At the time of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, most scientists were creationists. In 1973, Harvard, Cambridge, and Oxford jointly published a book, Darwin and His Critics, containing reprints of sixteen reviews by scientists of Darwin's Origin of Species which came out shortly after its publication in 1859.1 Ernst Mayr writes concerning this book:
Even though the present volume limits itself to sixteen reviews by scientists, the defence of the view that the world is the result of creation and governed by finalistic laws is prominent in each of the twelve reviews critical of Darwin.2
Mayr, one of the leading evolutionary biologists of our day, was impressed by the quality and relevance of these reviews:
One might well ask whether a collection of the reviews of Darwin's Origin of Species, written shortly after 1859, could still be of any interest. Even a quick perusal of this volume answers this question in the affirmative; it shows how fascinating these reviews are and how amazingly pertinent to the present day. Even though written by scientists--contemporary reviews by clergymen are not included--they deal not only with questions of scientific evidence but raise a number of timeless problems such as the relation between science and a belief in the supernatural.3
When Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, his views were not new, but the time was quickly becoming ripe for science to accept a viewpoint consistent with the idea of a materialistic universe. Ruth Moore has written:
Darwin did not invent the concept. But when he started his career, the doctrine of special creation could be doubted only by heretics. When he finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason. . . . Darwin gave modern science a rationale, a philosophy.4
While Darwinism offered another world view, or framework within which to interpret the data, it offered very little in the way of evidence. Ernst Mayr writes:
One must grant Darwin's opponents the validity of two of their objections. First, Darwin produced embarrassingly little concrete evidence to back up some of his most important claims. This includes the change of one species into another in succeeding geological strata, or the production of new structures and taxonomic types by natural selection.5
However, despite its lack of evidence, Darwinism was attractive for the very reason that it offered an alternative world view. Mayr observes:
The Darwinian revolution occupies a unique position among scientific revolutions because, far more than any others, it caused a dramatic upheaval in the thinking of man. . . . The Darwinian revolution was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, as had been the scientific revolutions in the physical sciences, but rather the replacement of a world view, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new world view in which there was no room for supernatural forces. . . . To shift over the Darwin's radically new thinking was obviously difficult for anyone who had been raised in an era of creationism and essentialism.6
Even now, according to Michael Polanyi, it is because Darwinism offers an alternative world view, not because there is much evidence for it, that it is accepted by the scientific community:
Neo-Darwinism is firmly accredited and highly regarded by science, though there is little direct evidence for it, because it beautifully fits into a mechanistic system of the universe and bears on a subject--the origin of man--which is of the utmost intrinsic interest.7
When Darwin published his views, the time was ripe. Marvin L. Lubenow writes:
Many of the truly great scientists doing the most basic and long lasting work were devout Christians--Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Lord Kelvin, Faraday, Morse, Pasteur, Maxwell. Their work was based on creation postulates. However, there must have been many other scientists at that time who were not Christians. They were working on creation postulates only because they had no other world view that was at all scientifically respectable. Then came Darwin. And for the first time . . . the [secular] scientist had a world view that was to his liking--naturalistic, materialistic, and mechanistic. Whether it was as factual as one would like to have it was not the point. It was a conceptual framework that was a legitimate substitute for creationism. . . . It was inevitable that evolution would be accepted because the natural heart demanded it. No amount of creationist erudition and learning--of which there was plenty--could have stemmed the tide.8
Prior to the time Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, there had been many earlier proposals of the same ideas, but due to the Christian consensus among scientists, they met with little success. Darwin himself mentions many of the ancient attempts to propose evolution in the opening pages of his Origin of Species.
About one hundred years prior to the publication of the Origin of Species, Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis anticipated most of what Charles Darwin proposed with respect to evolution. According to Bentley Glass, Maupertuis included within his theory of evolution the idea of the survival of the fittest.9 Glass also stated that the reason Maupertuis proposed evolution through natural selection was that he had considered, and desired to refute, the argument for the existence of God from the apparent order and design seen in nature, just as Darwin's argument's were an attempt to refute Paley's teleological arguments.10
Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was another champion of the theory of evolution. However, public sentiment turned against him during his lifetime because of the growing evangelical movement of his day led by John Wesley.11
In 1844, Robert Chambers published his Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, but, in order to protect himself from public censure, he concealed his identity as the author. However, suspicion that he had written the book was strong enough to prevent him from realizing his political ambition to become Lord Provost of Edinburgh in 1848.
