W.G.T. Shedd on Creation

William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Presbyterian minister, was born in 1820, initiated his studies in theology in 1840 and wrote his Dogmatic Theology between 1888 and 1894. It is important to keep in mind while reading his major work that the 19^th century was marked by a high scientific, philosophic and politic activity.[1]

Shedd presents himself primarily as a defender of a teleological origin of the universe. He supports the biblical idea of God creating the world out of nothing and devotes many pages to apologetic discourses in order to refute anti ex nehilo creation views. In all his discussions, Shedd will majestically use scientific, philosophical and logical arguments and he will always bring reliable and significant people to his “boat”, like Plato, Cicero, Newton and Locke. The first refuted is that of the eternity of matter by means of three main arguments: (1) if matter is eternal, than rational life was originated by matter but it has never been proved that non-entity can produce entity, in fact, incogitative beings cannot originate cogitative beings”[2]; (2) if matter is eternal it should be necessary, but matter does not have rational intelligence and, therefore, it is not perfect, if it is not perfect, it is not necessary, and thus the idea of matter does not convey eternality; (3) if matter is eternal, than it is the first cause of all things including movement , but matter is characterized by vis inertiae and therefore could not originate any kind of motion for there is nothing self-moving.

Concerning this last argument, Shedd spends a great deal of time refuting the idea of molecular motion as a support to the eternity of matter. This theory assumes that the atoms of matter do have self-motion and that it is extended to the matter’s molecule which, by applying its self-motion to the others molecules present in the matter’s structure, attributes movement to the whole body of matter. The idea is carried further by the concept of “natural selection” attributed to matter and through it some will support that, by the variation of the molecular motion, inorganic matter generated organic (Haeckel) and others will support this variation as the reason why organic matter was able to generate other kinds of organic matter (Darwin). Shedd again ably refutes these views using Newtonian physics and making the following counterarguments: (1) that, if in motion, matter left to itself is characterized by uniform motion (he uses gravity as illustration); (2) that material motion is not perpetual, and if there was not for an external force maintaining the universe, it would collapse (Shedd will argue that even in ether there is resistance to motion); (3) that mechanical forces do not present variety (the way crystals are organized in the mineral world) but that is not true about plants and humans; (4) that molecules are immutable (the hydrogen found on Earth is the same hydrogen found in Mars) while evolution implies the continual change in their structure.

The second position refuted by Shedd is what he calls pseudo-evolution. This theory postulates that “homogeneous substance transmutes itself into heterogeneous.”[3] In other words, rocks can become plants by a slow and intrinsic force. Shedd refutes such theory by the following arguments: (1) that it is in fact a presupposition brought into scientific discussion for it neither has ever been proved nor finds support in the whole system of physical knowledge so far acquired[4]; (2) that there is no proof whatsoever that new species develop from already existent species; (3) that no natural phenomena or facts in the observable world supports the pseudo-evolution theory to be true[5]; (4) that hybrid species constitute an evidence of the impossibility of the transmutation of species for they, being the result of a man-made attempt to manipulate nature, are not capable to reproduce, contrary to natural species which are capable to self-perpetuate; (5) that it is impossible to apply fixed laws to this theory, which directly conflicts with the invariability and certainty of natural science and the kingdoms of nature.

Shedd also deals with the argument of similarities between the embryos of other animals and that of man as a proof of their connection. He refutes this idea by the biblical argument of the imago Dei present in man and absent on the animals no matter their physical similarities in early stages of existence. He argues that while animal’s embryo are only matter, man’s embryo is mind and matter. In his own words: “…the babe possesses, along with the physical qualities, the “image of God,” namely, a rational soul; while the dog has only an animal soul…a human body with only an animal soul would look like a man, but would be as far from man as is an ox.”[6]

The later part of the chapter is dedicated to date man’s creation. Shedd defends an early creation for humanity and to support that he primarily upholds to the biblical genealogies. He affirms that humans has existed for a period of time between six and eight thousand years. The gap between the numbers aims to consider the difference of years registered by the Massoretic text, the Septuagint, the Samaritan text and other ancient texts. Against the idea of an antique existence of man he argues: (1) that the ancient civilizations do not support such thought in their books of history and even in their fables and traditions; (2) that ancient cities mentioned in the Bible are dated with an early age by modern archeology; (3) that if the age suggested by pseudo-evolutionist for the origin of man would be considered (20000 years) the population of the world should be “immensely greater than it is;” (4) that scientific zoologists prefers the idea of a recent origin of man according to the evidences found in nature.

Shedd deals ably with the arguments of language, of color and race, and of artifacts. Concerning color and race, he argues that long periods of years are not necessary for a change in human appearance. He supports this idea by mentioning the Portuguese occupation in India and that after only 300 years they have become “as black as Caffres.”[7] Concerning language, he supports the idea of a mother tongue from which all others are derived and points to the scientific evidence for it. The use of artifacts (what he calls of “rude stones implements”[8]) is refuted by the use of logic. One of the arguments is that: “There are tribes of men now on the globe who are using them. Should these tribes become extinct, and their implements be discovered on thousand years hence, it would be a false inference to assert that they belonged to a race that lived before Adam.”[9]

When dealing with the length of time spent in creation, Shedd is not so investigative, at least not linguistically and grammatically. He clearly tries to interpret the geological discoveries and  thoughts of the 19^th century with the narrative of Genesis. He believes that Genesis 1:1 is a description of a first part of creation when God brought to existence angels, the souls of man, and chaotic matter.[10] He supports this position by stating that it “was a common view among the fathers and schoolmen.” He also appeals to Augustine “exegesis” of the biblical text which can be found in his Confessions.[11] Concerning the initial chaotic state of the earth, he will find support in Witsius.[12]

---

[1] Publication of the Origin of the species (1859), Maxwell’s treatise on Electricity and Magnetism (1873).

[2] Citation of Locke by Shedd, page 488.

[3] Shedd, page 499.

[4] He reminds the reader that Darwin himself never defended such an idea, that in fact he counted on a “Creator” to be source of the primitive forms of life which “originated” the actual world. He reminds as well that microscopists and naturalists in general never accepted the possibility of inorganic matter being the origin of organic.

[5] He argues here that if pseudo-evolution was a real law of nature (again, like gravity) it should be evident and abundant in such a way that it would be observable.

[6] Shedd, pages 514, 515.

[7] Citation of the Indian Journal.

[8] Ibid., 525.

[9] Ibid., 525.

[10] Ibid., 474.

[11] Reading Augustine’s text one will conclude that it does not intend to be an exegesis, but expresses the church father’s own understanding of the text.

[12] Creed, Dissertation VIII.