Gabriela’s response to the Victorians reading
I know this diverges from the book, but I am very interested in science and wanted to do some research on the Victorians’ reception of Darwin’s theory.
The Victorian age was a unique time when austere and rigid religious fundamentalism conflicted yet cohabited with new scientific endeavors and a yearning for discovery. This unique climate can be illustrated by wildly different public reactions to the work of Charles Darwin.
As Gange touches upon, the Victorian age was a time of thriving contradictions— religious fervor and a passion for scientific discovery. During the 18th century new religious groups gained followings. Baptist, Methodist, and Congregationalist churches welcomed members who were not happy with the well-established Anglican Church. Gange writes “The empire was built on values that were specifically Christian. Imperial self-confidence saw millions of Protestant religious tracts circulated through India and Africa. In contrast, the fate of Victorian religion in Britain is often viewed as a story of loss and fragmentation. The period is caricatured with phrases like ‘the age of doubt’ or ‘the crisis of faith.’’( Gange, The Victorians,pg. 10).
This “crisis of faith” could have been greatly inspired by the new scientific findings of the Victorian age– among other reasons– that refuted long-standing and biblically-based beliefs. With the publishing of Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species, intellectuals began to question the doctrines of Creationism and Intelligent Design— beliefs centered around the idea that God created and individually designed every creature.
Many religious people struggled to reconcile their beliefs with new scientific findings. Prominent ecclesiastical figures attacked the pioneering scientists of the Victorian age while others were outspoken about their acceptance and support for the theory of evolution. Bishop Samuel Wilberforce strongly criticized On the Origin of Species, writing, “Equally inconsistent, too, not with any passing expressions, but with the whole scheme of God’s dealings with man as recorded in His word, is Mr. Darwin’s daring notion of man’s further development into some unknown extent of powers, and shape, and size, through natural selection acting through that long vista of ages which he casts mistily over the earth upon the most favoured individuals of his species. We care not in these pages to push the argument further. We have done enough for our purpose in thus succinctly intimating its course. If any of our readers doubt what must be the result of such speculations carried to their logical and legitimate conclusion, let them turn to the pages of Oken, and see for themselves the end of that path the opening…Nor can we doubt, secondly, that this view, which thus contradicts the revealed relation of creation to its Creator, is equally inconsistent with the fulness of His glory” ( Samuel Wilberforce Letter, 1860, https://creation.com/review-of-darwins-the-origin-of-species).
Note:( I know that I picked a dodgy creationist website to cite, but the website has the letter posted in its entirety. I also cross-referenced it with other websites).
In contrast, Reverand Charles Kingsley spoke highly of Darwin’s research and his theory of descent with modification (otherwise known as evolution): “A celebrated author and divine has written to me that ‘he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws” ( Reverand Charles Kingsley, letter correspondence 1859, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2534.xml).
In this letter the Reverand praises Darwin’s findings and frames evolution in his own religious terms, implying that God created “original forms” but that creatures were able to evolve and change—thus, he allowed both ideas to coexist. Reverand Kingsley was able to reconcile religion and science and was characteristic of the people that stood between the rift that could accept both religion and science as valid.
The unique Victorian Era struggle between science and faith was even evident in the personal life of Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin was raised in a very Christian family, had a very devout wife, and, prior to his journey on the Beagle in 1831, was preparing to study ministry in college. Darwin felt very hesitant and waited to publish On the Origin of Species until he felt moved by urgency. Russell Wallace, another scientist, came upon similar findings to Darwin, compelling Darwin to publish the book before he did. Towards the end of his life, historians suspect that Darwin might have identified as agnostic, and many of his letters reveal his struggle with his faith and different stages of observance. The death of his daughter had even caused him to question the idea of God. Darwin writes in a letter to Jordan Froyce: “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 (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.” ( Darwin, letter 12041,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin).
The dilemma that Darwin faced in reconciling his findings with his faith was likely reflected in the lives of other Victorians confronted with similar juxtapositions. Church attendance decreased during the Victorian age, yet people were still very devout and missionaries like Livingston were heroes of the day. Gange writes on church attendance, “This picture is best captured by the statistics of the 1851 census, which sent shock waves through Britain with its revelation that only around a quarter of the population of England attended a Church of England on Census Sunday.” ( Gange, The Victorians, pg 10).
If anything is to be concluded about the Victorian age, we need to strongly consider what Gange writes. He writes “We must recognize that the Victorians were not defined by what they agreed on, but by what they argued over.” (Gange, The Victorians). It was an age of contradictions and conflicting ideas. Several religious figures were willing to adapt their spiritual framework to fit Darwin’s findings while others attacked it outright, and this wide range of reactions was characteristic of the Victorian age, typifying the differences in belief and sentiment that permeated the time.
