Against the Science–Religion Conflict: the Genesis of a Calvinist Science Faculty in the Netherlands in the Early Twentieth Century

Summary

This paper gives an account of the establishment and expansion of a Faculty of Science at the Calvinist ‘Free University’ in the Netherlands in the 1930s. It describes the efforts of a group of orthodox Christians to come to terms with the natural sciences in the early twentieth century. The statutes of the university, which had been founded in 1880, prescribed that all research and teaching should be based on Calvinist, biblical principles. This ideal was formulated in opposition to the claim of nineteenth-century scientific naturalists that there was an inherent conflict between science and religion. However, despite their selection on the basis of their strict Calvinist beliefs, the first science professors attributed a certain independence to the domain of science. They agreed with the criticism of the conflict thesis, and tried to defuse the tensions between science and religion, although mainly at the level of philosophy and history, looking for example for harmony between science and religion in the past. Ironically, as a result of this approach, the Calvinist scientists mainly contributed to the acceptance of mainstream science in Dutch Calvinist circles, contrary to developments in other countries (notably the USA) where the conflict between science and orthodox Christianity has reasserted itself.

Acknowledgements

Writing this article, I have greatly benefited from the research I undertook for a book on the history of Physics and Astronomy at the Free University: Ab Flipse, Hier leert de natuur ons zelf den weg. Een geschiedenis van Natuurkunde en Sterrenkunde aan de VU (Zoetermeer, 2005). This article expands, from a particular perspective, on the relation between science and religion, which was one of the themes present in the book. I am most grateful to Dr Ida H. Stamhuis and professor Frans H. van Lunteren for their help and suggestions at various stages of the research and writing process and to professor Ronald L. Numbers for the stimulating discussion I had with him about some issues brought forward in this article. I would also like to thank David Baneke, professor H. Floris Cohen and Daan Wegener for their comments, and Dr T. Bas Jongeling for correcting my English.

Notes

¹‘De “monkey trial” in Nederland’, Het Vaderland, 8 September 1925. For a recent discussion of the Scopes trial, see Edward J. Larson, ‘The Scopes Trial in History and Legend’, in When Science and Christianity meet, edited by David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers (Chicago, 2003), 245–64. On the Geelkerken controversy: De kwestie-Geelkerken. Een terugblik na 75 jaar, edited by George Harinck (Barneveld, 2001).

²Archives that were consulted at the Free University, Amsterdam: Senate's Archives; Curators’ Archives; Directors’ Archives; Faculty of Sciences’ Archives. At the Historical Documentation Centre for Dutch Protestantism, Amsterdam (HDC): G.J. Sizoo's Archives; J. Coops's Archives, and Physics VU Archives.

³For the creationist movement, see Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists. From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Expanded Edition (Cambridge MA, 2006). For the situation in Britain, see Peter J. Bowler, Reconciling science and religion. The Debate in Early-Twentieth-Century Britain (Chicago, 2001). For some general remarks on the developments in the early twentieth century, see John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion. Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge, 1991), 321–47 and the references mentioned in the biographical essay: 399–403. For other case studies of orthodox protestants (esp. evangelicals) dealing with the sciences in different contexts mainly before the twentieth century, see Evangelicals and Science in Historical Perspective, edited by David N. Livingstone, D.G. Hartt and Mark A. Noll (New York, 1999); on the importance of locality in the encounter of science and belief, see the essay of David N. Livingstone, ‘Situating Evangelical Responses to Evolution’ in this volume, 193–219. For a short overview of science and religion in Dutch history, see Rienk Vermij, ‘Science and belief in Dutch History’, in A History of Science in the Netherlands. Survey, Themes and Reference, edited by Klaas van Berkel, Albert van Helden and Lodewijk Palm (Leiden, 1999), 332–47; and K. van Berkel, ‘Een ontmantelde metafoor. Over de geschiedenis van het conflict tussen geloof en wetenschap, in het bijzonder in Nederland’, in a special issue on faith and science in the Netherlands of Gewina. Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis der Geneeskunde, Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Techniek, 17 (1994), 57–67.