Most scientists of the day were critical of Chambers' theory, including T. H. Huxley, who later became one of Charles Darwin's champions. According to Arthur Lovejoy of Johns Hopkins University, Huxley became prejudiced against the Vestiges because of certain errors that it contained which were of minor significance. According to Lovejoy, Chambers' Vestiges presented sufficient evidence that it should have convinced the scientists of that day of the truth of evolution, but that is did not do so indicates that "even in the minds of acute and professedly unprejudiced men of science, the emotion of conviction may lag behind the presentation of proof."12
During the 1830s, Darwin became convinced of the validity of the theory of evolution, but he was fearful of making his views known, because he knew they would not be favorably received at that time. He read the Vestiges soon after its publication, and although he was favorably impressed with it, the devastating criticism it received from the scientific world caused him to wonder whether he should ever make public his own views:
He had every reason to believe that his book, if ever he wrote one, would be treated no less harshly than the Vestiges. Sometimes he thought that it would be wiser not to proceed with the project at all. . . . But no sooner had he all but made up his mind accordingly, than the conviction would come over him irresistibly that, sooner or later somebody would enjoy the distinction for the discovery of evolution. What a shame it would be if that somebody stole his thunder.13
Darwin admitted that his object in life was to be esteemed by his fellow naturalists, and due to his fear of censure, he did not make public his views for many years. Then, in June of 1858 he received a letter from A. R. Wallace asking for advice on a manuscript that he had enclosed. This manuscript was a perfect summary of his own views, and he was goaded into action. A long paper jointly authored by Darwin and Wallace was read before the Linnean Society and published before the end of 1858, and The Origin of Species was published the following year. The publisher, John Murray, remarked that he found its thesis "as absurd as though one should contemplate a fruitful union between a poker and a rabbit."14
Darwin's book was largely ignored at first, and it attracted much less attention than did the Vestiges fifteen years previously. For several years, it was totally ignored by some of the best scientific journal of his day. T. H. Huxley later stated that, in 1860, "The supporters of Mr. Darwin's views were numerically extremely insignificant. There is not the slightest doubt that if a general council of the Church scientific had been held at that time, we should have been condemned by an overwhelming majority."15
One of Darwin's strongest opponents was Richard Owen, the greatest living anatomist. Owen was a man of unrivalled knowledge and experience in research. He wrote a lengthy attack on the Origin of Species in the Edinburgh Review, throwing against it all the weight of his anatomical and paleontological knowledge. He felt that the book left "the determination of the origin of species very nearly where the author found it," pointing out that since variations are not normally transmitted at all, it was difficult to see how Darwin's suggested theory could hold water.16
At the end of June, 1860, the British Association met at Oxford, where, among other things, Darwin's views were discussed. While many of the speakers were unfavorable, T. H. Huxley spoke in Darwin's defense. Over the course of the next decade, Darwin's supporters in scientific circles grew from an insignificant minority to a majority.
As Darwin's fame grew, Captain Robert Fitzroy of the Beagle became convinced that he was to blame for the anti-Christian influence of the Origin of Species, since he had not refused Darwin passage on the Beagle, where Darwin had served as naturalist from 1831 until 1836. It was during this trip that Darwin had become convinced of the validity of the theory of evolution, and had begun collecting specimens in support of the theory. After the theory of evolution became widely accepted, Captain Fitzroy, blaming himself, committed suicide, slitting his own throat.
