Navigate
  • Home
  • Our Story
  • Categories
    • Articles
    • Book Reviews
    • Interviews
    • Live Discussions
    • Podcast
    • Talks
  • Topics
    • Apologetics
    • Epistemology
    • Free Stuff
    • God
    • Moral Argument
    • Naturalism
    • Reformed Epistemology
    • Science
    • Street Epistemology
    • Theology
  • Events
    • Conferences
    • Events
  • Shop
  • Free Resources
  • FAQ
  • Get in Touch
  • Testimonials
  • Donate?
  • Follow Us
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • SoundCloud
    • YouTube
Capturing Christianity
0
0
375K
0
Capturing Christianity Capturing Christianity
  • Home
  • Our Story
  • Topics
    • Apologetics
    • EAAN
    • Epistemology
    • Faith
    • Interviews
    • Live Discussion
    • Moral Argument
    • Naturalism
    • Science
    • Street Epistemology
    • Theology
    • Reformed Epistemology
  • Events
    • Conferences
    • Events
  • Shop
  • Info
    • FAQ
    • Testimonials
  • Get in Touch
  • Donate
0
  • Articles

Christianity’s War on Darwinism, or the War that Never Happened

  • October 5, 2021
  • 7 comments
  • 9 minute read
  • 8.7K views
  • Seth Hart
Total
1
Shares
0
0
1

On November 24, 1859, Charles Darwin published his seminal work On the Origin of Species, and, as the tired story goes, the reclusive scientist was subsequently assaulted by his Christian contemporaries, who saw his ideas not for their scientific merit but their destructive religious implications. In Darwin, the church had supposedly found a new opponent in its long, futile war against the progress of natural science. It is a story we have all heard, but how accurate is it? Did the church, in fact, stall the development of biology in its war on Darwinism?

While, of course, there has always been some unease with certain scientific discoveries from Christian sectors, another, perhaps more important story is left untold in this simplistic rendition—one that shatters this flat historical reading of conflict. In this first part of a two-part exploration, I will focus on Christianity’s initial reaction to Darwin’s ideas in his home country. In part 2, I will address the American response to the biologist’s work, and lest any of my claims appear exaggerated or pure fantasy, I’ve included an exorbitant amount of footnotes for those curious enough to perform their own research.

Now on to the story…

Darwin’s Reception

In truth, Darwinism was mostly well-received by Christian figures, both within theological and scientific circles. This was partially due to the fact that Darwin was not the first to propose universal common ancestry. Erasmus Darwin (grandfather to Charles), Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Robert Grant, Lorenz Oken, and Robert Chambers had all toyed with evolutionary ideas prior to Darwin. Darwin’s proposed mechanism was simply one more addition to an ongoing scientific conversation. Geologists like Charles Lyell had additionally established the antiquity of the earth without much religious discontent.[1] Thus, assimilation of evolutionary (though not necessarily Darwinian) ideas along with the scientific presuppositions behind them progressed rapidly among Protestant circles.[2]

Surprisingly, many clerical figures even argued that Darwinism was an ally of the church. Several saw it as a force for undermining a purely natural religion which was seen as a competitor to religions founded upon the revealed scriptures.[3] One prominent example of this is Aubrey Lackington Moore’s 1889 publication in Lux Mundi that proclaimed biological evolution was incompatible with deism, for only a God continually active in the universe could bring about a species like humanity. Thus, evolution actually increased the need for a Designer. Moore’s strategy of reading teleological implications into the evolutionary process was not uncommon. Charles Kingsley, an Anglican socialist who has been nicknamed “Darwin’s churchman”, maintained a similar position, reasoning that the Darwinian model for biological diversity created a powerful case for the Divine’s continued involvement within creation.[4] Not only did Kingsley believe Darwinism provided a sense of wonder in nature, but it also supplied powerful ammunition in his case for social improvement.[5]

Many other leading figures echoed Kingsley’s sentiments. The future archbishop of Canterbury, Frederick Temple, complimented the novel ideas of Darwin in a sermon at the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1860 (the same year as the famed Huxley/Wilberforce debate).[6] He would later go on to write against those who attempted to derive scientific claims from the Genesis text.[7] Additionally, the Scottish naturalist Henry Drummond found in Darwin a “real and beautiful acquisition to natural theology” and stated that his theory was “perhaps the most important contribution to the literature of apologetics” in the 1800s.[8] Evolution, he argued, aligned with the Christian view that God aims to perfect beings.[9]

