Darwin and the Churches
There's nothing really to discuss here, this just represents a change in direction from before. This was the last essay I wrote for my degree (and the longest), I finished it two days before the exams started. Not ideal preparation. It was for a module in 19th and 20th century Church History.
-
A discussion of reactions to Darwin within the churches in Britain and the USA in the latter part of the nineteenth century.
-
Introduction
The image of warfare between angry, dogmatic theologians and rational scientists over the issue of evolution is a well-worn and hackneyed one. This perception is partly due to the popular writings of J. W. Draper and A. D. White who each wrote a history of the relationship between science and theology, casting them as old adversaries.[1] In contrast, James Foard, (Answers in Genesis) tries to turn the tables when he asserts, “the religious folk just lapped it up [Darwin’s theory] like a bear goes for honey”[2] and that it was the scientific community that did not accept evolution.[3] He further infers that the likes of Darwin were the irrational and angry aggressors in the face of the scientific criticisms of Richard Owen.[4] Nevertheless, either extreme may be misleading. As D. N. Livingstone puts it, ‘the conflict model is a particularly crude tool for reconstructing the historical relationship between science and faith’.[5] Therefore, I intend to investigate to what extent the churches’ reactions to Darwin could be described as hostile. To this end, I shall survey some of the more notable reactions to Darwin in Britain and America respectively. In particular, I shall look in some detail at the famous Oxford meeting which has become the symbol of the supposed conflict.
-
Britain Before Darwinism
Before commenting directly on the reactions of the British churches, some comments on some of the intellectual trends and political movements of pre-Darwinian Britain may prove to be helpful in understanding why some were more ready to accept Darwin’s theory than others.
-
Natural Theology
Although some had reservations about Natural Theology, it is generally true that before Darwin, British scientists and theologians alike were apt to see evidence of design in nature.[6] According to Cupitt, Natural Theology was more heavily relied upon in England than elsewhere.[7] Robert Chambers’ Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation,[8] ironically, served to strengthen the sense of harmony between theology and science as it was easily refuted on scientific grounds.[9] With evolution apparently defeated – “around 1850 few scientist of any note had a good word to say for the idea of evolution”[10] – it seems only natural that the Church would have been complacent about its relationship with science. It is for this reason that Darwin’s more compelling presentation of evolution came as such a shock. Moreover, the principle of Natural Selection through random, chance mutations seemingly undermined Natural Theology and with it, much of the apologetic of the Church. Those Christians who accepted Darwinism were often concerned to synthesize Natural Selection with Natural Theology as much as they were to harmonise it with the Genesis account of creation.[11]
-
Biblical Criticism
While the majority of English theologians had bought into some form of Natural Theology, a small group of theologians were also beginning to appreciate the work of the German Bible critics. Partly indebted to the translation of George Elliot, many leading Anglican divines came to view the Bible differently and were thus better placed to re-evaluate their ideas about creation. Essays and Reviews published in 1860 brought their ideas to the public for the first time and sparked a controversy perhaps bigger than the one caused by Darwin.[12] One of the essayists (Frederick Temple) later argued for the ‘high probability’ of evolution in his Bampton Lectures.[13]
-
Radical Freethinkers
The group referred to by Moore as the ‘radical freethinkers’ were typically (but not exclusively) self-educated working-class intellectuals who viewed Christianity as ‘the root of all social evil’[14] and many were thus dedicated to the Church’s downfall. They were not all atheists though, many were glad to have the more respectable ‘agnostic’ tag provided for them by Huxley.[15] Among their ranks were, George Elliot, Herbert Spencer, John Tyndall, A. R. Wallace[16], Frances Galton, T. H. Huxley, and many others.[17] The more extreme of them tended to be keen supporters of anything that they perceived to be damaging to the Church. So, when Darwin published The Origin, they seized upon it and, to some extent, they owed him a debt because he made their irreligion somewhat more intellectually respectable.[18] It served their purposes well when the Church opposed Darwin because it meant that they could caricature the Christians as obscurantist. When Essays and Reviews was published, the positivist Frederic Harrison approved of the essayists’ approach to the Bible but refused to accept that they were Christians.[19] Likewise, some of the radical freethinkers may have found it inconvenient when Christians proved to be reasonable.
-
Secular Scientists
The secular scientists may fit into the previous group but it is worth pointing out that they also had professional reasons to oppose the Church. Apart from moral outrage at the Church’s perceived implication in the social injustices of the Victorian age, Huxley and the secular scientists were also in a battle with the Church over what they viewed as the repression of science. According to Moore, clerics monopolised professional authority, and so, “those who sought professional recognition on the basis of another creed… could be frustrated at every turn.”[20] For such as these, scientific enquiry should be empirically based and free of religious presuppositions. To this end, they saw no place in science for clerics; they seem to have presumed that clerics were not able to practise ‘value free’ science – and that they themselves were. This issue forms the subtext for Huxley and Tyndall’s hostility towards the Church although, according to Chadwick, Huxley “liked to pretend that the opposition to Darwin was theological”[21]. Even though much of the early opposition came from scientists, and was scientifically grounded, it is easy to see how Huxley might have genuinely thought that it was informed by theological prejudice, especially when the scientists were Christians. Huxley and Tyndall did not arbitrarily attack the Church however; as long as clerics did not interfere in matters of natural science, they were cordial. Tyndall wrote of the clergy, “science does not need their protection, but it desires their friendship on honourable terms; it wishes to work with them towards the great end of all education.”[22] Similarly, Huxley wrote of an “Established Church which should be a blessing to the community”.[23] Nevertheless, much of the perceived conflict over evolution was, at heart, a power-struggle to “wrest from theology the entire domain of cosmological theory”[24] and had little to do with the Church’s reaction to Darwin.
