• he is protestant so the Bible is more central as an authority
• no one had come up with a mechanism for how evolution could happen (particularly in a short time)
• after living through the French revolution he wanted stability, such as the idea that species don't change
  

Notice we are jumping to about 1800, but the project of classifying plants and animals and building mechanistic understandings of nature that started with the scientific revolution was still in process. 

• The Enlightenment was an extension of mechanism
• The church had lost power to the state
  

• transmutation: species somehow transform into new species
• what is a species? a group that looks the same and can breed together
• in Genesis: "each thing according to its kind"--before evolution the assumption was God had created different species and those didn't change
  
• but what is the mechanism if they did change: that was a harder question to answer
  
• throwing out the idea that species are somehow fixed
  
• a theory that shows progression is not necessary evolutionary--it could be a series of special creations
  

• set out to systematize natural history (biology and geology) using a stricter empirical method
• his particular specialties were comparative anatomy and paleontology
• he believed the best way to understand animals was by studying their internal structure
  
• instead of a great chain of being he organized animals by the principles of their anatomy (vertebrates...)
• began to make clear that the species we find in fossils are not the same species that exist today
  

• until geology (to find metals to mine) became more serious in the 18th century, people didn't pay much attention to fossils
• as a result of imperialism, there is a lot of interest in exotic collectibles (Cabinet of Curiosity)
  
• the renaissance theory was they still live, we just haven't found them yet
• Aristotle's principle that species are immutable (unchangeable) was assumed
  
• Cuvier argued that none of them still live, they were wiped out in a catastrophe
• he was a church-going Protestant christian in a Catholic country, but considered religion completely separate from science (yet it probably influenced his science)
  
• One thing the French Revolution did leave behind was freedom of religion--Cuvier did not face persecution for being a member of a minority religious group
  

Religious views of the time

• the Genesis account was a fundamental starting place but might be read allegorically
• religious leaders did not see the Bible as a scientific text, but they did see it as a foundation for understanding nature
  
• if plants and animals reproduce according to their kind (Genesis 1:11-12) then there can't be evolution
• Bishop James Ussher calculated in the mid 1600s that the creation took place in 4004 BC, but scientists didn't pay much attention
  
• the issue at the time was more evolution moved away from God as a perfect creator, fixity of species
  

On the other hand, the Enlightenment had argued for a strict empirical and rational view of the world, throwing out the old authorities

• Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788) proposed a materialist account of the creation of the earth and of life
• he believed that a few basic types of animals were spontaneously generated according to preexisting organizing principles he called internal molds, then later degenerated into many species
• he attempted to scientifically calculate the age of the earth by extrapolating cooling iron balls up to the size of the Earth--he concluded 75,000 years
  
• some philosophers threw out even those organizing principles and argued that matter would organize itself into life
• life was seen as a principle of organic matter, not a soul or something that had to be created
• these ideas were associated with the turmoil of the French Revolution (1787-1799)--throwing over the old order led to chaos

So why would people favor or dislike the idea of evolution?

Cuvier wanted to throw out such speculation and he wanted the reliability of fixed species

• all the parts of an animal must work together (correlation of parts), so how could they change?
• Cuvier did believe that fossils showed species that no longer existed and argued each geological layer was laid down by a flood
• notice that this was not just one flood but a series, of which he believed the one reported in the Bible in the story of Noah was the last
  
• after each flood new plants and animals appeared, perhaps by migration, perhaps by creation
• Larson says Cuvier rejected evolution for social reasons, that is because he saw the French revolution as showing that society cannot successfully develop into new forms, if we want to avoid chaos we need to stay with the old organization of society

two problems with the idea of evolution for people like Cuvier

• if everything can change then there is no stability
• what is the mechanism for evolution
• why don't we see it

What issues might Christian churches have with the idea of evolution?

• if humans evolved from more primitive forms how can they be in God's image or where do souls come from
• everything was created perfect by God so why would it need to evolve
• science can explain the creation of the world, we don't need a creator
• what good is a God who is a perfect watchmaker and never intervenes
• it contradicts the literal interpretation of the bible--this objection was not usually the primary one until the 20th century
• God created things in kinds (species) that don't change