Sources: For the blog posts would you like full citations or are links acceptable?
http://crossref-it.info/textguide/tess-of-the-durbervilles/11/1216
https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/darwin-and-the-theory-of-evolution
If you are a visual learner, this is a really helpful PowerPoint on religion and science during the Victorian age. I referenced in writing this essay.
https://www.slideshare.net/SarahLaw/religion-and-science-in-the-victorian-period?from_m_app=ios
A documentary on Darwin from YouTube that I saw a few a years ago that touches upon the reception of his theory, and his devout wife.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FUCxWMtK9CY
If any of you have an interest in the life of Charles Darwin or science during in the Victorian Age I would love to continue the conversation here! Thank you for reading.
Reading Wilberforce’s quote, I had to look up Oken, since he said that was where one could see the logical (implied: absurd) conclusion of Darwin’s work. I found him at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_Oken but could only see as controversial his idea of the human body being reflected in the head of the organism, and had trouble seeing why this would be any more objectionable that any other idea.
Your point about Kingsley is useful, in that it points out that religion and Darwinian natrual selection are neither obviously nor necessarily opposed. The “middle ground” has always been that God created organisms to change and adapt, and what’s surprising is that this voice is so rarely heard, even now when teaching evolution in schools is still such a sore point.
I very much like the way you put Darwin’s personal conflict into the thesis of the first chapters of The Victorians. And the arguments themselves are indeed the point – this was an era of open controversy and discussion.
Yes! It is so surprising that nobody speaks about the “middle ground”. Evolution is such a polarizing topic when it honestly shouldn’t be. I believe that the news and the media add to the idea that creationists also have a “reasonable” argument when they bring them on TV to debate scientists and give them a large platform. There is this funny clip about this. From the Colbert report. At the very end he brings up a bunch of scientists to reflect statistically actually how many scientists of them believe in evolution.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
There is actually a Creationist museum in Santee, and I have always wanted to check it out because I am curious.
I am not quite sure why he mentions Oken specifically. I really see your point. I did a little bit more looking, and it seemed like Oken made observations relating to homology —the study of related organismal structures (but there is very little about him online).
The abstract of this paper briefly touches upon Oken’s study of homology. I think that is why Wilberforce mentions him, he’s likely criticizing that.
On Oken:
“The recognition of correspondences has long been a fundamental activity among systematists. Advocates of Naturphilosophie, such as Lorenz Oken, drew far-fetched analogies between taxonomic groups and all sorts of other things, including the Persons of the Trinity. They treated change through time either as analogous to an ontogeny or as the product of divinely instituted laws of nature. Darwin changed things by making the taxonomic units strictly historical, implying that they are not classes but rather individuals in a broad metaphysical sense. That means that taxa are concrete, particular things, or wholes made up of parts which are themselves individuals, and that there are no laws of nature for them. Homology is a relationship of correspondence between parts of organisms that are also parts of populations and lineages. It is not a relationship of similarity, and unlike similarity it is transitive.” ( Homology as a Relation, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17046350)
* scientists in America. I want to do a little bit more reading into what Naturphilosophie was because some people say that pubic reception of that theory, although it was later proven false by Darwins, influenced public reception to the theory of evolution.
Gabby,
I really enjoyed your post. You’re certainly right to point to the forced contradictions here. In thinking of Darwin’s life, it’s interesting to think of his family. Darwin’s family tree is full of scholars. Erasmus Darwin was his grandfather. Erasmus was a poet and doctor deeply interested in natural history. Charles Darwin must have grown up with these intellectual influences.
Wow Gabby, your post is incredible! I loved how you highlighted the contradictions during this time period. I can definitely say that we still face those same problems now with religion trying to disprove scientific discoveries and scientific discoveries trying to disprove religion. I also love how you describe what may have impacted Darwin
Thank you K. Scott! I will definitely look into Darwin’s family tree. That’s really interesting! I know Charles Darwin also studied some medicine.
Thank you Angelica! It is very nice to meet you. Yes. We still face those problems today, you’re very right about that, I think you’ll really enjoy the link to the Darwin documentary that I posted.
Gabby,
You should check out the geological research of the time too, particularly the works of Hutton and Lyell. The concept of “deep time” or deep geological history started to gain popularity around this time. This geological work informed a lot of Darwin’s conclusions as well.
While you’re right to mention that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, deep time (dating the earth as billions of years old) seems to me a far greater challenge to traditional religious views. At this time there were scholars who were dating the earth as only a few thousand years old, using the Bible to create a timeline.
Great point, K Scott!
I read about deep time for a geology class I took with Professor Falero at MiracCosta. It still just blows my mind to think about how old the earth really is! That’s a very valid point you make. It is indeed a much greater challenge to reconcile deep time with traditional religious views. I want to find the Victorian response to “deep time’’.
The Bible explains that God created the mountains, oceans, and rivers all in a few days— not over the course of hundreds of millions of years. I know a few religious scientists who read “the few days” as a metaphor and see the whole bible as a metaphor. One of my former Judaic studies teachers, who is also a scientist, interprets the creation story of the earth through the lens that hundreds of thousands of years could’ve passed in a “bible day”