Additional names could easily be added to this list. J. B. Colenso, Bishop of Natal, contended for the harmony of evolutionary science and Biblical revelation. Ornithologist and canon of Durham H. B. Tristram and Cambridge botanist Charles Babington both expressed favorable opinions of Darwinism shortly after Origin’s release. Sir George Stokes, a theologically conservative physicist, agreed with biological evolution but had scientific reservations regarding Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection. Other evangelicals, such as James Orr and V. F. Storr, shared the same concerns, embracing a form of Lamarckian evolution. John Pratt, a clergyman and astronomer, argued for a gap interpretation of Genesis, reconciling much of evolutionary science with Scripture through a reinterpretation of only one word.[10]

In 1864, perhaps sensing a future conflict, Herbert McLeod created a petition called “The Declaration of Students of the Natural and Physical Sciences,” which sought peace between science and religion. By 1865, it had garnered over 700 signatures, including over ten percent of the Fellows of the Royal Society. Despite his noble efforts, the document was largely forgotten since, as John Tyndall noted, very few scientists of the day actually viewed the scientific discussions of the day as being in dispute with the church’s teachings.[11]

The Bulldog

But what of that famed Wilberforce-Huxley debate? In Britain, the apex of the dispute is generally identified with this (in)famous contest between Thomas Huxley, known as “Darwin’s Bulldog”, and Samuel Wilberforce in the months immediately after Origin first appeared. The representatives of the debate seemed to embody the ensuing conflict. As Oxford historian Allan Chapman describes it, on the one side stood the “reactionary, anti-scientific, Bible-thumping old bishop,” while opposing him was a “vigorous young freethinking ‘man of science’.”[12]

As the story goes, the curmudgeonly Wilberforce made a fool of himself against the Bulldog, demonstrating the inevitable decline of religion in the face of growing scientific advance. This caricature has served as an archetype for the supposed war ever since, yet despite the lore that has grown up around this debate, Chapman notes that virtually nothing is known of the debate’s actual contents, let alone its victor. What can be ascertained, however, is that Wilberforce’s objections centered not on the theological implications of Darwinism but on the lack of evidence for the transmutation of species. The debate, regardless of the initial interest surrounding it, did little to impact the subsequent discussion on Darwin’s ideas. Even John William Draper, who was present for the debate, failed to mention it in his vicious critique of Christianity some years later. Since Draper, along with Andrew Dickson White, is considered to be the originator of the conflict narrative between science and Christianity, such an omission seems remarkable if, in fact, bishop Wilberforce received the scientific thrashing he is reported to have endured.

In sum, a notable percentage of Protestant leadership welcomed Darwinian or, at the very least, evolutionary ideas. However, Jon Roberts does note that a “sizable minority” continued to hold to special creation in the initial years following Origin’s publication.[13] This resistance was triggered less by biblical exegesis than by the challenge Darwinism posed to Paley’s popular argument from design. Even then, by 1875, few Protestants remained who still held to this objection.[14]

Scientific Rejection?

A better summary of the initial Christian reaction is that it was theologically comfortable with Darwinism but nevertheless rejected it upon scientific grounds. Some of the strongest scientific objections included Fleeming Jenkins’s argument that advantageous genes are overwhelmed in a broader population and Lord Kelvin’s young date for the earth based on terrestrial heat loss. Darwin called this latter objection one of the greatest attacks against his theory.[15] George Mivart likewise recognized the gaps in the fossil record as empirical evidence against Darwin’s hypothesis.[16] The famous paleontologists Richard Owen and Louis Agassiz were two more high-profile dissenters against Darwin and might be added to the list of scientific dissent from Darwin.[17]

By the 1880s, Darwinism had made little headway in the scientific community even while evolution itself was nearly universally held.[18] Scientists simply felt that natural selection was not the primary mechanism. In other words, the Christian response to Darwin was nearly identical to that of the broader scientific community.

The Christian response to Darwin was nearly identical to that of the broader scientific community.