-
Reactions To Darwin in Britain
The Oxford Meeting
Perhaps more than any other event, the famous confrontation between Bishop Samuel Wilberforce and T. H. Huxley at the meeting of the British Association in Oxford in 1860 has come to represent the supposed conflict between science and Christianity. However, it is necessary to ask what exactly happened at that legendary meeting, and whether this one event is characteristic of the Church’s reaction as a whole.
Contrary to popular legend, Bishop Wilberforce was not ignorant of science; he had interests in ornithology and geology,[25] as well as a first-class degree in mathematics,[26] but it is probably fair to say that his understanding of natural sciences was not profound. It is thought that he was ‘crammed’ by Richard Owen prior to the meeting[27] but this takes nothing away from the soundness of the scientific criticisms that he brought, only from his ability to present them to their maximum effect. There is also general agreement that Wilberforce’s address was similar in content to his article that later appeared in the Quarterly Review;[28] this article focuses on scientific objections to evolution not religious ones.[29] The scientific validity of his criticisms is borne out by Darwin’s comment on the article, “it picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward all the difficulties”[30]. That is in contrast to Leonard Huxley’s assertion that “from a scientific point of view, the speech was of small value”.[31] Cosslett points out that Wilberforce only mentioned the theological problems that evolution caused at the end of his article; his main ground of attack was scientific.[32] However, that he did this suggests to me that theological issues were underlying his attack – Owen’s scientific criticisms were merely a convenient vehicle for it. His comments reveal a complete faith in Natural Theology and the perfection of the Bible:
-
Introduction
The image of warfare between angry, dogmatic theologians and rational scientists over the issue of evolution is a well-worn and hackneyed one. This perception is partly due to the popular writings of J. W. Draper and A. D. White who each wrote a history of the relationship between science and theology, casting them as old adversaries.[1] In contrast, James Foard, (Answers in Genesis) tries to turn the tables when he asserts, “the religious folk just lapped it up [Darwin’s theory] like a bear goes for honey”[2] and that it was the scientific community that did not accept evolution.[3] He further infers that the likes of Darwin were the irrational and angry aggressors in the face of the scientific criticisms of Richard Owen.[4] Nevertheless, either extreme may be misleading. As D. N. Livingstone puts it, ‘the conflict model is a particularly crude tool for reconstructing the historical relationship between science and faith’.[5] Therefore, I intend to investigate to what extent the churches’ reactions to Darwin could be described as hostile. To this end, I shall survey some of the more notable reactions to Darwin in Britain and America respectively. In particular, I shall look in some detail at the famous Oxford meeting which has become the symbol of the supposed conflict.
-
Britain Before Darwinism
Before commenting directly on the reactions of the British churches, some comments on some of the intellectual trends and political movements of pre-Darwinian Britain may prove to be helpful in understanding why some were more ready to accept Darwin’s theory than others.
-
Natural Theology
Although some had reservations about Natural Theology, it is generally true that before Darwin, British scientists and theologians alike were apt to see evidence of design in nature.[6] According to Cupitt, Natural Theology was more heavily relied upon in England than elsewhere.[7] Robert Chambers’ Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation,[8] ironically, served to strengthen the sense of harmony between theology and science as it was easily refuted on scientific grounds.[9] With evolution apparently defeated – “around 1850 few scientist of any note had a good word to say for the idea of evolution”[10] – it seems only natural that the Church would have been complacent about its relationship with science. It is for this reason that Darwin’s more compelling presentation of evolution came as such a shock. Moreover, the principle of Natural Selection through random, chance mutations seemingly undermined Natural Theology and with it, much of the apologetic of the Church. Those Christians who accepted Darwinism were often concerned to synthesize Natural Selection with Natural Theology as much as they were to harmonise it with the Genesis account of creation.[11]
-
Biblical Criticism
While the majority of English theologians had bought into some form of Natural Theology, a small group of theologians were also beginning to appreciate the work of the German Bible critics. Partly indebted to the translation of George Elliot, many leading Anglican divines came to view the Bible differently and were thus better placed to re-evaluate their ideas about creation. Essays and Reviews published in 1860 brought their ideas to the public for the first time and sparked a controversy perhaps bigger than the one caused by Darwin.[12] One of the essayists (Frederick Temple) later argued for the ‘high probability’ of evolution in his Bampton Lectures.[13]
-
Radical Freethinkers
The group referred to by Moore as the ‘radical freethinkers’ were typically (but not exclusively) self-educated working-class intellectuals who viewed Christianity as ‘the root of all social evil’[14] and many were thus dedicated to the Church’s downfall. They were not all atheists though, many were glad to have the more respectable ‘agnostic’ tag provided for them by Huxley.[15] Among their ranks were, George Elliot, Herbert Spencer, John Tyndall, A. R. Wallace[16], Frances Galton, T. H. Huxley, and many others.[17] The more extreme of them tended to be keen supporters of anything that they perceived to be damaging to the Church. So, when Darwin published The Origin, they seized upon it and, to some extent, they owed him a debt because he made their irreligion somewhat more intellectually respectable.[18] It served their purposes well when the Church opposed Darwin because it meant that they could caricature the Christians as obscurantist. When Essays and Reviews was published, the positivist Frederic Harrison approved of the essayists’ approach to the Bible but refused to accept that they were Christians.[19] Likewise, some of the radical freethinkers may have found it inconvenient when Christians proved to be reasonable.