⁴On the late-nineteenth-century Netherlands, the situation in the Dutch (National) Reformed Church and the emerging neo-Calvinist movement, see, e.g., Jan Bank en Maarten van Buuren, 1900: The Age of Bourgeois Culture, Dutch Culture in a European Perspective Volume 3 (Assen, 2004), 305–45; J.C.H. Blom, ‘The Netherlands since 1830’, in History of the Low Countries, edited by. J.C.H. Blom and E. Lamberts, translated by James C. Kennedy (New York, New Edition 2006), 393–469, esp. 404–10. On modernist theology: Mirjam Buitenwerf-van der Molen, God van vooruitgang. De popularisering van het modern-theologische gedachtegoed in Nederland (1857–1880) (Hilversum, 2007).

⁵On the phenomenon of pillarization, a great deal has been published by both historians and social scientists. For an introduction, see, e.g., J.C.H. Blom (note 4), 393–469, esp. 418–22, 431–38 and 504 for more references; and De verzuiling voorbij. Godsdienst, stand en natie in de lange negentiende eeuw, edited by J.C.H. Blom, J. Talsma (Amsterdam, 2000). On pillarization as part of a wider, Western European modernization process (and a survey of other opinions): Janneke Adama, ‘Verzuiling als metafoor voor modernisering’ (with a summary in English: ‘“Pillarization” as a Metaphor for Modernization’), in Moderniteit. Modernisme en massacultuur in Nederland 1914–1940 , edited by Madelon de Keizer and Sophie Tates (Zutphen, 2004), 265–83. For the question of whether Kuyper's ideas contributed to the development of pillarization and for more references: Peter S. Heslam, Creating a Christian Worldview. Abraham Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids Mich., 1998), 2–3, 24–5, 158–60, 263.

⁶A great deal has been written about Kuyper and his neo-Calvinist ideas, both in Dutch and English. Recently, a long-awaited biography was published: Jeroen Koch, Abraham Kuyper: een biografie Amsterdam, 2006. For an introduction to Kuyper's neo-Calvinism in its historical context and for references to more secondary literature: Peter S. Heslam (note 5).

⁷See especially Abraham Kuyper, Souvereiniteit in eigen kring. Rede ter inwijding van de Vrije Universiteit, den 20sten October 1880 gehouden, in het koor van de Nieuwe Kerk te Amsterdam (Amsterdam, 1880). A translation of this speech can be found in Abraham Kuyper. A Centennial Reader, edited by J.D. Bratt (Grand Rapids, 1998). See also Heslam (note 5), 192–93.

⁸Society for Higher Education on the basis of Reformed Principles: Vereeniging voor Hooger Onderwijs op Gereformeerden Grondslag, hereafter abbreviated: Society for Higher Education. The annual report: Jaarverslag van de Vereeniging voor Hooger Onderijs op Gereformeerden grondslag (1881–1924) and Jaarboek der Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam (1925–1989/1990), hereafter abbreviated: Jaarboek VU. The newsletter: Vrije Universiteitsblad. Maandelijke mededeelingen (1932/1933–1969), hereafter VU-blad.

⁹Heslam (note 5), 183.

¹⁰J. Roelink, Een blinkend spoor. Beeld van een eeuw geschiedenis der Vereniging voor wetenschappelijk onderwijs op gereformeerde grondslag 1879–1979 (Kampen, 1979), 9–31; Ab Flipse, Hier leert de natuur ons zelf den weg. Een geschiedenis van Natuurkunde en Sterrenkunde aan de VU (Zoetermeer, 2005), 24–26. Compare A.Th. van Deursen, Een hoeksteen in het verzuild bestel. De Vrije Universiteit 1880–2005 (Amsterdam, 2005), 23–7, 62–66.