Seth hart

One alternative explanation, supported by James Orr (an editor of the later Fundamentals), was the saltations view of Hugo De Vries.[19] Other theologians and scientists favored a neo-Lamarckian approach, finding it easier to integrate with a view of Original Sin.[20] Yet while theological motivations were inevitably present, the ultimate grounds for resistance to Darwinism was scientific in nature, and the objections of Mivart, Kelvin, and others provided more than enough evidence for this rejection. Even Samuel Wilberforce, the “reactionary, anti-scientific, Bible-thumping old bishop,” writes:

…we have objected to [Darwinism] solely on scientific grounds… We have no sympathy with those who object to any facts or alleged facts in nature, or to any inference logically deduced from them because they believe them to contradict what it appears to them is taught by Revelation.[21]

Occasional Outliers

There were, however, occasional exceptions to this generalization. In 1894, Horace Noel argued in the Record that any hermeneutic that attempted reconciliation between Genesis and evolution was comparable to John Henry Newman’s treatment of the Thirty Nine Articles—a famous but strained attempt to reunite Anglican and Catholic dogma.[22]

Others saw Darwinism in league with Wellhausen and other radical critics in its challenge to the Genesis narrative.[23] While this minority report must be acknowledged, it would be a mistake to suppose Ussher’s chronology and six-day creationism as being the popular viewpoint in this era. As Martin Wellings notes, very few theologically conservative Protestants maintained this literalistic interpretation prior to Darwin’s publication.[24] Rather, the common strategy was to attempt reconciliation between the words of Scripture and the testimony of the sciences, and a shortlist of examples would include Handly Moule, J. J. S. Perowne, W. H. Griffith Thomas, R. B. Girdlestone, C. H. Waller, and J. C. Ryle.

Beyond interpretive issues, however, there were others who worried about the doctrinal implications of Darwinism. For instance, celebrated zoologist Adam Sedgwick worried Darwinism implied a universe without moral dignity or divine intervention.[25] There was also some concern that Darwinism would lead to the same philosophical materialism that had caused such chaos in France in the previous decades.[26] However, these issues did not prevent the majority of conservative leadership from embracing evolutionary and, eventually, Darwinian views. As Denis Alexander states,

What is perhaps more surprising in retrospect is how quickly Darwinian evolution was baptized into a traditional Christian understanding of creation.[27]

Regarding the theological issues, David Livingstone adds,

These, as a number of historians of science have shown us, were part of a larger debate concerning the nature and structure of society that affected Christians as much as anyone else.[28]

While this historical survey is entirely too brief, it gives a more accurate overall impression of the reception of Darwin within otherwise theologically conservative circles in Britain. But what about across the pond in the United States, where fundamentalism would eventually challenge Darwinian ascent into prominence? The answer will come in part 2.


Footnotes

[1] Frank M. Turner, “The Late Victorian Conflict of Science and Religion as an Event in Nineteenth-Century Intellectual and Cultural History,” in Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives, ed. Thomas Dixon, Geoffrey Cantor, and Stephen Pumprey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 101.

[2] See, for instance, Martin Wellings, Evangelicals Embattled: Responses of Evangelicals in the Church of England to Ritualism, Darwinism and Theological Liberalism 1890-1930 (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Press, 2003) 191.

[3] Turner, “The Late Victorian”, 93.

[4] John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 314.

[5] Ibid, 294.

[6] Denis R. Alexander, “Creation and Evolution,” in The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, ed. J. B. Stump and Alan G. Padgett (West Sussex, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2012), 234-5.

[7] Frederick Temple, “The Relations between Religion and Science (1884), Lecture VI, ‘Apparent Collision between Religion and the Doctrine of Evolution’; and Lecture VIII, ‘The Conclusion of the Argument,’ in Science and Religion in the Nineteenth Century, ed. Tess Cosslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 200.

[8] Henry Drummond, qtd. in ibid, 235.

[9] Brooke, Science, 311. Of course, whether or not this view aligns with Darwinian evolution is a different issue. The point is, rather, to show the optimistic embrace of Darwin by these Victorian thinkers.

[10] This was the origin of the famed gap interpretation of Genesis 1:2. A good summary of these and other thinkers can be found in Wellings, Evangelicals, 195-214.

[11] Hannah Gay, “‘The Declaration of Students of the Natural and Physical Science’, Revisited: Youth, Science, and Religion in mid-Victorian Britain,” in Religion and the Challenges of Science, ed. William Sweet and Richard Feist (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company), 20-29.

[12] Allan Chapman, Slaying the Dragons, Destroying Myths in the History of Science and Faith (Oxford: Lion Books, 2013), 113ff.

