Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

For the record, in response to Thomas' remarks about Pennsylvania, no it did not even remotely resemble a theocracy.

********************************

With all due respect to Mr. Hofstader, the "Great Awakening" was a significant event only from the perspective of those who perpetuate the contention that nothing important happened in colonial America unless it happened in New England. I have more than once canvassed this subject, but i will do so again.

Arthur Schlesinger, Sr., in the middle years of his career, made a minute study of the social and economic conditions of colonial America. I haven't a text to hand, so i will write generalities. As i would be subject to debate or refutation even with the specifics, that won't matter as much, however. Mr. Schlesinger compared tax rolls (evidence of property ownership--in most colonies, as that was a requirement for the franchise; notably, the Massachusetts Bay Company [not to be confused with the MB Colony, the succeeding entity] required congregational membership for the franchise), congregational registries, birth and death registries, censii of the Lords of Trade (responsible for the administration of the colonies), and militia muster rolls--and came to the conclusion that most of the urban and rural poor were "unchurched." His contention was, in fact, that as much as half the population were unchurched, as he pointed out that previous scholars had assumed without justification that convicts were all members of one congregation or another. Convicts were a significant part of the population in Virginia, and a modern scholar has estimated that at the time of the revolution, 35% of the population of Maryland were convicts, ticket-of-leave men and women, or their descendants.

**********************

To take it from the top, so to speak (from the north), the religious and political status quo ante at the time of the revolution was this:

Maine: Not to become a state until 1820, it was at that time a "province" of Massachusetts, and therefore titularly under a Congregational establishment. The reality on the ground was that after a century of being the frontier of warfare between the French and Micmacs/Abenakis on the one hand, and the English colonists on the other, any man and woman hardy enough to carve a clearing out of the deep woods and hold it against persistent raiding were acceptable, and little inquiry into orthodoxy would arise. With few and small towns, by and large Congregationalist, the revivalism of the "Great Awakening" (hereafter, "GA") had little impact.

The western Hampshire Grants--the first state admitted to the new union as Vermont, this area was a robust pioneer community, largely settled originally by Congreationalist from Massachusetts. An infusion of German pietistic settlers somewhat diluted this, and as was the case in Maine, hardy pioneering virtue counted for more than orthodoxy. The "GA" had some impact, but not much, as the pietists were unimpressed, and there few and small towns, just as in Maine. There was no establishment of religion.

New Hampshire (roughly, the eastern Hampshire Grants)--Although largely settled from Massachusetts, this colony was not chartered with any religious establishment. Relying initially upon the sea for its livelihood, it attracted a good many settlers from among fishermen and sailors who came to American shores, and its interior was initially filled with lumbermen, another community not especially known for piety. The "GA" had a good following there, as there was not an establishment, and no religious ministry held sway.

Masschusetts--It is necessary to back-track for a description of the nearest thing to a theocracy to ever be founded in this nation. When the Yorkshire cleric John Knox returned from his brief and rather starry-eyed visit to the "godly republic" of Calvin and Zwingli at Geneva, he spread the "good word" of Calvinist piety in the north and in Scotland. This lead rather quickly to the foundation of the Scottish Kirk, which with its obsessional emphasis on a rule of church fathers (presbyters) and predestination, went down the road which lead to Presbyterianism. As Calvinist doctrine spread south, Elizabeth turned a not-entirely-amused but nonetheless benevolent eye on the phenomenon, tolerating the new teaching so long as it did no violence to the Episcopal establishment. The "high church" membership of the establishment scorned the Calvinists, branding them Puritans derisively. These men, however, took the name as a badge of honor--and therefore, the term Puritan has a very specific meaning in American history--it means, if you will, "original Calvinist."