¹¹A great deal has been written about Kuyper's ideas on science and the university, in both English and Dutch. See Peter S. Heslam (note 5), esp. 167–95 and 18–24 for references to secondary literature; Del Ratzsch, ‘Abraham Kuyper's Philosophy of Science’, in Facets of Faith and Science, edited by Jitse M. van der Meer, 4 vols (Lanham, 1996), II: The Role of Beliefs in Mathematics and the Natural Sciences: An Augustinian Perspective, 1–32. Besides the contribution of Ratszch that explicitly discusses Kuyper's philosophy of science, in vol. II of Facets of Faith and Science, in many other chapters aspects of the neo-Calvinist model for the interaction of faith and science are discussed. See also Jeroen Koch (note 6), 221–38; J. Klapwijk, ‘Abraham Kuyper over wetenschap en universiteit’, in Abraham Kuyper. Zijn volksdeel zijn invloed, edited by C. Augustein, J.H. Prins and H.E.S. Woldring (Delft, 1987); Van Deursen (note 10), 15–74; J. Stellingwerff, Dr. Abraham Kuyper en de Vrije Universiteit (Kampen, 1987). For translations of Kuyper's work and a selected bibliography of secondary literature see Centennial Reader (note 7).

¹²Kuyper (note 7); Abraham Kuyper, ‘Calvinism and Science’, in Calvinism: Six Stone-lectures (Amsterdam, 1899), 143–88; Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid, 3 vols 1894 (Kampen, 1908, 2nd edition), II, 97–161.

¹³Kuyper, ‘Calvinism and Science’ (note 12), 173–9, esp. 176. On the nineteenth-century idea of a conflict between science and religion against which Kuyper formulated his alternative model: Heslam (note 5), 190–2.

¹⁴Kuyper (note 7), 33–5; Centennial Reader (note 7), 487. Here and hereafter, if possible, translations of Kuyper are from Centennial Reader (note 7); otherwise they are my own.

¹⁵A. Kuyper, Evolutie. Rede bij de overdracht van het rectoraat aan de Vrije Universiteit op 20 October 1899 (Amsterdam, 1899), 7, 39, 43, 45, 12; Centennial Reader (note 7), 412. See also Ilse N. Bulhof, ‘The Netherlands’, in The Comparative Reception of Darwinism, edited by Thomas F. Glick (Austin, 1972), 269–306, on 304; R.P.W. Visser, ‘Van afwijzing naar aanpassing. Nederlandse Gereformeerden over Darwins Evolutietheorie, 1900–1960’, Gewina. Tijdschrift voor de Geschiedenis der Geneeskunde, Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Techniek, 17 (1994), 112–27, on 113–15.

¹⁶H. Bavinck, ‘Christendom en natuurwetenschap’, Stemmen des tijds. Maandblad voor Christendom en cultuur, 2 (1913), 343–77; H. Bavinck, Christelijke wetenschap (Kampen, 1904), esp. 121. On Bavinck and science see also A. Woltjer, ‘Herman Bavinck on faith and science’, in Facets of Faith and Science (note 11), II, 33–56.

¹⁷J. Woltjer, ‘Het wezen der materie’, in Wetenschappelijke samenkomst op 1 juli 1914 (Amsterdam, 1914), 3–30, on 7. [‘de natuur [leert] ons zelf den weg’] On Woltjer: H. van der Laan, Jan Woltjer (1848–1917). Filosoof, classicus, pedagoog (Amsterdam, 2000).

¹⁸On Kuyper's view on the authority of scripture: Heslam (note 5), 125–32. Heslam states, however, that in practice, Kuyper's ideas were very close to that of the US biblicist (‘inerrantist’) B.B. Warfield, although they had different opinions on science. On the ‘lower levels’ of science, see Ratzsch (note 11), 8–10.

¹⁹Kuyper (note 15), 53 [‘Maar wie geen vreemdeling is in den principiëelen strijd onzer dagen, zal, na mijn rede, mij toch allicht toestemmen, dat de wetenschappelijke beslissing heden ten dage veel meer bij de Natuurkundige [. . .] faculteit ligt.’]. Recently some books on aspects of the history of the Free University have been published, including some that especially concern the Science Faculty. These books are used throughout this paragraph. On the history of physics and astronomy: Flipse (note 10); on the history of mathematics and computer science: Hendrik Blauwendraat, Worsteling naar waarheid. De opkomst van Wiskunde en Informatica aan de VU (Zoetermeer, 2004); on the history of chemistry: Kirstin de Boer-van Rhenen and Nel Velthorst, Bijzondere Chemie?! 75 jaar scheikunde aan de Vrije Universiteit (Zoetermeer, 2005).