-
Secular Scientists
The secular scientists may fit into the previous group but it is worth pointing out that they also had professional reasons to oppose the Church. Apart from moral outrage at the Church’s perceived implication in the social injustices of the Victorian age, Huxley and the secular scientists were also in a battle with the Church over what they viewed as the repression of science. According to Moore, clerics monopolised professional authority, and so, “those who sought professional recognition on the basis of another creed… could be frustrated at every turn.”[20] For such as these, scientific enquiry should be empirically based and free of religious presuppositions. To this end, they saw no place in science for clerics; they seem to have presumed that clerics were not able to practise ‘value free’ science – and that they themselves were. This issue forms the subtext for Huxley and Tyndall’s hostility towards the Church although, according to Chadwick, Huxley “liked to pretend that the opposition to Darwin was theological”[21]. Even though much of the early opposition came from scientists, and was scientifically grounded, it is easy to see how Huxley might have genuinely thought that it was informed by theological prejudice, especially when the scientists were Christians. Huxley and Tyndall did not arbitrarily attack the Church however; as long as clerics did not interfere in matters of natural science, they were cordial. Tyndall wrote of the clergy, “science does not need their protection, but it desires their friendship on honourable terms; it wishes to work with them towards the great end of all education.”[22] Similarly, Huxley wrote of an “Established Church which should be a blessing to the community”.[23] Nevertheless, much of the perceived conflict over evolution was, at heart, a power-struggle to “wrest from theology the entire domain of cosmological theory”[24] and had little to do with the Church’s reaction to Darwin.
-
Reactions To Darwin in Britain
The Oxford Meeting
Perhaps more than any other event, the famous confrontation between Bishop Samuel Wilberforce and T. H. Huxley at the meeting of the British Association in Oxford in 1860 has come to represent the supposed conflict between science and Christianity. However, it is necessary to ask what exactly happened at that legendary meeting, and whether this one event is characteristic of the Church’s reaction as a whole.
Contrary to popular legend, Bishop Wilberforce was not ignorant of science; he had interests in ornithology and geology,[25] as well as a first-class degree in mathematics,[26] but it is probably fair to say that his understanding of natural sciences was not profound. It is thought that he was ‘crammed’ by Richard Owen prior to the meeting[27] but this takes nothing away from the soundness of the scientific criticisms that he brought, only from his ability to present them to their maximum effect. There is also general agreement that Wilberforce’s address was similar in content to his article that later appeared in the Quarterly Review;[28] this article focuses on scientific objections to evolution not religious ones.[29] The scientific validity of his criticisms is borne out by Darwin’s comment on the article, “it picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward all the difficulties”[30]. That is in contrast to Leonard Huxley’s assertion that “from a scientific point of view, the speech was of small value”.[31] Cosslett points out that Wilberforce only mentioned the theological problems that evolution caused at the end of his article; his main ground of attack was scientific.[32] However, that he did this suggests to me that theological issues were underlying his attack – Owen’s scientific criticisms were merely a convenient vehicle for it. His comments reveal a complete faith in Natural Theology and the perfection of the Bible:
The words graven on the everlasting rocks are the words of God, and they are graven by His hand. No more could they contradict His Word written in His book, than could the words of the old covenant… contradict the writings of His hand in the volume of the new dispensation.[33]
However, he has little time for fundamentalist approaches:
To oppose facts in the natural world because they seem to oppose Revelation, or to humour them so as to compel them to speak in its voice is… but another form of the ever-ready feeble-minded dishonesty of lying for God, and trying by fraud or falsehood to do the work of the God of truth.[34]
At the heart of Wilberforce’s famous exchange with T. H. Huxley is his impudent question as to whether he would rather trace his descent from an ape through his grandfather or his grandmother.[35] Huxley’s retort also exists in many versions. The thrust of the version that Huxley himself reckons to be most accurate[36] is that he would rather be descended from an ape than “a man of restless and versatile intellect – who, not content with an unequivocal success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric”.[37] As Livingstone points out, it was the Bishop’s rhetoric that most agitated Huxley.[38] It is also worthy of note that Huxley’s reply, (assuming the accuracy of the above, Huxley’s approval of the account is as apocryphal as the account itself) draws the line of demarcation between science and theology. Rev. Fremantle in his account laments the Bishop’s use of rhetoric[39] as does L. Huxley[40] but Darwin apparently took the mockery in better humour.[41] Moreover, L. Huxley shows no concern for the fact that a certain Mr. Dingle was shouted down for no other reason than his strange pronunciation of “Mawnkey”.[42] It could be argued that this is a double standard.