Succeeding Elizabeth, James Stuart was a devoutly religious man--despite what to most modern historians is his rather obvious homosexuality, which of course ought not be seen to preclude piety--but he was also a very practical man, who had survived the vicious politics of gloomy Scotland. He knew the Kirk and how to deal with it, and his hand rested lightly on the Puritans, who continued to live within the establishment, if not entirely consonant with the theology of the establishment. His son Charles, however, was raised away from Scotland and the Kirk, and, inheriting his father's piety, but his mothers hard-headed stubbornness, he began upon his accession, a program to "return" Scotland to the path of orthodoxy as he saw. In this he was aided and abetted, and mightily encouraged, by his friend Bishop Laud. When the Parliament refused to vote supplies for an army to be sent to Scotland, Charles prorogued Parliament, and no new Parliament was to sit for twelve years. The ensuing civil wars affected what i am discussing, but John Pym, John Hampden and Oliver Cromwell are not the topic here. In the interim between the prorogued Parliament and the Long Parliament, the Puritans cast about for many solutions. Many had already left in the reign of James, going first to Holland, the paragon of toleration in 17th century Europe (if one were not actually Catholic), and some from there to the shores of Massachusetts Bay. The latter event was not so nearly important as the New England historians of 19th century America have succeeded in leading us to believe. In England, Puritans who were distressed by the turn of events, and justifiably fearful of the influence of Bishop Laud, looked for a means of maintaining their doctrinal purity while avoiding actual rebellion. A group of west country merchants had obtained a charter for a trading company entitled The Massachusetts Bay Company (hereater, the MBC). A standard provision of such charters was that the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Selectmen of the Company would meet at occasional and regular times in London to review the fortunes and policies of the Company. For reasons unknown (and highly suspicious) this charter was drafted with such a proviso which did not specify any place of meeting, and pointedly, did not mention London. Puritan community leaders conceived of a plan to establish a "godly republic in the wilderness," no doubt inspired by Calvin and Zwingli's Geneva experiment. They selected a lawyer in the corrupt and venal Court of Wards and Liveries, John Winthrop, to be governor, and he was sent to Massachusetts, with the charter in hand. Once there, now establishing his "shining city on the hill" (pacem George, you really didn't think those dull-witted Republicans thought that up on their own, did you?), he made the radical move of extending the franchise of the Company to all adult males who were members in good standing of any recognized congregation. He and the other Governors and Selectmen of the MBC also moved quickly to suppress any deviation from Congregational Calvinist orthodoxy, which is what lead to the departure of Roger Williams and the foundation of Rhode Island. What we know of as Congregationalism became the religious establishment. After the Stuart restoration, the MBC made so much annoying, petty trouble for the Crown, that Charles II called for the charter to have it examined. Discovering that the charter was absent, and learning that it had been spirited away to Massachusetts, the charter was revoked, the MBC became a Crown colony, but the Congregational establishment was recognized.

The "GA" was a profoundly significant event in a colony which had flogged to insensibility any Quakers found in the colony, and which had executed not a few who had returned to the colony having been expelled. Now a Crown colony, the church fathers no longer had direct resort to cruel and unusal punishment and execution, so they pressed the Governor and Council to expell the evangelists, and they were only too happy to oblige to get the now grown-dour Puritans to get them off their backs and out of their pleasant and somnolent halls. The Congregationalists split into "new lights" and "old lights" and a residue of bitterness and suspicion remained.

Rhode Island--as noted above, Roger Williams was expelled from Massachusetts, and established a colony to the south which practiced complete tolerance (well, not Catholics of course), which attracted the unorthodox from the north, as well as sailors and merchants and others devoid of peity and sick of John Winthrop. Electing their own governors and estalishing their own courts and militia, as well as insisting upon scrupulous probity in dealing with the aboriginal inhabitants, the fledgling colony survived and prospered, much to the annoyance of the Puritans, who, in a fit of "oh yeah, what about them?" after the revocation of their charter, they succeeded in securing for Rhode Island the ratification of the status quo. The "GA" meant little here where no one was interested in suppressing it, so that evangelic revivalists found ready audiences, but no martyrdom. By the 1730s, mercantilism was the largest form of social activity and competition, and the revivalists were paid little heed.