²⁰Woltjer, ‘De natuurkundige faculteit aan de Vrije Universiteit’ (reprint from Jaarboek VU (1911)), 19. [‘Laat ons dus niet vertragen, maar alle krachten inspannen, opdat er met Gods hulp binnen niet te langen tijd aan onze Universiteit ook gelegenheid besta om, naar eisch van de door ons beleden beginselen, hooger onderwijs te ontvangen in de wis- en natuurkundige wetenschappen.’]

²¹G. Harinck, ‘Colijn en de Vrije Universiteit’, in Colijn. Bouwstenen voor een biografie, edited by J. de Bruijn and H.J. Langeveld (Kampen, 1994), 155–96, on 162–71.

²² Jaarboek VU (1926), 98–107; Jaarboek VU (1927), 106–27. On the discussion about the foundation of a fourth faculty, see also: Flipse (note 10), 38–42; and Leo van Bergen, Van Genezen in Geloof tot Geloof in Genezen. De medische faculteit van de Vrije Universiteit 1880–2000 (Diemen, 2005), 173–259.

²³Minutes 12 May 1927, Curators’ Archives, VU. [‘menschen die uit de ongeloovige wetenschap gedronken hebben en door God bewaard zijn’.]

²⁴The Christian Society for Scientists and Physicians (Christelijke Vereeniging van Natuur- en Geneeskundigen in Nederland) had existed since 1896. Lectures were organized and a journal was published for the members: the Orgaan van de Christelijke Vereeniging van Natuur- en Geneeskundigen in Nederland (1901–1971), hereafter cited as Orgaan. See Flipse (note 10), 43–44. For a short history of this Society: Van Bergen (note 22), 93–118.

²⁵It is remarkable that in the volume De kwestie-Geelkerken. Een terugblik na 75 jaar (note 1), which comprises chapters on several aspects of the Geelkerken controversy, the science-and-religion aspect is not discussed separately.

²⁶Flipse (note 10), 44–8. ‘De Jaarvergadering’, in Jaarboek VU (1929), 23–31; and ‘Rapport-Van Dijk’, in Jaarboek VU (1928), 120–36.

²⁷Minutes 2 November 1928, Senate's Archives, VU.

²⁸Minutes 30 November 1928, Senate's Archives, VU.

²⁹Minutes 2 November 1928, Senate's Archives; Minutes 16 March 1929, Directors’ Archives, VU.

³⁰Minutes 19 April 1929; minutes 20 November 1928; curators to senate, 5 July 1929; J.F. Reitsma to senate, 8 July 1929, Senate's Archives. E. Oosterhuis to curators, 4 March 1929; H.R. Woltjer to G.Ch. Aalders, 6 May 1929 [‘is het mij hoe langer hoe duidelijker geworden [. . .] dat ik de overheersende Gereformeerde Bijbelbeschouwing niet deelen kan’.]; F.M. Penning to Dijk, 7 May 1929; Penning aan Aalders, 17 May 1929 [‘Het is voor mij de vraag of het inderdaad Gods bedoeling is ons hier zekerheid omtrent deze chronologische volgorde te geven’], Curators’ Archives.

³¹Minutes 14 September 1929, Curators’ Archives, VU.

³²Minutes 19 October 1929, Directors’ Archives, VU.

³³G.J. Sizoo, ‘Na vijfendertig jaar’, Orgaan, 63 (1965), 253–69, on 257.

³⁴Minutes 14 March 1930, Senate's Archives, VU; Blauwendraat (note 19), 77–80.

³⁵For biographical information on Coops see ‘Inventaris van het archief van prof.dr.ir. Jan Coops (1894–1969)’, Coops's Archives, HDC. For Sizoo see Flipse (note 10), 52–57; and ‘Enige gegevens betreffende prof.dr. G.J. Sizoo’, Sizoo's Archives, HDC. On Koksma and Van Haaften see Blauwendraat (note 19), 77–80.

³⁶J.C. Rullman, De Vrije Universiteit. Haar ontstaan en haar bestaan, Amsterdam, 1930, 179; Gedenkboek van de viering van het 50-jarig bestaan der Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam op 20–22 October 1930 (Kampen, 1931), 168. [‘onze ouden trouwen strijd [. . .] voor het beginsel’.]

