Warfield on the utter folly of Darwinian evolution
I would venture to assert that the greatest theologian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is B.B. Warfield. As time goes on, I am more and more impressed by him. Here he is on Darwinian evolution—simply brilliant:
“Aimless movement in time will produce an ordered world! You might as well suppose that if you stir up a mass of type with a stick long enough, the letters will be found to have arranged themselves in the order in which they stand on the printed pages of Dante’s Inferno. It will never happen — though you stir for an eternity. And the reason is that such effects do not happen, but are produced only by a cause adequate to them and directed to the end in view. . . . Assuredly, what chance cannot begin to produce in a moment, chance cannot complete the production of in an eternity. . . . What is needed is not time, but cause.”
HT: Fred Zaspel
This entry was posted on Friday, May 29th, 2009 at 2:46 pm and is filed under 19th Century. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Great quote, but since Warfield is generally acknowledged to be favorable to evolution, does anyone know how those things fit together? Did he think God directed evolution or ???
May 29th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Ah, there is the rub!
His supposed favour of evolution is just that: supposed.
Hopefully, Fred Zaspel, who has researched this thoroughly, will publish on this soon.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Thank you!
May 30th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Hopefully Fred will, amongst everything else he is doing.
June 7th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Mark Noll and David Livingstone (two of Warfield’s editors) called him “a conservative evolutionist.” Terry Mortenson concluded that Warfield believed that Adam and Eve could have arisen from natural processes (under God’s direction of course). That could be called theistic evolution. Defending Warfield from that charge would make very interesting reading.
See: Coming to Grips with Genesis (Master Books)
June 8th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
David:
Fred has done the detailed research on Warfield and demonstrates his position from the mass of Warfieldiana.
A very important argumnet.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I look forward to reading Zaspel’s paper. I do note that it was Warfield’s accommodation to the geology of evolution that led to his ambiguity in dealing with the so-called science of his day. He appeared to be concerned that some new discovery would undermine a straight-forward view of a literal 6 day creation. Warfield’s ambivalence had a negative impact on the Christian apologetics of the early 20th century. Zaspel, I observe, also leans toward an old-earth view and that the age of the earth does not matter. I like to think that if Warfield had the benefit of the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis he would have been clearer in his defence of Biblical creation. I hope that Zaspel’s research exonerates Warfield but it would be ironic that Warfield’s “alleged” views have done much damage.
In any event, for what it is worth, I came across this examination of Warfield on Darwinism:
http://www.peterwallace.org/warf.txt
June 9th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Dear David:
I think Zaspel’s work does exonerate Warfield. I do not know where he stands on the 6-day creation.
Thanks for the link.
Blessings,
Michael.
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
It is cold comfort to see the names of Noll and Livingstone associated with editing Warfield.
Noll, it strikes me from reading “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind”, is ill-equipped to tread in the area where Christians meet Deep Time and Darwinism. David Livingstone, from his public lectures and numerous articles in PSCF seems to be a capable and enthusiastic aider and abettor of Christian Darwinism.