-
It seems undeniable that Bishop Wilberforce attacked Darwin’s theory but his attack was not as scientifically ignorant as has often been suggested although he did employ rhetoric and sentimental appeal. Wilberforce was not alone in his rejection of Darwinism; apart from Richard Owen, he apparently had the backing of “Sir Benjamin Brodie, Dr Daubney, and the most eminent naturalists assembled at Oxford.”[43] It also appears that the majority at the Oxford meeting were behind him.[44] There is little documented evidence of what ‘the masses’ made of Darwin’s theory although Alvar Ellegard’s research suggests that most Victorians believed literally in the Genesis account and thought of Darwinism as the hateful ‘ape theory’.[45] Reardon also comments, “the book was denounced in pulpits up and down the land as an impious absurdity”.[46] This suggests that, at this early stage at least, Wilberforce represented the popular view within the Church, and so it may be said that this large section of the Church opposed Darwin, even if all out warfare is not an appropriate image.
-
Later the meeting came to symbolise the supposed epic battle of Huxley and Tyndall against the unscientific clerics – L. Huxley bills it, “the open clash between Science and the Church”[47] – but as Cosslett points out, there is no full contemporary account of it in existence, which suggests that the encounter was not thought to be all that momentous at the time.[48] Chadwick further observes that the Bishop’s biographer in 1881 presents the scene in a manner unfavourable to Huxley, something he would not have been able to do if the encounter had already become “the notorious symbol of [the] clash between science and religion”.[49]
-
Other Reactions
Chadwick comments that it is easy to find reports of churchmen denouncing Darwinism as “a menace to both Christian faith and to the social order” in newspapers and denominational magazines from the 1860s and early 1870s.[50] For example, there is the case of Archdeacon Denison who in 1867 at the Church Congress received a mixed, but mainly supportive, response when he denied the value of science as a road to truth.[51] And, in 1871 the Family Herald argued, “Society must fall to pieces if Darwinism be true”.[52] Chadwick points out that in the 1860s Darwinism looked more speculative than it did later when more evidence was found in support of it and so the churches appear more obscurantist than they actually were, given that their doubt was reasonable.[53]
-
Although at the popular level it may be said that the Church opposed Darwin, to begin with at least, it does not tell the whole story. While some Christian biologists rejected Darwin’s theory, so many theologians were persuaded by it. Charles Kingsley was one of the first – he was apparently the recipient of an advance copy[54] - he seems to have wholeheartedly accepted the theory and alluded to it in his book The Water Babies.[55] Kingsley apparently saw a “noble new natural theology in the idea of an original Creation of self-developing forms”.[56] Similarly, F. J. A. Hort wrote to B. F. Wescott in March 1860, “Have you read Darwin?… In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book”.[57] Baden Powell in his contribution to Essays and Reviews made no secret of his support for Darwin.[58] Also, we might notice that the Rev. W. H. Fremantle shows no sympathy for Wilberforce in his account of the Oxford meeting.[59] In his Bampton lectures, Frederic Temple saw the possibility for a form of Natural Theology in Darwinism but he did not base his faith on it, rather he emphasised inward experience as the basis of religion.[60] Temple also called for reconciliation between science and religion while allowing that they were separate spheres of knowledge.[61]
-
The possibility of Christian Darwinism became more respectable as time went on. The Tractarian Dean Church, while not committing to the theory, saw the futility of condemning what was after all, “a purely physical hypothesis” and pointed out that both sides had vested-interests in the dispute.[62] Another position of accommodation taken by some conservatives was to allow for the evolution of animal species but not of humanity.[63] While the emphasis of Christian apologetic swung away from Natural Theology, some such as Aubrey Moore found room for a ‘wider teleology’ and J. R. Illingworth developed the idea in his contribution to Lux Mundi.[64] Likewise, the Roman Catholic St. George Jackson Mivart argued for evolution under divine control. The church welcomed this to begin with but by the end of the century excommunicated him.[65]
-
The case of W. K. Clifford is almost the exact opposite Bishop Wilberforce. Where Wilberforce read Darwin and hardened himself against it, Clifford, a devout young Anglo-Catholic, after studying Darwin went through a form of conversion and came to hate Catholicism.[66] Similarly, there was Romanes an evangelical student who through a friendship with Darwin, concluded that Darwinism disproved Christianity.[67] These are rare documented cases of intelligent people loosing their sincerely held faith over Darwin’s theory.