³⁷On Coops's research, see Velthorst and De Boer (note 19), 155–58. On Sizoo's research, see Flipse (note 10), 58–68; and Abraham Pais, Nuclear Physics in the Netherlands, the Early Years. Lecture given on November 22, 1990 (Amsterdam, 1990), 21–31. On Koksma, see Blauwendraat (note 19), 87–88.

³⁸H. Turkstra to G.J. Sizoo, 18 June 1930, Physics VU Archives, HDC. [voor ‘principieele beëindiging mijner studie’.]

³⁹Flipse (note 10), 68, 81.

⁴⁰Flipse (note 10), 69–73, 83–88; Blauwendraat (note 19), 107–9.

⁴¹See e.g. Natuurwetenschappelijk onderzoek in Nederland. Een overzicht van hetgeen in de laatste vijf jaar in Nederland verricht is op het gebied der natuurwetenschappen, der medische en der technische wetenschappen (Amsterdam, 1942), 18–19, 51, 243, 246; Geestelijke Nederland 1920–1940, edited by K.F. Proost and Jan Romein, 2 vols (Amsterdam, 1948), II, 226–27, 241, 273–76.

⁴²J. Coops, ‘Christelijke Natuurwetenschap’, and G.J. Sizoo, ‘Beteekenis en perspectieven der Wis- en Natuurkundige Faculteit’, in Redevoeringen, uitgesproken op de jaarvergadering der Vereeniging voor Hooger Onderwijs op Gereformeerden Grondslag (Amsterdam, 1930).

⁴³J. Coops (note 42), 1–7.

⁴⁴G.J. Sizoo (note 42), 8–19, esp. 17. [een ‘spheer der aanbidding’]

⁴⁵J. Coops and G.J. Sizoo, ‘De wandversiering in het natuurkundig en scheikundig laboratorium der Vrije Universiteit’, in Almanak van het studentcorps aan de Vrije Universiteit (Amsterdam, 1934), 144–51. [‘Gij Heere, zijt waardig te ontvangen de heerlijkheid en de eer en de kracht; want Gij hebt alle dingen geschapen , en door Uwen Wil zijn zij en zijn zij geschapen.’]

⁴⁶Blauwendraat (note 19), 117, 194–95; Brigitte Herz and Ida H. Stamhuis, ‘To be a female student of science at a Calvinist University, 1930–1960’, in Women Scholars and Institutions. Proceedings of the International Conference, Prague, 8–11 June 2003, 115–57, on 132–34.

⁴⁷See e.g the ‘Overzicht colleges met behandelde onderwerpen’, in Jaarboek VU (1934), 64.

⁴⁸G.J. Sizoo, Radioactiviteit (Kampen, 1933), 183–206, esp. 195–96.

⁴⁹G.J. Sizoo (note 48), 183; G.J. Sizoo (note 42), 14.

⁵⁰‘Interview prof. dr. G.J. Sizoo’, June 1987, Sizoo's Archives, HDC; G.J. Sizoo (note 33), 257.

⁵¹G.Ch. Aalders, De Goddelijke Openbaring in de eerste drie hoofdstukken van Genesis (Kampen, 1932), 252–63, 318–27.

⁵²Sizoo (note 48), 195–96. Sizoo (note 33), 257–58.

⁵³ De ouderdom der aarde, edited by G.J. Sizoo (Kampen, 1955, 4th reprint); Flipse (note 10), 165–7; Stellingwerff, De Vrije Universiteit na Kuyper. De Vrije Universiteit van 1905 tot 1955, een halve eeuw geestesgeschiedenis van een civitas academia (Kampen, 1987), 366–76.

⁵⁴G.J. Sizoo, ‘Zelfcritiek der physica’, in Almanak van het studentencorps aan de Vrije Universiteit (Amsterdam, 1931), 182–90.

⁵⁵See e.g. G.J. Sizoo, ‘Causaliteit en waarschijnlijkheid in de nieuwere physica’, Orgaan, 32 (1932), 1–24; G.J. Sizoo (note 48), 167–83.