[13] Jon H. Roberts, Darwinism and the Divine in America: Protestant Intellectuals and Organic Evolution 1859-1900 (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988), 209. Wellings, Evangelicals, 193ff, has argued that most of this resistance emerged in the Low Church. Contra Livingstone (whose work is cited repeatedly in this paper), Wellings argues that historical studies often focus on the elites in science and theology while ignoring the laity. They, he argues, were largely opposed to evolution in any variety. He cites in support only the Christian Observer, T. R. Birks, and J. H. Pratt. However, as has previously been noted, Pratt accepted most of the major tenants of evolutionary theory. His major critique, similar to geologists J. W. Dawson, was that Darwinism was an abandonment of the inductive method of Baconian science for a hypotheticodeductive structure. Additionally, Christian Observer and Birks both offered only scientific critiques, such as the lack of transitional forms. Thus, their objections were wholly scientific and not theological, as Wellings later admits.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Livingstone, Darwin’s, 52.

[16] Ibid, 53.

[17] Wellings, Evangelicals, 209 also offers Stokes, Mendel, Cope, De Vries, and Bateson as early critics.

[18] Michael Ruse, Darwinism and Its Discontents (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 17.

[19] Livingstone, Darwin’s, 141.

[20] Ibid, 142.

[21] Wilberforce, Samuel, qtd. in Chapman, Slaying, 148.

[22] Welling, Evangelicals, 216.

[23] Ibid, 201.

[24] Ibid, 200.

[25] John Durant, “Darwinism and Divinity: A Century of Debate,” in Darwinism and Divinity: Essays on Evolution and Religious Belief (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985), 18.

[26] Turner, “The Late Victorian”, 91ff.

[27] Alexander, “Creation”, 234.

[28] Livingstone, Darwin’s, 51. It has even been maintained that Calvinists were more likely to embrace Darwinism than their liberal counterparts. This argument, however, goes beyond the purposes of this paper. See Ronald L. Numbers, Darwinism Comes to America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 43, and R. J. Berry, “Biology after Darwin,” in Theology after Darwin, eds. Michael S. Northcott and R. J. Berry (Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster, 2009), 5.

Total
1
Shares
Share 0
Tweet 0
Pin it 1
T A G S
  • Darwin
  • Evolution
Seth Hart

Seth Hart is a PhD student in science and theology at the University of Durham. He holds masters in theology from Oxford, Regent College, and Johnson University. His current research delves into whether the field of biology and its fundamental concepts are built upon theistic foundations, arguing that terms like “adaptation”, “organism”, and “fitness” all entail the existence of God. He currently resides in Fayetteville, Arkansas with his wife and corgi.

SUBSCRIBE. BE AWESOME.

Get updates on new posts, upcoming live discussions, and more.

You May Also Like
View Post
  • Articles

CCv2 Apologetics Conference

  • Cameron Bertuzzi
  • June 8, 2022
View Post
  • Articles

CC Exchange 2022

  • Cameron Bertuzzi
  • February 7, 2022
View Post
  • Articles

Is Animal Suffering a Bigger Problem for Theists?

  • Seth Hart
  • February 3, 2022
View Post
  • Articles

The Teleological Menace, Why Biology (Still) Requires God

  • Seth Hart
  • December 11, 2021
Hummingbird
View Post
  • Articles

Btw, Evolution is Teleological

  • Seth Hart
  • November 23, 2021
View Post
  • Articles

The Gospels are Bíoi – So What? Three Lessons for Reading Them Well

  • John Nelson
  • October 26, 2021
View Post
  • Articles

Did American Christians Wage War on Darwin? (Spoiler Alert: No)

  • Seth Hart
  • October 11, 2021
israel
View Post
  • Articles

Dr. Loke’s Closing Statement vs. Paulogia

  • Andrew Loke
  • August 31, 2021
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

guest

7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Daniel Torbey
Daniel Torbey
3 years ago

I have a genuine curiosity about this topic. I feel that it’s incredibly important. I was a lukewarm Catholic and used to accept evolution without really much critical thought, but as my faith has deepened, I’ve come to question to wisdom of the evolutionary theory to the point where I now see more sense in Genesis than evolution. One of my big concerns is this: as humans the reality of our experience is that we have consciousness, we have a conscience, we understand morality – good from bad – we are values-driven creatures and by some miracle we have a… Read more »

2
Reply
Cameron Bertuzzi
Admin
Cameron Bertuzzi
3 years ago
Reply to  Daniel Torbey

Good questions! I’d recommend checking out the recent work by Dr. Josh Rasmussen on consciousness.