-
While the liberals tended to be accepting of Darwinism immediately, the moderate theologians withheld their acceptance without necessarily condemning the theory. Nevertheless, it seems that Darwinism became increasingly respectable as a Christian doctrine towards as the end of the century drew nearer. In 1879 Stuart Headlam felt able to say, “Thank God that the scientific men have… shattered the idol of an infallible book” during one of his sermons.[68] Then, Darwin was allowed a burial at Westminster Abbey after his death in 1882, despite some minor protests.[69] The final acceptance of the new doctrine was confirmed when in 1896 Frederic Temple was made Archbishop of Canterbury. The only protest about this came from a Rev. Brownjohn who himself had accepted evolution but thought it an impossible belief for a clergyman and so resigned his post and expected Temple to do the same. The protest was unsuccessful.[70]
-
The American Situation
America is often associated with the Creation Science movement but this movement is not thought to have started until the 1920s.[71] When the Origin arrived in America in 1860 most Americans were pre-occupied with the bigger theological and political issue of slavery. The American Civil war broke out soon after, largely over the same issue. Only a select few professional scientists and intellectuals had the luxury of being able to think about Darwin. It was not until after the Civil War that the public at large developed an interest in Darwinism. Natural Theology had been influential in America, as it had been in Britain but perhaps not to the same degree. The resolution of the Boston Society debate between Rogers and Agassiz suggests that there was some movement for the secularisation of science. Moreover, the Founding of Johns Hopkins University in 1876 as “an institution devoted to research and free of obligations to any religious denomination”[72] reflects the success of such a movement. The ideas of Biblical criticism and comparative religion were popularised in America a little later than in Britain,[73] probably because of the Civil War and because the issue of slavery had so dominated people’s minds before.
-
Reactions to Darwin in America
Asa Gray
A friend of Darwin, Asa Gray was a devout Christian and a botanist at Harvard. He received an advance copy of the Origin from Darwin and after careful study wrote a review for the American Journal of Science and Arts.[74] Gray immediately embraced Darwin’s theory and tried, unsuccessfully, to convince Darwin that he had actually strengthened Natural Theology by the introduction of a law of development.[75] Gray, along with John Fiske, became one of the key defenders of evolution but unlike Fiske he did not lose his faith.[76]
-
Louis Agassiz
Louis Agassiz, a Swiss professor of science at Harvard was involved a public debate about Darwinism held in Boston that was roughly analogous to the Oxford meeting. Unlike the Oxford meeting, the two main protagonists, Agassiz and his opponent William Barton Rogers, were of similar scientific stature. The debate took place over several meetings, and the atmosphere, though tense, was more sober than the seemingly raucous Oxford meeting. Rogers, who was arguing for Darwin, got the better of Agassiz and the conclusion of the debate was that the validity Darwin’s theory should be judged by scientific investigation rather than by dogma.[77] Agassiz never accepted evolution, though, and continued to fight against it on both scientific and religious grounds until his death in 1873.[78] It would be wrong to typecast Agassiz as a biblical fundamentalist, however, he contributed an article to the liberal Christian Examiner in which he argued for at least 12 acts of creation and made it obvious that he did not read the biblical record literally.[79] According to Hofstadter, he was America’s “last distinguished opponent of the new theory”[80] but he was becoming a lone voice as the American scientific community was overwhelmingly won over by evolution in the early 1870s and after his death, there was no one to replace him.[81]
-
Charles Hodge
Charles Hodge was one of the most influential conservative theologians in the Princeton tradition. His oft quoted, “What is Darwinism? It is atheism” is a little misleading when taken out of context. As Marsden points out, Hodge was making a subtle distinction between the concept of evolution by natural selection, and Darwin’s personal rejection of all teleology.[82] Hofstadter seems to have misunderstood this when he states:
The most important objection, of course, was that Darwinism could not be reconciled with theism. Such was the central theme of the most popular exposition of anti-Darwinian views, Charles Hodge’s What Is Darwinism? (1874)[83]
-
Hodge, like Wilberfore, was not ignorant of the science and demonstrates his awareness of the scientific problems for evolution in his book.[84] Of course, his view of science is controlled by his theology, but it seems that making allowance for design was more important for him than literal interpretation of Genesis.[85] Hofstadter dismisses Hodge’s work as “polemical… with scant regard for facts”[86] this seems unfair, and untrue, and reflects perhaps Hofstadter’s interpretation of Hodge in the light of the Scopes trial. Hodge in his systematic theology did allow for theistic evolution: - “…so there may be a theistic interpretation of the Darwinian theory”[87] Hodge is much more reasonable, and much less obscurantist than he has been understood to be and it is a mistake to find warfare in his rejection of Darwinism.
-
Beecher, Abbott and Strong
For many American Christians it seems that Spencer’s rephrasing of Natural Selection, as the Survival of the Fittest, introduced an element of progress, and therefore design, into the otherwise naturalistic doctrine of evolution.[88] One such, influential American Christian was Henry Ward Beecher who described himself as a “cordial Christian evolutionist”[89]. He distinguished between “the science of theology and the art of religion: theology would be corrected, enlarged, and liberated by evolution, but religion, as a spiritual fixture in the character of man, would be unmoved.[90] Lyman Abbott took things further with his reinterpretation of sin. Immoral acts were seen as lapses into ‘animality’. This he found preferable to the idea of original sin, which implied a ‘libel on God’.[91] A. H. Strong, who was in many ways conservative and denounced liberalism, also took things further than Beecher. He argued that evolution in some ways was more compatible with design than special creation because imperfections in nature militate against it whereas with evolution a little suffering and imperfection was a small price to pay for progress.[92]
-
Conclusions
It seems that Darwin’s timing in the publication the Origin was in his favour. For one thing, he released it at a time when many British intellectuals were critical of Christianity because of its implication in the social problems of Victorian Britain. Moreover, the secular scientists were frustrated with their inability to gain professional recognition. When it is also considered that, behind the scenes, many Anglican theologians were influenced by German liberalism – as is evidenced by the publication of Essays and Reviews just a few months later – it is easy to see that he would have support from both scientific and theological quarters, as well as socialist ones.