⁵⁶As is apparent from several lectures by Sizoo in the 1930s: file ‘Voordrachten, toespraken, enz’, Sizoo's Archives, HDC.

⁵⁷G.J. Sizoo, ‘Het positivisme van Ernst Mach en de ontwikkeling der moderne physica. Rede uitgesproken ter gelegenheid van den dies natalis der Vrije Universiteit op 20 October 1937’, Orgaan, 37 (1937), 113–48; G.J. Sizoo, Physica en werkelijkheid. Referaat wetenschappelijke samenkomst der Vrije Universiteit. 10 juli 1940 (Amsterdam, 1940).

⁵⁸V. Hepp, Calvinism and the Philosophy of Nature. The Stone Lectures Delivered at Princeton in 1930 (Grand Rapids, 1930), 181, 200–1, 216–20.

⁵⁹G.J. Sizoo (note 33), 256. [‘Indien dit calvinistische natuurphilosophie zou moeten heten [. . .] dan was de twijfel ten aanzien van haar toekomst [. . .] ten volle gerechtvaardigd.’]

⁶⁰A devastating review of Hepp's lectures was given by another member of the Christian Society for Scientists and Physicians: W.J.A. Schouten, ‘Calvinisme en Natuurphilosophie (Een beoordeling van prof. Hepp's Stone-lectures)’, Orgaan, 31 (1931), 51–81. On the laborious relation between scientists and theologians see Stellingwerff (note 53), 145–58.

⁶¹G.J. Sizoo, ‘Fragmenten uit de geschiedenis der betrekking tusschen Natuurwetenschap en Religie’, Orgaan, 37 (1937), 1–21; and several lectures that are preserved in the Sizoo's Archives, HDC.

⁶²On the historiography of science and religion in the early twentieth century, see David B. Wilson, ‘The Historiography of Science and Religion’, in Science and Religion. A Historical Introduction, edited by Gary B. Ferngren (Baltimore, MD, 2002), 13–30, on 16–9; and Frederick Gregory, ‘Science and Religion’, in From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences. Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science, edited by David Cahan (Chicago, 2003), 329–58, on 336–40. On the fascination with religious scientists of the past in the period 1880–1920, see Nicolaas A. Rupke, ‘Introduction: Telling Lives in Science and Religion’, in Eminent Lives in Twentieth-Century Science and Religion, edited by Nicolaas A. Rupke (Frankfurt am Main, 2007), 13–45, esp. 16–21.

⁶³Examples of Hooykaas's papers in this early period: R. Hooykaas, Natuurwetenschap en religie in het licht der historie. Referaat voor de negentiende Wetenschappelijke samenkomst der Vrije Universiteit op 4 Juli 1934 (Assen, 1934); R. Hooykaas, ‘Het hypothesebegrip van Kepler’, Orgaan, 39 (1939), 38–59; R. Hooykaas, ‘Pascal. Zijn wetenschap en zijn religie’, Orgaan, 39 (1939), 147–78; R. Hooykaas, ‘Robert Boyle. Een studie over natuurwetenschap en Christendom’, Orgaan, 42 (1942) (special issue). Both the Pascal and the Boyle studies have been translated into English: ‘Pascal: His Science and His Religion’, translation by H.F. Cohen, Tractrix Yearbook for the History of Science, Medicine, Technology and Mathematics, 1 (1989), 115–39; and Robert Boyle: A Study in Science and Christian Belief, translation by H. van Dyke (Lanham, 1997).

⁶⁴‘Memorandum betreffende de Wis- en Natuurkundige Faculteit’, Faculty of Sciences to curators, 16 July 1945, Curators’ Archives, VU. On the late appointment of Dijksterhuis: Klaas van Berkel, Dijksterhuis. Een biografie (Amsterdam 1996), esp. 309–31, 383–85, 420–30.

⁶⁵R. Hooykaas, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science, 1st ed. 1972 (Edinburgh, 1984), 9.

