One of the principal assumptions about the early American Fundamentalist movement is that it is inherently “anti-science.” The basis of this conclusion may arise from events such as the Scopes Monkey Trial, where fundamentalists have often been characterized as having a vehement and unwavering opposition to theories held as facts by a consensus of scientists. However, literalist interpretations of the Bible were bound to be met with numerous doubts given the rising importance of science in humanity’s developing understanding of the world. An analysis of Fundamentalists on this ground as being simply “anti-science” and the arching belief in science as being the antithesis of religion in terms of fundamentalists fails to account for the potential for a dialogue that led to their understanding of what defines “science” itself. The Fundamentalist movement itself was not at its core a monolith of “anti-science” in the beginning, parts of the movement suggest more of an “anti-empirical” in the sense that the movement fought against the removal of God from scientific understanding through pure evidence. Moreover, the juxtaposition between the fundamentalist and modernist understandings of science point to a conclusion that, at least within the fundamentalist camp, the meaning of “science” was a contested term.
To understand the views of fundamentalists, it might first be interesting to look at the opinions of scientists and modernist Christian denominations and examine how they perceived the fundamentalist understandings of science and religion. Given the assumption that science might seek to explain all events of the natural world in a rational manner, it would also seem logical to assume that they too might be most likely to doubt the existence of God or a higher power (Stark 264). However, with the 1914 study of James Lueba, it was evident that a large portion of scientists (41.8%) actually believed in the existence of a higher being that answered prayers and could directly impact the world beyond a subjective or psychological way (Stark 265). While not an approval by science and the scientific community of the theological aspects that Fundamentalists held as the truth, this does show that a large portion of scientific thinkers during the period were not entirely against the acceptance of a place in the world for religious truth and a belief that a higher power held an importance place in the physical world.
To gain a grasp at the liberal Christian’s perception of science and a perception of the views of all Fundamentalists, one can look at Harry Fosdick’s sermon “Shall the Fundamentalists Win.” In this sermon, he exclaims that a scientist’s beliefs appeal to the youth because it questions the challenges the universe presents and seeks further inquiry into their understanding and calls science “an intellectual adventure for truth” (Fosdick). In this sense science appears to be a valid way of overcoming doubt and an active search to broaden one’s mind through the investigation into natural phenomena to find the truth. In comparison, Fosdick also offers the view typically associated with Fundamentalists. From the imitated point of view of a Fundamentalist to another person, he expresses that they wish to “feed [you] opinions from a spoon” and that they believe “no thinking is allowed here except such which brings you to certain specified, predetermined conclusions” (Fosdick). This view of fundamentalists paints a picture of an inherently insulated and fearful group wary of any potentiality for change and progress. To modernists, science is the inherit search for truth in a world that seeks to challenge beliefs whereas fundamentalists seek instead to maintain knowledge that fits within the confines of a defined framework and find truth solely from that.
Certain authors of the principal work The Fundamentals did fit into this defined mold completely and denounce completely the validity of scientific theories. One unnamed author did believe that all claims surrounding evolution were inherently evil. Another, Philip Mauro, sought as well to deny any attempt by mankind to create its own understanding of the universe that differed from God (as cited in Marsden, 2006, 121). In these cases, the authors did reject science in a complete fashion and instead advocated wholly for the Biblical and literalist interpretation of the world and how it was created, helping to reinforce this notion that the Fundamentalists themselves were entirely an anti-science movement.
Despite this representation of Fundamentalists by modernist and claims by several authors themselves, further analysis of authors within The Fundamentals alludes to a more complicated and nuanced relationship with science. Several authors attempt to critique the approach that modernists made toward science itself and realign it more with Christian values. Primarily, their objection was directed more toward the speculative nature of science that these critics saw as being held by the modernists and their version of science (as cited in Marsden 121). A general consensus within the works themselves was that people should enter into scientific endeavors with a curiosity rather than a supposition on the outcome a situation before investigation. Moreover, science was instead supposed to be examining the existing evidence instead of seeking to manipulate the world to test the validity of an outcome (as cited in Marsden 121). This rejection was more directly pointed toward the empirical and deliberate aspects of scientific inquiry rather than a general inquiry into the natural world of science. Instead of alienating God and religion through the scientific process, the authors instead appeared to have advocated more for the revealed truth of the world through God than directly seeking it with preconceived notions.
Other authors continued this attempt at rejecting certain aspects of science such as the assumption that it could continuously explain every aspect of the natural world. In this sense, contributors did not outright deny science but rather critiqued how it was unable to explain the supernatural experiences of man and his place in the world (as cited in Marsden 121). The belief also appears that certain events could never be truly explained by a rational and empirical search and only through belief. At the same time, there was room for a limited sense of science explaining aspects of human existence. In the view of one author, George Wright, it was potentially necessary that the process of creation to be long and have evolutionary aspects to it. However, there would still be a necessary intervention this evolution to have begun through an act of God and not just solely nature (as cited in Marsden 123). This attempt to reconcile religion with traditional scientific knowledge points not only to the more complicated views of early Fundamentalists but also the acknowledgement in the possible validity of scientific findings within the context of Biblical events. At its heart, the early Fundamentalist movement was not internally against science from every aspect. It was a nuanced early movement that at times sought to critique the modernist’s trust in in science from a theological standpoint and actively interact with the term “science” to look for its potential acceptance within religion.
However, as the Fundamentalist movement moved forward and gained a greater foothold within religious communities it began to emerge more as a force that became more “anti-science” rather than simply “anti-empirical.” Opinions such as Wrights, that included theology in the context of science, became more moderate to the polarized accounts of Biblical literalism in a stricter sense (Marsden 123). This Fundamentalism would instead seek to take on the characteristic of a much more active and intense movement which would help separate itself from the modernist and scientific communities. This culminated during the Scopes Trial in 1925 and the debate between William J. Bryan and Clarence Darrow over the validity of evolution versus creationism. In the process, Darrow worked directly to undermine Bryan, the fundamentalist, and the literalist interpretation of the Bible of him and his followers (Linder). In proving the Bryan himself was not a literalist, Darrow helped to solidify the divide between the modernists and fundamentalists as antithetical to one another and the portrayal of the fundamentalists as a Biblical literalists with views separate from the previous incarnations of the past where science might coexist with religion.
Thus at the beginning the early American fundamentalist movement was not rooted in the notion of being wholly “anti-science” and instead could be classified as “anti-empirical.” While a rejection to science does appear to emerge later and culminate in the Scopes Trial, this is not before a seemingly diverse array of opinions on the meaning of science were introduced into the principle text of The Fundamentals. To some original adherents, “true science” was inquiry that should not be based on the premise of hypothetical situations and instead found on principles of revelation (Marsden 121). However, to modernists and scientists, this inquiry into the unknown was key to understanding reality and challenging assumptions. Despite the shift of fundamentalism to complete Biblical literalism, the attempt to unite science with religion helped to display the tenant that, during the period, science itself and what constituted it was a contested concept by the early Fundamentalists and portray the movement as an originally more diverse group with a potential to be prescience.