Samson Talbot, “Development and Human Descent,” Baptist Quarterly 6 (1872):
146; Harris, “The Harmony of Natural Science and Theology,” 17.
Joseph Le Conte, Religion and Science: A Series of Sunday Lectures on the Relation of
Natural and Revealed Religion, or the Truths Revealed in Nature and Scripture (1873; New
York: D. Appleton and Company, 1874), 231. My discussion of Draper and his work
draws heavily on Donald Fleming, John William Draper and the Religion of Science (Phila-
delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1950). Another especially useful treatment
of Draper’s discussion of the confl ict between religion and science is James R. Moore,
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), 22–29.
John William Draper, History of the Confl ict between Religion and Science (1874;
New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1875), 68–118, 158–59, 352, 353–54, 363–64.
Bixby, Similarities of Physical and Religious Knowledge, 7. See also James Mar-
tineau, “Nature and God,” [1860], in Essays, Philosophical and Theological (Boston:
William V. Spencer, 1866), 122.
E. L. Youmans, “Draper and His Critics,” Popular Science Monthly 7 (1875): 231;
Jon H. Roberts and James Turner, The Sacred and the Secular University (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2000), 32. I am indebted to Ronald L. Numbers, for suggest-
ing this quantitative approach, and to Stephen E. Wald, who compiled the data and
created the fi gures that I have included in this chapter.
James Woodrow, An Examination of Certain Recent Assaults on Physical Science
[reprinted from the Southern Presbyterian Review, July 1873] (Columbia, SC: Presbyterian
Publishing House, 1873), 27; J. S. Candlish, “Reformation Theology in the Light of
Modern Knowledge,” Presbyterian Review 8 (1887):, 231; George P. Fisher, “The Alleged
Confl ict of Natural Science and Religion,” Princeton Review n.s., 12 (1883): 37–38;
Bixby, Similarities of Physical and Religious Knowledge, 14.
M. H. Valentine, “The Infl uence of the Theory of Evolution on the Theory of
Ethics,” Lutheran Quarterly Review 28 (1898): 218; George T. Ladd, “The Origin of the
Concept of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 34 (1877): 35; James McCosh, The Religious Aspect
of Evolution, rev. ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1890), 58; Myron Adams, The
Continuous Creation: An Application of the Evolutionary Philosophy to the Christian Religion
(Boston: Houghton, Miffl in and Company, 1889), 96; L. Bell, “Unbelief, Half- Belief,
and a Remedy,” New Englander n.s., 7 [43] (1884): 72–73 (quote, 72); [Alexander]
Winchell, “Huxley and Evolution,” Methodist Quarterly Review 4th ser., 29 (1877): 305;
Ladd, “Origin of the Concept of God,” 34; George Harris, Moral Evolution (Boston:
Houghton, Miffl in and Company, 1896), 188–89 (quote, 189). See also Peter J. Bowler,
Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early- Twentieth- Century Britain (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2001), 226–27; Jon H. Roberts, Darwinism and the Divine in
America: Protestant Intellectuals and Organic Evolution, 1859–1900 (Madison: University
of Wisconsin Press, 1988), 137–43.
[E. L. Youmans], “Purpose and Plan of Our Enterprise,” Popular Science Monthly
1 (1872): 113; [ John Tyndall], Advancement of Science: The Inaugural Address of Prof. John
Tyndall, D.C.L., LL.D. F.R.S., Delivered before the British Association for the Advancement of
Science, at Belfast, August 19, 1874, with Portrait and Biographical Sketch (New York: Asa K.