⁶⁶For Hooykaas as a (Christian) historian of science see H. Floris Cohen ‘Eloge: Reijer Hooykaas, 1 August 1906–4 January 1994’, Isis, 89 (1998), 181–84; and Arie Leegwater, ‘In memoriam. Reijer Hooykaas (1906–1994): A Modern Advocate for Philosophia Libera’, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 48 (1996), 98–103. In their discussion of the ‘conflict’ and ‘harmony’ theses, Lindberg and Numbers describe Hooykaas, however, as a protestant apologist: God and Nature. Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, edited by David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers (Berkely, 1986), 1–18, on 5; and Lindberg and Numbers, ‘Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science’, Church History, 55 (1986), 338–54, on 353. For an example of Hooykaas's fierce criticism of Calvinist theologians and ministers: R. Hooykaas, ‘Dominees en evolutie’, Bezinning. Gereformeerd maandblad tot bewaring en bevordering van het christelijke leven, 5 (1950), 74–88. For the emergence of the history of science as an academic discipline against the background of the science–religion debate, compare Bowler (note 3), 80–86, esp. 86.

⁶⁷On the foundational crisis in mathematics and Brouwer's intuitionism: D. van Dalen, Mystic, Geometer, and Intuitionist: The Life of L.E.J. Brouwer Part I. The Dawning Revolution (Oxford, 1999), 99–111, 234–43, 312–30; Blauwendraat (note 19), 42–51.

⁶⁸Blauwendraat (note 19), 113–15, 53–61; Van Deursen (note 10), 163–70; Dirk Hendrik Theodoor Vollenhoven, De Wijsbegeerte der Wiskunde van theïstisch standpunt (Amsterdam, 1918). Vollenhoven and Dooyeweerd held chairs at the VU as from 1926; their Calvinist philosophy is commonly known as the Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee (Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea). See Heslam (note 5), 7, 168, also for references.

⁶⁹J.F. Koksma, Wiskunde en waarheid. Referaat voor de een-en-twintigste Wetenschappelijke Samenkomst der Vrije Universiteit op 1 Juli 1936 (Assen, 1936); J.F. Koksma, Existentiebewijzen in de wiskunde. Rede ter gelegenheid van de 58 ^e herdenking van de stichting der Vrije Universiteit op 20 October 1938 (Loosduinen, 1938), 39.

⁷⁰Van Deursen (note 10), 179.

⁷¹For Coops's ‘experimental attitude’, see ‘Dr.ir. J. Coops. Herdenkingscollege op 25 oktober 1969 uitgesproken door Prof. dr. F. Bickelhaupt en Prof. dr. C.C. Jonker’, in Jaarboek VU (1969), 60–74, esp. 63.

⁷²Based on several speeches of Sizoo that have been preserved in the Sizoo's Archives, HDC. Coops and Koksma delivered similar speeches.

⁷³For a report of such an excursion, see VU-blad (1932–1933), 78–9.

⁷⁴R.P.W. Visser (note 15), 116–27.

⁷⁵See the sketch of this ‘standard image’ in George Harinck, ‘Op losse schroeven. Gereformeerden en de moderniteit’ (with a summary in English: ‘Everything is unsettled. Dutch Neo-Calvinists and Modernity’) in Moderniteit. Modernisme en massacultuur in Nederland 1914–1940 (note 5), 332–54 on 334–37. Harinck, however, criticizes this view in the rest of the article.

⁷⁶Harinck (note 75), 339–52.

⁷⁷Compare: Stellingwerff (note 53), 239–51; Van Deursen (note 10), 163–70.

⁷⁸In 1950, a biology department, and in 1960, a geology department was founded. In particular, the biologist J. Lever and the geologist J.R. van de Fliert were active in the discussions on creation and evolution in Calvinist circles. See, for example, J. Lever, Creatie en Evolutie (Wageningen, 1956); and J.R. van de Fliert, ‘De aardwetenschappen aan de Vrije Universiteit’, in Wetenschap en Rekenschap 1880–1980. Een eeuw wetenschapsbeoefening en wetenschapsbeschouwing aan de Vrije Universiteit, edited by M. van Os en W.J. Wieringa (Kampen, 1980), 292–323, esp. 295–8.