-
The conflict model for understanding the churches reactions to Darwin is a misleading and one-sided way of interpreting a complex historical relationship. In Britain, it needs to be remembered that the likes of Huxley and Tyndall were engaged in the fight for the professionalism of secular science. Any apparent conflict with them has to be seen in the light of that issue. While, there is no reason to doubt that Christians denounced Darwin’s theory we need to be wary of ‘history’ as the ‘victors’ write it. The attacks of Wilberforce, while theologically motivated and overly rhetorical in my judgment, were not scientifically worthless, as Huxley’s biographer would have us believe. Likewise, Hodge was not an ignorant polemicist as Hofstadter suggests. These men, probably, each represented a greater mass of public opinion in their settings but they do not singularly personify the reaction of the church. Many evangelicals, both in Britain and America, came to accept Darwin’s theory, as did the liberals. It is also worth remembering that many of the most influential men in British science, who were also Christians, were not convinced of Darwin’s theory. It is difficult to blame the wider Church for not accepting a scientific theory that the ‘most eminent scientists’ did not accept.
-
Those that accepted Darwinism devised various methods of accommodation. Men from all sides, such as Gray, Temple, Kingsley, Strong, Moore, Mivart and even Hodge were able to reconcile Darwin’s theory with some form of teleology. Moreover, Abbott was able to reinterpret sin, and Temple while still allowing for design shifted the basis of faith to inward experience. Other more conservative Christians allowed for evolution of the animal species but not of humanity.
Hodge, like Wilberfore, was not ignorant of the science and demonstrates his awareness of the scientific problems for evolution in his book.[84] Of course, his view of science is controlled by his theology, but it seems that making allowance for design was more important for him than literal interpretation of Genesis.[85] Hofstadter dismisses Hodge’s work as “polemical… with scant regard for facts”[86] this seems unfair, and untrue, and reflects perhaps Hofstadter’s interpretation of Hodge in the light of the Scopes trial. Hodge in his systematic theology did allow for theistic evolution: - “…so there may be a theistic interpretation of the Darwinian theory”[87] Hodge is much more reasonable, and much less obscurantist than he has been understood to be and it is a mistake to find warfare in his rejection of Darwinism.
-
Beecher, Abbott and Strong
For many American Christians it seems that Spencer’s rephrasing of Natural Selection, as the Survival of the Fittest, introduced an element of progress, and therefore design, into the otherwise naturalistic doctrine of evolution.[88] One such, influential American Christian was Henry Ward Beecher who described himself as a “cordial Christian evolutionist”[89]. He distinguished between “the science of theology and the art of religion: theology would be corrected, enlarged, and liberated by evolution, but religion, as a spiritual fixture in the character of man, would be unmoved.[90] Lyman Abbott took things further with his reinterpretation of sin. Immoral acts were seen as lapses into ‘animality’. This he found preferable to the idea of original sin, which implied a ‘libel on God’.[91] A. H. Strong, who was in many ways conservative and denounced liberalism, also took things further than Beecher. He argued that evolution in some ways was more compatible with design than special creation because imperfections in nature militate against it whereas with evolution a little suffering and imperfection was a small price to pay for progress.[92]
-
Conclusions
It seems that Darwin’s timing in the publication the Origin was in his favour. For one thing, he released it at a time when many British intellectuals were critical of Christianity because of its implication in the social problems of Victorian Britain. Moreover, the secular scientists were frustrated with their inability to gain professional recognition. When it is also considered that, behind the scenes, many Anglican theologians were influenced by German liberalism – as is evidenced by the publication of Essays and Reviews just a few months later – it is easy to see that he would have support from both scientific and theological quarters, as well as socialist ones.
-
The conflict model for understanding the churches reactions to Darwin is a misleading and one-sided way of interpreting a complex historical relationship. In Britain, it needs to be remembered that the likes of Huxley and Tyndall were engaged in the fight for the professionalism of secular science. Any apparent conflict with them has to be seen in the light of that issue. While, there is no reason to doubt that Christians denounced Darwin’s theory we need to be wary of ‘history’ as the ‘victors’ write it. The attacks of Wilberforce, while theologically motivated and overly rhetorical in my judgment, were not scientifically worthless, as Huxley’s biographer would have us believe. Likewise, Hodge was not an ignorant polemicist as Hofstadter suggests. These men, probably, each represented a greater mass of public opinion in their settings but they do not singularly personify the reaction of the church. Many evangelicals, both in Britain and America, came to accept Darwin’s theory, as did the liberals. It is also worth remembering that many of the most influential men in British science, who were also Christians, were not convinced of Darwin’s theory. It is difficult to blame the wider Church for not accepting a scientific theory that the ‘most eminent scientists’ did not accept.