0
Reply
rob
rob
3 years ago
Reply to  Daniel Torbey

here are some links that might help see the other side by scientists who reject darwinism
Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

2.4M views
2 years ago
https://yt3.ggpht.com/ytc/AKedOLTpzhEDG_wRQmmxnyIYdW0cX758X5FnPs6ljsFX=s68-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj
Hoover Institution

Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s …

comment image?sqp=-oaymwEjCOADEI4CSFryq4qpAxUIARUAAAAAGAElAADIQj0AgKJDeAE=&rs=AOn4CLA9wWICE1vK0s4LU8PhdQmex4bD1A
1:11:14
NOW PLAYING

The Creation Conversation – Part 2 – Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer and David Berlinski

101K views
8 years ago
https://yt3.ggpht.com/ytc/AKedOLRH7_gJYcXL1AELTbG2OgzF-AbPFDOk4dTXkiQC=s68-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj
IDquest
In the concluding half of ‘The Creation Conversation’, Dr. Stephen Meyer discusses evidence for design in creation and is later …

comment image?sqp=-oaymwEjCOADEI4CSFryq4qpAxUIARUAAAAAGAElAADIQj0AgKJDeAE=&rs=AOn4CLBNlrHox91yn-ZJtnrhtj0d7YrM4g
13:21
NOW PLAYING

David Berlinski: “Darwinism is a secular myth.”

12K views
3 years ago
https://yt3.ggpht.com/ytc/AKedOLR4HqGHq6uTvydvOB4lTlrgucfnd8f-cNaCGcNM=s68-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj
Intelligent Design
‘The Devil’s Delusion’ author David Berlinski shares insight on ‘Life, Liberty & Levin.’ The link between evolution, science and …

comment image?sqp=-oaymwEXCNAFEJQDSFryq4qpAwkIARUAAIhCGAE=&rs=AOn4CLAq5fVYVOtZoX-YFgDMIdnY8kv-cA
58:31
NOW PLAYING

Uncommon Knowledge with David Berlinski on “The Deniable Darwin”

436K views
2 years ago
https://yt3.ggpht.com/ytc/AKedOLTpzhEDG_wRQmmxnyIYdW0cX758X5FnPs6ljsFX=s68-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj
Hoover Institution

Recorded on June 3, 2019 in Italy. To comment please go to …

comment image?sqp=-oaymwEXCNAFEJQDSFryq4qpAwkIARUAAIhCGAE=&rs=AOn4CLCY8Xij3QvZ35CxVYpehbA6kIZE-g
10:55
NOW PLAYING

Stephen Meyer Destroys Ignorant Atheist

237K views
6 years ago
https://yt3.ggpht.com/ytc/AKedOLQMAnVMNU8QHW3CpHaNYPN0N1EndyvRHmxuxsszWA=s68-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj

0
Reply
Kevin
Kevin
3 years ago
Reply to  Daniel Torbey

Well it sounds to me that you haven’t really looked into evolutionary theory to begin with. There is a great deal of research that has been done on how morality evolved.

0
Reply
Daniel Torbey
Daniel Torbey
3 years ago
Reply to  Kevin

Could you please direct me to any convincing arguments that you’ve come across?

0
Reply
Joseph Kearns
Joseph Kearns
3 years ago

I enjoyed this post. It corrected a misconception I had about Darwin’s theories, namely, that he was the first one to think of evolution.

I never realized there were so many different people who proposed evolutionary models prior to Darwin.

0
Reply
Jamey
Jamey
3 years ago

Interesting but it neglects the plain history of fraud and conspiracy to profit from the publication of origin of the species. Plainly this article demonstrates that on the scientific merits Darwin failed peer review at all points yet by virtue of Huxely fortune and cunning not only published fake news but used their political influence to campaign an antichristian agenda. It’s well established that the scopes trial was a premeditated fraud which was perpetuated by the media contrary to and excluding the actual scientific peer review and instead did focus on attacking Christianity specifically as represented by the person of… Read more »

0
Reply
about
Free 60-page eBook!
Join our super cool email list to receive a copy of our free 60-page eBook (and other cool stuff). Btw, Christianity is true.
Subscribe!
Support
If you find value in our content, prayerfully consider supporting us monthly on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!
Follow Us!
Facebook 0
Twitter 0
YouTube 375K
Instagram 0
Capturing Christianity
  • Home
  • Free Stuff
  • FAQ
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
  • Donate?

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

wpDiscuz