information on common sense realism and the notion of science falsely so-called, seeGeorge M. Marsden, Creation Versus Evolution: No Middle Way,Nature305 (1983): 571-74;Ronald L. Numbers, Science Falsely So-Called: Evolution and Adventists in the Nineteenth Century,Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation27 (1975): 18-23; and Ronald L. Numbers and Daniel P. Thurs, Science, Pseudoscience, and Science Falsely So-Called, in Peter Harrison, Ronald L. Numbers & Michael H. Shank (Eds. While many Americans celebrated the emergence of modern technologies and less restrictive social norms, others strongly objected to the social changes of the 1920s. At the same time, its easy now to find leading Christian scientists, including Nobel laureates, who affirm both evolution and theecumenical creeds, whereas such people were all but invisible in Schmuckers daya fact that only contributed to fundamentalist opposition to evolution. The pastor of one of the churches, William L. McCormick, served as moderator. Additionally, the first radio broadcasts and motion pictures expanded Americans' access to news and entertainment. Fundamentalism has a very specific meaning in the history of American Christianity, as the name taken by a coalition of mostly white, mostly northern Protestants who, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, united in opposition to theological liberalism. Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere. (Quoting his 1889 essay, The Christian Doctrine of God) Good stuff, Aubrey Moore; I recommend a double dose for anyone suffering from serious doubts about the theism in theistic evolution.