-
Those that accepted Darwinism devised various methods of accommodation. Men from all sides, such as Gray, Temple, Kingsley, Strong, Moore, Mivart and even Hodge were able to reconcile Darwin’s theory with some form of teleology. Moreover, Abbott was able to reinterpret sin, and Temple while still allowing for design shifted the basis of faith to inward experience. Other more conservative Christians allowed for evolution of the animal species but not of humanity.
-
Perhaps a fitting final thought would be to remember the painful experiences of Romanes who appears to have lost his faith through his contact with Darwin. The efforts of modern day Creationists are often intended to protect against such a painful loss of faith. Ironically, however, in doing this Christianity is often seen to stand or fall on this one issue. If someone raised in such fundamentalism is later persuaded by Darwinism their faith is likely to tumble along with their creationist beliefs. It seems healthier to be open-minded about such non-essential issues and focus faith on Christ the true centre of Christian faith.
-Perhaps a fitting final thought would be to remember the painful experiences of Romanes who appears to have lost his faith through his contact with Darwin. The efforts of modern day Creationists are often intended to protect against such a painful loss of faith. Ironically, however, in doing this Christianity is often seen to stand or fall on this one issue. If someone raised in such fundamentalism is later persuaded by Darwinism their faith is likely to tumble along with their creationist beliefs. It seems healthier to be open-minded about such non-essential issues and focus faith on Christ the true centre of Christian faith.
Notes
-
[1] The ‘historical’ work of Draper and White is widely discredited now as polemical and one-sided. Chadwick pp.13-14; Livingstone p.1; Marsden pp.139-140; Welch pp.29-31
[2] That is in contrast to Russell Grigg (also of Answers in Genesis) who says that when The Origin was published it was “promptly denounced from pulpits across England”. Grigg p. 50
[3] Foard p.26
[4] Foard p.27
[5] Livingstone p.2
[6] Barrow p.17; Cosslett pp.1-2; Cupitt p.44; Livingstone p.5; Marsden pp.134-5. With this, one should bear in mind that the scientists often were theologians and theologians often were naturalists. For example, Henslow, Sedgewick and Whewell. Cf. Turner p.181
[7] Cupitt p.42
[8] Despite the storm it caused and the way it was perceived, Cosslett points out that Vestiges was ‘conceived in the spirit of natural theology’ and was not ‘an irreligious book’. p.6
[9] Cosslett p.5; Vidler p.116
[10] Vidler p.116
[11] For instance, Asa Gray thought that Darwin’s theory strengthened Natural Theology. (Cited in Chadwick p.19)
[12] Many argue the Biblical Criticism is the ‘science’ against which some Christians fought and that evolution was a mere ‘side issue’. Cf. Cosslett p.12; Chadwick p.3
[13] Frederic Temple, Lecture VI, in Cosslett pp.192-195.
[14] Moore (B) p.281; In particular they did not like the way that the argument from design was used to quash aspirations of social change. Bowler p.224
[15] The British secular union preferred to call themselves agnostics. Moore (B) p.308
[16] Wallace was Darwin’s co-discoverer of Natural Selection but later abandoned science and became a spiritualist. Cosslett p.23
[17] See table in Moore (B) pp.286-7
[18] Moore (B) pp.299-301
[19] Cosslett p.15
[20] Moore (B) p.300
[21] Chadwick p.12
[22] J. Tyndall quoted in Moore (B) p.302
[23] T. H. Huxley quoted in Moore (B) p.302
[24] J. Tyndall quoted in Moore (B) p.302
[25] Cosslett p.146
[26] L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Huxley, in Cosslet p.148
[27] Cf. L. Huxley in Cosslett p.151
[28] Ibid
[29] Cosslett p.1
[30] Darwin quoted in Cosslett p.146
[31] L. Huxley in Cosslett p.151
[32] Cosslett p.1
[33] Wilberforce in the Quarterly Review, quoted in Cosslett p.1
[34] Ibid
[35] The exact wording of the question is uncertain but the general drift of his appeal to sentiment is agreed. Cf. Chadwick p.10; L. Huxley in Cosslett p.151 and Huxley’s contributors pp.152-153
[36] T. H. Huxley quoted by L. Huxley in Cosslett p.153
[37] J. R. Green quoted by L. Huxley in Cosslett p.152
[38] Livingstone p.34; Chadwick makes the same observation p.11
[39] Rev. W. H. Fremantle quoted by L. Huxley in Cosslett p.153
[40] L. Huxley in Cosslett p.151
[41] Cosslett p.235 Note 7
[42] Cf. Professor Farrar quoted in Cosslett p.151
[43] Athenaeum quoted by Cosslett p.145
[44] That is bearing in mind the hyperbole of the apocryphal accounts. L. Huxley in Cosslet pp.150-1, 154-5
[45] Alvar Ellegard cited in Cosslett p.14
[46] Reardon p.215
[47] L. Huxley in Cosslett p.149
[48] Cosslett p.145
[49] Chadwick p.10
[50] Chadwick p.24
[51] Chadwick p.25
[52] Quoted in Chadwick p.25
[53] Chadwick p.25
[54] Grigg p.51 note 2, Grigg’s comparison of Kingsley with a Nazi collaborator (in the title of his article, and more explicitly p.51) is needlessly emotive and hypocritical. Even though Kingsley may have held racist views, it needs to be remembered that Louis Agassiz used his ‘creationist’ ideas support his own racist views. Cf. Livingstone pp.59-60
[55] Cf. Grigg p.50
[56] Cosslett p.3
[57] F. J. A. Hort quoted by Reardon p.216
[58] Cosslett p.15
[59] Rev. W. H. Fremantle in L. Huxley, in Cosslett p.153
[60] Cosslett pp.16-7
[61] Cosslett p.17
[62] Church quoted by Reardon p.217
[63] Chadwick p.24
[64] Cupitt pp.46-7
[65] Bowler p.227
[66] Chadwick p.21
[67] Ibid
[68] Stuart Headlam quoted by Vidler p.119
[69] Chadwick p.28
[70] Chadwick p.23
[71] Noll p.273
[72] Hofstadter in Kennedy p.8
[73] According to Hofstadter, (p.4) James Freeman Clarke’s Ten Great Religions first appeared in 1871, and Who Wrote the Bible? by Washington Gladden was first published in 1891.