Connecticutt--In western Massachusetts, in the valley of the Connecticutt River, wealthy Puritans had established themselves in regal splendor, and lorded it over later arrivals in a manner which would eventually prove insufferable--they were dubbed "the River Gods" and were roundly despised, and eventually deposed at the time of the revolution. Men "of the middling sort" who arrived with their piety and adherence to Congregationalism intact sought relief by moving down the river valley and eventually establishing the Connecticutt colony, which had a Congregationalist establishment, and which was just as profoundly affected by the "GA" as was Massachusetts. At the time of the revolution, Yale University had a "new light" President and regents, and it became the hot bed of opposition to the "old light" government, which had brutally suppressed the revivalists forty years earlier.

New York and New Jersey--originally the Dutch colony of New Holland, its capital at New Amsterdam was taken by James, Duke of York, at the end of the third Anglo-Dutch war, and promptly renamed New York. James, on behalf of and with the eventual approval of, his brother Charles II, recognized the existing estates of the Dutch "patroons" in New York and New Jersey (the latter named in honor of the little island where Charles Stuart was first proclaimed King Charles II after the execution of his father) and stipulated their right to continue membership in the Dutch Reformed Church. As the "patroons" continued to spread out and acquire land, and the English joined the Dutch at the lucrative fur-trading post at Albany, the colonly began to fill up with a variety of men from many sects. Scots and English Presbyterians constituted a significant minority, as did German and English Anabaptists. The "GA" had a profound divisive effect on the Presbyterians and the Baptists, but caused nary a ripple in the Dutch Reformed community, who were unimpressed. Many of the tenant farmers of the "patroons" were among those identified by Schlesinger as "unchurched.

Delaware--an abortive colony of Sweden, Delaware had been conquered by the Dutch, who agreed to recognize the Lutheran establishment. The English recognized that settlement, but an "alien" governor and council of Englishmen took little heed of the Lutheran establishment, and the "GA" evangelism, although popular among Congregationalist tenant farmers, largely had little impact.

Pennsylvania--this was the largest of the "pay-back" grants of Charles II. Admiral Charles Penn had been a loyal supporter, and lender of money, to Charles I. With the execution of Charles, Penn easily and quickly turned his coat, and became the leading officer in the navy of the Protectorate. Such turning of coats was not regarded with disfavor in Europe in that era, which regarded military service as a practical business. At the time of the Stuart restoration, Penn lent fifteen thousand pounds sterling to Charles and James, an enormous sum in that day. He died, however, before the new King was formally coronated. His son was a different kettle of fish entirely. Becoming enamored of the teachings of George Fox, and becoming quite a devout "Quaker," he was expelled from Oxford at the age of 17. He was sent to France, and later returned to London to attend the Inns of Court (Lincoln's Inn, i believe). Charles repaid his debt to the now departed admiral by making a fantastic grant of all the lands which lay between New Jersey and Maryland, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to his son. Penn estalished and visited his colony, and insisted upon liberty of conscience (well, not Catholics, of course) and the fair and humane treatment of the aboriginals. Therefore, the Governor was appointed with sharp reminders to acceed to no demands for taxation which touched upon Penn property or Quaker lands in general. This lead to a great deal of acrimony, as did Quaker insistence upon voting no supplies for a militia which intended to take up arms against the aboriginals. The western portions of the colonies filled up with Scots-Irish Presbyterians, German Reformed and German pietist sects. They were understandably resentful of the anti-militarist policy in Philadelphia, and grew mistrustful of any of the "Englanders" who wandered their way, which included the evangelists of the "GA." The "GA" had a devisive effect on the Presbyterians and Baptists of Philadelphia, and was ignored by the Quakers who considered it insufficiently pious.