With respect to Christianity, Charles Darwin appears to have been a man of wavering convictions.17 In 1873, he wrote:
Lyell is most firmly convinced that he has shaken the faith in the deluge far more effectively by never having said a word against the Bible than if he had acted otherwise. . . . I have lately read Morley's Life of Voltaire and he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force and vigor of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks.18
However, in 1879, he wrote, "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."19 In the same year, he wrote, "for myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."20
In his youth, Darwin was an orthodox Christian. He recollected this is 1876:
Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. . . . But I had gradually come by this time, i.e., 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos. . . .But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress. . . .
The old argument from design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.21
However, Charles Darwin wavered a great deal with resect to the Christian faith. In the last year of his life, Darwin spoke with the Duke of Argyll, who wrote in his book, Good Words (April 1885, p. 244):
In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature--I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, "Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times," and he shook his head vaguely, adding, "it seems to go away."22
Lady Hope, of Northfield, England, was at Darwin's bedside before he died. She reported as follows:
It was on a glorious Autumn afternoon when I was asked to go and sit with Charles Darwin. He was almost bedridden for some months before he died. Propped up with pillows, his features seem[ed] to be lit up with pleasure as I entered the room. He waved his hand towards the window as he pointed out the beautiful sunset seen beyond, while in the other he held an open Bible which he was always studying."What are you reading now?" I asked.
"Hebrews," he answered, "still Hebrews. The Royal Book, I call it. . . ." Then he placed his finger on certain passages and commented upon them.
I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many unbelievers on the history of the creation and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the book of Genesis. He seemed distressed, his fingers twitched nervously and a look of agony came across his face as he said, "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything. And to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them." Then he paused and after a few more sentences on the holiness of God and the grandeur of this Book, looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he said:
"I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there (pointing through the open window). I want you very much to speak here. I know you read the Bible in the villages. Tomorrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few neighbours to gather there. Will you speak to them?"
"What shall I speak about?" I asked.
"Christ Jesus," he replied in a clear emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, "and His salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?"
The look of brightness on his face I shall never forget, for he added, "If you take the meeting at 3 o'clock this window will be opened and you will know that I am joining with the singing."23
Although some people have doubted the authenticity of this account, it should be recognized that as a youth, Darwin had felt a call to Christian ministry. In the late 1820s, he read theological books for a while, and in 1828, he decided to attend Christ's College, Cambridge, in preparation for Anglican orders. When he completed his studies in 1831, it was only the opportunity to become naturalist aboard the Beagle that prevented him from taking his ordination. By the time the ship returned in 1836, his preference was to pursue the career of a naturalist. The above account of Darwin's dying days bears a striking degree of similarity to the accounts of others who, just before the time of death, have suddenly experienced an awakening of Christian faith.
1 David L. Hull, Darwin and His Critics (Harvard University; Cambridge; Oxford University: London, September 1973).
2 Ernst Mayr, "Evolution and God," Nature 248 (22 March 1974): 285.
3 Ibid.
4 Ruth Moore, Evolution, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Incorporated, 1964), p. 10.
5 Mayr, p. 285.
6 Ibid.
7 Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), pp. 135-136.
8 Marvin L. Lubenow, "Progressive Creationism: Is It A Biblical Option?" paper presented to the Midwestern Section of the Evangelical Theological Society, Twentieth General Meeting, March 21-22, 1975, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, p. 10.
9 Bentley Glass, ed., Forerunners of Darwin 1745-1859 (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1959), p. 57.
10 Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), p. 46.
11 Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man's Fate (Reinhart and Co., 1959), p. 7.
12 Arthur O. Lovejoy, "Robert Chambers," in Bentley Glass, ed., Forerunners of Darwin, 1745-1859 (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1959), p. 356.
13 Robert E. D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), p. 56.
14 Quoted by Ibid., p. 59.
15 Quoted by Ibid., p. 63.
16 Ibid., p. 64.
17 Davidheiser, p. 66.
18 Ibid., p. 67, quoting from Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., 1959), p. 368.
19 Francis Darwin, ed., Charles Darwin, new ed. (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 55.
20 Ibid., p. 57.
21 Ibid., pp. 58, 60.
22 Ibid., p. 64.
23 Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Dyer, eds., Bombay Guardian, 25 March 1916, as quoted by H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (London: Evangelical Press, 1966), pp. 166-167.