[74] Richard Hofstadter in Kennedy p.3
[75] Chadwick p.19
[76] Hofstadter pp.4-5
[77] Livingstone p.35
[78] Cf. Hofstadter in Kennedy pp.5-6
[79] Livingstone p.60
[80] Hofstadter in Kennedy p.6
[81] Hofstadter in Kennedy p.7
[82] Marsden p.138 Cf. Hodge quoted in Livingstone p.104
[83] Hofstadter in Kennedy p.11
[84] Cf. Livingstone pp.102-3
[85] Livingstone p.104
[86] Hofstadter in Kennedy p.11
[87] Hodge quoted in Livingstone p.105
[88] Kennedy p.vii
[89] Hofstadter in Kennedy p.13
[90] Ibid
[91] Ibid
[92] Livingstone pp.126-7
-
Bibliography
-
Bowler, P. J., “Evolution”, in Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction, (G. B. Ferngren, ed.) John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. (2002)
-
Brown, C., “A World Come of Age”, in The History of Christianity, (T. Dowley, et al, eds.) Lion Publishing, Oxford. (1990)
-
Chadwick, O., The Victorian Church, Part II, (Second edition) A & C Black, London. (1972)
-
Cosslett, T., Science and Religion in the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. (1984)
-
Cupitt, D., “Darwinism and English Religious Thought”, in Explorations in Theology 6, SCM, London. (1979)
-
Darwin, C., The Origin of the Species, (J. W. Barrow, ed. and intro.) Pelican, London. (1982)
-
Foard, J., “Holy War?”, in Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 21 No.4, September-November 1999, (C. Wieland ed.) Answers in Genesis, Queensland. (pp.26-27)
-
Grigg, R., “Darwin’s quisling”, in Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 22 No.1, December 1999-February 2000, (C. Wieland ed.) Answers in Genesis, Queensland. (pp.50-51)
-
Kennedy, G. ed. Evolution and Religion: The Conflict between Science and Theology in Modern America, D. C. Heath and Company, Boston. (1957)
-
Livingstone, D. N., Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. (1987)
-
Marsden, G. M., Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. (1991)
-
Moore, J. R.,
-
(A) “Charles Darwin”, in Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction, (G. B. Ferngren, ed.) John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. (2002)
-
(B) “Freethought, Secularism, Agnosticism: The Case of Charles Darwin”, in Religion In Victorian Britain, Volume I, (G. Parsons, ed.) Manchester University Press, Manchester. (1988)
-
(C) Religion in Victorian Britain, Vol. III, Sources, Manchester University Press, Manchester. (1988)
-
Noll, M. A., “Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism”, in Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction, (G. B. Ferngren, ed.) John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. (2002)
-
Numbers, R. L., “Creationism since 1859”, in Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction, (G. B. Ferngren, ed.) John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. (2002)
-
Reardon, B. M. G., Religious Thought in the Victorian Age, (Second edition) Longman, London. (1995)
-
Turner, F. M., “The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension”, in Religion In Victorian Britain, Volume IV, (G. Parsons, ed.) Manchester University Press, Manchester. (1988)
-
Vidler, A. R., The Church in an Age of Revolution, Penguin Books, London. (1974)
-
Webster, J. B., “Creation, Doctrine of”, in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Modern Christian Thought, (A. E. McGrath, ed.) Blackwell, Oxford. (1993)
-
Welch, C., “Dispelling Some Myths about the split between Theology and Science in the Nineteenth Century”, in Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue, W. M. Richardson, and W. J. Wildman, eds.) Routledge, New York. (1996)
posted by Rowland @ Tuesday, May 09, 2006
4 comments