Maryland--George Calvert, Lord Baltimore, was an English Catholic, and his two sons, Cecilius and Leonard, had been granted letters of marque (piracy licenses) by Charles I. Landing in what became Maryland in 1634, Leonard and another brother, George, claimed the land in the name of Charles I. A colonly was granted, and it became a refuge for English Catholics. Canny enough to know how the tide would set, Leonard, the first Governor, put Anglicans in all of the positions of responsibility and filled the colonial council with Anglicans. This understandably nettled the Catholics, but it can likely be said to have been the salavation of the colony in the civil wars period and the Protectorate. Despite public historical myth in the United States, slavery was slow to take hold in the American colonies, and initially, Lord Baltimore filled up his new colony with convicts. As i noted above, a modern American scholar has suggested that more than 30% of the population at the time of the revolution were convicts, ticket-of-leave men and women, or their offspring. The "GA" had no impact on the minority Catholics, and little impressed the Anglicans. How it affected the convicts in unknown, but no strife arose as it did in New England.

Virginia--established as a commercial colony, Virginia saw everything go wrong which could go wrong in such an enterprise, and so only barely survived its early years, but provided the lessons needed to make later colonies flourish. The first attempt at settlement in 1584 at Roanoke Island (which is actually a part of North Carolina today) failed, the colonists disappearing (likely, however, to the mainland to disperse into the aboriginal population, accounting for the blue-eyed and green-eyed "Indians" later encountered there). Another attempt was made at Jamestown in 1607, which succeeded, although just barely. It is reasonably estimated that during the first 20 years, each spring found fewer than 20 men surviving from each hundred who had lived in the previous autumn. The charter was finally revoked, and the Virginia Company became a Crown Colony. A Dutch captain who arrived in 1609 with a cargo of slaves, desparate to sell them because he had been blown off course and the survivors of "the middle passage" were starving, he was eventually obliged to simply give them away, as the colonist were little interested in making any purchase. Slavery did not become big business in America until the late 17th century, and so, as was the case with Maryland, a great many of the early settlers were originally convicts. Ostensibly having an Anglican establishment, the Burgesses, who had founded their legislature before the arrival of a royal Governor, were little inclined to enforce orthodoxy at the behest of a Governor and council they despised and thwarted at every opportunity. Patrick Henry first came to public notice when he defended against a clergyman's claim for his living, and although Henry lost, the jury awarded the hapless divine damages of one copper penny. The "GA" elicited a large public yawn in Virginia, now fully immersed in the newly booming slave trade and tobacco monoculture. At the time of the Stuart restoration, Charles had repaid his other large creditor, Lord Fairfax, with a grant of more than half the land in Virginia. This was the occasion for endless lawsuits, a passtime dear to the heart of all good Virginians, and the arrival of many Scots-Irish Protestants and German pietists who filled up the frontier, blanding ignoring both Fairfax's agents and the evangelists of the "GA."

The "Great Awakening" was such a non-event in the colonies south of Virginia--the two Carolinas and Georgia--that i'm not going to bother with them, other than to note that it aroused typical apathy among the Scots-Irish Protestants and the French Huguenots of the Hill country, and was regarded with distaste and disdain by the Anglican Ascendancy of Charlestown.

**********************************

American history as it is popularly known continues to suffer from the New England-centric narrative of the 19th Century. Massachusetts bred the two greatest and most popular of American historians in the 19th century, William Prescott and Francis Parkman, both descended from Congregationalist pioneers and heroes of the Revolution (Colonel Prescott commanded the little earthen fortress on Breed's Hill during the battle of Bunker Hill, which was not fought on Bunker Hill). Massachusetts historians eagerly set out to write the history of early America and to prove how important New England in general, and Massachusetts in particular, were to that history, and how insignificant the other nine-tenths of the land and people had been. Religious fervor undoubtedly resided in the breasts of many of our pioneers--it is just as undoubted that as much as half the population were without publicly declared religious conviction. The wide variety of sectaries coupled with heartache and bitterness occasioned by the suppression of revivalism by the religious establishments of New England assured the thirst for religious toleration and the separation of church and state intended by the first amendment to the constitution. Those who are willing to allege that i am indulging a bias need to do their own homework to prove it.

How charmingly noble of you to make such a sacrifice. Can you tell us, in contemporary dollars, just how much you have expended to date?

