Milton's doctrine or Biblical doctrine?

Even though I said that I had more pertinent material to read than discourses about the perceived clash of science & Christian theology, I contradicted myself by picking up John Hedley Brooke's Science and Religion last night. As I have become increasingly aware during the course of my reading, the present climate of argument around science & religion carries a tone of conflict and warfare that has been maintained for over 100 years the more. It is fashionable to invoke such imagery, religion slowly crumbling under the weight of science, but a historical perspective reveals integrations that are often far more complex. There have been times when religious sentiments justified scientific exploration (working out the "course of Creation"), for example, and in order to understand what conflicts there may be a knowledge of shifting definitions of both science and religion is required.

I was reminded of this unappreciated complexity while reading Huxley's American Addresses, the first printed lecture comparing an infinitely old view of Nature, a recent creation of Nature, and the development of Nature by evolution.* Huxley uses Milton's epic poem Paradise Lost as the basis for the second view, Milton's poem explicitly alluding to the order of creation described in Genesis. Would it not have made more sense for Huxley to call the second system the "Biblical" or "Mosaic" narrative rather than ascribe it to Milton?

*[As I have read Huxley's work it has become apparent that little mention is made of natural selection or of Darwin, especially for someone who is called "Darwin's Bulldog." Whether or not the label is justified, it is clear that Huxley was concerned with identifying gradations in the fossil record that natural selection predicted (at least after his break with the idea of persistence). Given that paleontology seemed to be at odds with evolution by natural selection in 1859, finding fossil transitions was certainly a major concern.]

Although Huxley was no friend of Christianity he was very careful to go after Milton's interpretation of Genesis rather than scripture itself;

I doubt not that it may have excited some surprise in your minds that I should have spoken of this as Milton's hypothesis, rather than that I should have chosen the terms which are more customary, such as "the doctrine of creation," or "the Biblical doctrine," or " the doctrine of Moses," all of which denominations, as applied to the hypothesis to which I have just referred, are certainly much more familiar to you than the title of the Miltonic hypothesis. But I have had what I cannot but think are very weighty reasons for taking the course which I have pursued.

After stating that he is not concerned with the philosophy of Nature, only the age and order of it, Huxley justifies why he has chosen to deconstruct Milton rather than the Bible itself;

It is quite true that persons as diverse in their general views as Milton the Protestant and the celebrated Jesuit Father Suarez, each put upon the first chapter of Genesis the interpretation embodied in Milton's poem. It is quite true that this interpretation is that which has been instilled into every one of us in our childhood ; but I do not for one moment venture to say that it can properly be called the Biblical doctrine. It is not my business, and does not lie within my competency, to say what the Hebrew text does, and what it does not signify ; moreover, were I to affirm that this is the Biblical doctrine, I should be met by the authority of many eminent scholars, to say nothing of men of science, who, at various times, have absolutely denied that any such doctrine is to be found in Genesis. If we are to listen to many expositors of no mean authority, we must believe that what seems so clearly defined in Genesis -- as if very great pains had been taken that there should be no possibility of mistake -- is not the meaning of the text at all. The account is divided into periods that we may make just as long or as short as convenience requires. We are also to understand that it is consistent with the original text to believe that the most complex plants and animals may have been evolved by natural processes, lasting for millions of years, out of structureless rudiments. A person who is not a Hebrew scholar can only stand aside and admire the marvelous flexibility of a language which admits of such diverse interpretations. But assuredly, in the face of such contradictions of authority upon matters respecting which he is incompetent to form any judgment, he will abstain, as I do, from giving any opinion.