⁷⁹It even seems that the Dutch took the lead in propagating creationism (flood geology) in continental Europe in the 1960s. Sympathy for creationism in the Netherlands was limited, however, to relatively small factions in Evangelical and orthodox-Protestant circles, and it never came to such extensive discussions as in the USA. It is remarkable that one of the most devastating reviews of the influential creationist book of H.M. Morris and J.C. Whitcomb, Jr, The Genesis Flood (1961), was written by the VU geologist J.R. van de Fliert, ‘Fundamentalism and the Fundamentals of Geology’, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, September 1969. See also Numbers, The Creationists (note 3), 367, 409–10.

⁸⁰On the ‘depillarization’ of Dutch society, see J.C. Kennedy, Nieuw Babylon in aanbouw: Nederland in de jaren zestig (Amsterdam, 1995), esp. 97–101. On the changes in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands: G. Dekker, De stille revolutie. De ontwikkelingen van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland tussen 1950 en 1990 (Kampen, 1992); and Maarten Aalders, 125 jaar faculteit der Godgeleerdheid aan de Vrije Universiteit (Zoetermeer, 2005), 264–312.

⁸¹For a rough sketch of the discussions on science and religion in Calvinist circles in the 1960s and 1970s, see Flipse (note 10), 188–202.

⁸²On the idea of ‘discipline’ as ‘a form of instruction to which one submits’ and the identity of the scientist see Jan Golinski, ‘Identity and Discipline’, in Making Natural Knowledge. Constructivism and the History of Science. With a New Preface (Chicago, 2005), 47–78, esp. 69.

⁸³The efforts of the VU scientists can be seen as a kind of ‘boundary-work’ within the Calvinist subculture. They demarcated the domain of science (‘pure scientific research’)—where they collaborated with their co-scientists—from the domain of religion. Only in the latter domain were the Calvinist principles allowed to play a part in the discussion. For the concept of boundary-work, see Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, 1999).

⁸⁴See, for example, Frank M. Turner, ‘The Victorian conflict between science and religion: a professional dimension’, Isis, 69 (1978), 356–76. Turner gives an interpretation of the conflict of ‘science’ and ‘religion’ in the second half of the nineteenth century in terms of professionalizing scientists who sought to banish the clergy from science. Although Turner's thesis has been criticized for various reasons, in my opinion his analysis of the professional dimension of some of the conflicts is still convincing. For a short survey of (other) historiographical opinions on the origin of the conflict thesis, see God and Nature (note 66), 6–9; and David N. Livingstone, ‘Replacing Darwinism and Christianity’, in When Science and Christianity Meet (note 1), 183–202, esp. 191–94. On the professionalization of the Dutch Universities in the late nineteenth century, see A history of science in the Netherlands (note 3), 130–69, esp. 130–40.

⁸⁵R. Macleod, ‘The “bankruptcy of science” debate: the creed of science and its critics, 1885–1900’, Science, Technology and Human Value, 7 (no. 41) (1982), 2–15.

⁸⁶Peter J. Bowler (note 3) describes this development for Britain, but similar tendencies appear to have existed among intellectuals in the Netherlands.

⁸⁷For examples of Dutch scientists who engaged in philosophical discussions, see Klaas van Berkel, ‘Wetenschap en wijsbegeerte in het werk van Jacob Clay’, in Klaas van Berkel, Citaten uit het boek der natuur. Opstellen over Nederlandse wetenschapsgeschiedenis (Amsterdam, 1998); Kai de Jong en Frans van Lunteren, ‘Fokkers “greep in de verte”. Nederlandse fysica en filosofie in het interbellum’, Gewina. Tijdschrift voor de Geschiedenis der Geneeskunde, Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Techniek, 26 (2003), 1–21; and David Baneke, ‘“Synthese! Geef ons synthese!” H.J. Jordan en het intellectuele debat tijdens het interbellum’, Gewina, 28 (2005), 169–85. In many ways, the Dutch scientists in this period conform to the picture that Paul Forman has given of the German physicists during the early years of the Weimar Republic. See P. Forman, ‘Weimar culture, causality, and quantum theory, 1918–1927. Adaptation by German physicists and mathematicians to a hostile intellectual environment’, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 3 (1971), 1–115.