Nothing. Perhaps I should rephrase my statement: If I could abolish Germany's de-facto establishment of Lutheranism and Catholicism in Germany, I would do it even if it meant that Germany get its version of Jerry Falwell.

Of course, I am sure you will find something wrong with this version as well. Indeed, if I walked on water, I predict your most likely comment would be: "Look -- Thomas can't swim." As long as this pleases you, be my guest. It's a cheap price to pay for reading posts like your overview of colonial American state constitutions.

What the hell are you guys talking about?

Oh, nothing ... just fighting out a friendly pissing contest, as far as I am concerned.

May you have your consumation so devoutly desired.



I wish i were half so clever as to have come up with something like your walking on water quip. I note that you are obsessed with paying a cheap price--a noble sentiment my Scots greatgrandmother would well have approved. Say . . . you don't have any Scots ancestry, do you?

Thomas-

I've read the Hume quote and it's simple and obvious stuff.

But I can't see how this makes sense-



Is Hume not arguing against diversity in the blue section?

I was thinking earlier of indolence in a different light.I think Hume means it in a way that still allows a clergy to carry out certain functions the population wants carrying out such as christenings,marriages,funerals and solace.And the indolence applies to stirring them up.That seems fair enough.

Maybe I don't understand your point.

Thomas-I think you lost.

<.>

That's another point I can't see very well.

No, but I'm a Suabian. Scotland was first settled by Suabians who got banished from our state for excessive wastefulness.

Utter nonsense, of course, but i found the quip hilarious.

You have heard, i suspect, of the Grand Canyon?

It wasn't there until a Scotsman dropped a nickel in a crack in the ground, and began diggin for it.

He is. He is also arguing for a church establishment to prevent such diversity. I agree with Hume that non-establishment brings about both diversity and increased fanaticism. I disagree with Hume when he implies that quenching religious fanaticism is worth the monotony that religious establishment brings. Blatham, on the other hand, appears to think that fanatic evangelicals are a very big problem for American society -- so I suggested Hume's solution to him. (Blatham and I are both great admirers of David Hume.)

It's not clear what you are arguing, thomas, nor why. It is more accurate and illuminating to refer to the community who established the eastern universities as Puritans and to distinguish them from the broader evangelical movement than to lump them indiscriminately together. The anti-intellectualism of the evangelical movement, particularly as evolved through the Great Awakening, was very definitely not a characteristic of the Massechusetts Puritans. Whether Pennsylvania was a theocracy is irrelevant. Whether the Quakers loved books too is irrelevant. Whether you cheer for religious diversity is irrelevant.


What would you be looking to predict from any of this? Perhaps that the east coast communities surrounding Massecusetts might demonstrate a strong tradition of support for higher education of the broad humanist sort than, say, Kansas or Lubbock? Maybe that ounce for ounce, one could find more IDer buttock plunked down in evangelical pews than Presbyterian pews? Predict away.

Thomas-

I thought the whole point of establishment was tp prevent diversity AND take monotony to its utterest imaginable limits.

Do you not know that there is movement going back about 120 years that believes in monotony.That's why we love cricket so much.You can sleep during a match quite easily.Especially when you have a nice pretty lady in her Sunday best adjusting your cushions and bringing pots of ale.The movement goes under the old name of The Idler and also the new name The Dull Man.I have a few of its publications but there aren't a lot as they have difficulty getting it out due to their philosophical position.

This must be why I never found Hume.I was never pointed at him by my teachers.Now I know why.We favour establishment and dogma and monotony.

We have let it slip a bit though recently for quite ovbious reasons and now you have some diversity and fast action.

Goodness, I don't mind folks speaking of the mysteries of things. But I'll pick my own to keep company with and shoot any bastard who comes near telling me that his mystery is the real one.

Whatsa matter, Blatham...you can't spell "superstitions?"

b.

Nobody showed up last night...so I was stuck with the shapely blond...and her even more shapely brunette friend...all by myself.

We did a tour of the bowels of the Frying Pan. Quite an interesting interior, I can tell you that.

It was a thankless job (of a sort)...but someone had to do it.

f.

Rate buster!