In the third place, I have carefully abstained from speaking of this as the Mosaic doctrine, because we are now assured upon the authority of the highest critics, and even of dignitaries of the Church, that there is no evidence that Moses wrote the Book of Genesis, or knew anything about it. You will understand that I give no judgment -- it would be an impertinence upon my part to volunteer even a suggestion -- upon such a subject. But, that being the state of opinion among the scholars and the clergy, it is well for the unlearned in Hebrew lore, and for the laity, to avoid entangling themselves in such a vexed question. Happily, Milton leaves us no excuse for doubting what he means, and I shall therefore be safe in speaking of the opinion in question as the Miltonic hypothesis.

By appealing to the diversity of opinion over the interpretation of Genesis and the authorship of the book itself, Huxley was then able to go after what we now call the young-earth creationist position from a different angle. His use of language makes it clear that he did not carry the same opinions of those who claimed that evolution was the natural manifestation of what was described in Genesis, but the very existence of such opinions among naturalists allowed Huxley to further cast the young-earth hypothesis as an interpretation rather than standard, irrefutable dogma. Questions of the age of the earth and the length of the days of creation have been interpreted in a variety of ways, and the ability to identify the fundamentalist view as an interpretation puts young-earth beliefs on much looser footing while also protecting critics. Huxley sharpened his beak and claws for Milton's illustration rather than the Bible itself.

Huxley dissects Milton by reminding his audience of the order of Milton's creation; plants appeared on day three, aquatic animals & birds on day five, and terrestrial mammals on day six. Although the age of the days in particular may be unknown, the system at least puts forward the hypothesis that plants appeared before birds & aquatic animals which in turn appeared before terrestrial animals. Being that aquatic creatures had been found from every fossil strata then known, the Miltonic equivalent would be that all strata are from days 5 or 6 and that what happened on days 1-4 would be entirely absent (you would not be able to find the first appearance of plants). But wait, says Huxley; in the Carboniferous there is the first appearance of plants which would mean that they arose on day 5 or 6, not 3.

The relationship between birds and mammals presented a further problem; terrestrial animals first appear in strata older than the oldest birds, thus Milton's account that birds preceded terrestrial animals is in error. If Milton was right then birds would be expected along with fish through the oldest known strata in which fish exist, but such was not the case*

*This stands in contrast to Huxley's earlier thoughts on persistence in which he thought evolution had occurred during pre-geologic time. This would mean that Cambrian birds and Silurian mammals may one day be discovered, and the American Addresses arguments leave little doubt that he had certainly abandoned his earlier views.

Whales threw another monkey wrench into Milton's machinery. According to Paradise Lost, whales were grouped in with fish under the heading of "aquatic animals" (and, to many of the laity, whales were fish. See Trying Leviathan). If Milton's hypothesis was true then whales should be found along with fish in the oldest strata, but even the oldest fossil whales then known were far too young to reach the earliest appearance of fish. Even the fish did not fit into Milton's plan; the fish in ancient strata did not resemble living fish, Milton's poem predicting that the animals being created would be in their present form and not some older plan that would have to evolve to reach their present state.

After laying waste to Milton, Huxley left his audience with a cliffhanger. The third hypothesis (evolution) was the one illustrated in the geologic strata over immeasurable time, and Huxley spent two lectures on the evidence for evolution (using, among other things, toothed birds and three-toed horses). What is most interesting to me, however, is how Huxley was able to dismantle arguments for a literal 6-day creation event as told in the Bible by making it clear that such beliefs are interpretations, and interpretations not shared by a number of scholarly authorities at that.

My admiration for Huxley's rhetorical technique aside, someone who agreed with Milton's timeline might feel that Huxley was directly attacking Christianity. While Milton's poem was not dogma it was a very popular poetic illustration of the Bible, so attacking the popular interpretation could be seen as attacking the original (essentially burning Genesis in effigy). Indeed, although Huxley appears to have watched his step his opponents could have very easily claimed that he had stepped on their toes, the lecture being a veiled attack on the authority of scripture. Then again, as Mark points out in the comments, there were plenty of criticisms of Milton's work from religious circles, so Huxley's remarks were relatively "safe" (h/t to Mark for the correction).