A Quintessential Clergyman-Scientist? George Henslow, Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, and Nineteenth-Century Science

In his groundbreaking book on history of science, John Hedley Brooke argued that best way to understand stories such as Galileo's supposed run-in with church was to think of these narratives as complex. Galileo's difficulties should not be reduced to a science versus religion controversy nor - a more likely but even more egregious case of misrepresentation - a story of progressives versus conservatives and reactionaries. Historians such as James Moore, Ronald Numbers, Jon Roberts, and David Livingstone have further argued that detail, nuance, and context are vital in order to understand better other history of science developments such as reception of Charles ideas, particularly among Christian churches.2 These admonitions are particularly relevant in anniversary years. The two-hundredth anniversary of birth and 150th anniversary of publication of On Origin of Species has been recognized and celebrated in academic conferences, exhibitions, new books, television documentaries, and even a feature film. The Times (London) had Darwin in a list of most influential people - not a surprise - and in trendy London magazine The Short List, stand-up comedian Robin Ince revealed the boffins he really rates and included Darwin as number seven on his list of inspirational scientists. Perhaps Ince's imprimatur is further proof that Darwin deserves his place as one of faces of British ten-pound note.J The British zoologist Julian Huxley described end of nineteenth century as the eclipse of Darwinism with regard to history of theory of evolution,6 but historians of early twenty-first century may have to write about the triumph of Darwinism. Given that more Darwin anniversaries are in not-too-distant future - 150th anniversary of meeting of British Association for Advancement of Science at Oxford during which Thomas Huxley had his supposed showdown with Bishop Samuel Wilberforce being nearest - a reassessment of reception of ideas is a worthwhile exercise. Furthermore, taking advice to search for complexity or detail, a closer examination of thinking of numerous men and women constituted first generations of readers of On Origin of Species reveals something of process by which a scientific idea such as theory of evolution can become orthodoxy in scientific community and then society at large. Following such a process is important because anniversaries can occlude rather than reveal. Admiration for genius of Darwin can result in a forgetting of those scientists and popularizers were principally responsible for dissemination of ideas. Or, more likely, significance of theory of evolution - best described as descent by modification through natural selection - results in less discussion of weaknesses and difficulties of theory. In fact, as Darwin was fully cognizant of problems with his theory - and, naturally, did not believe them to be insurmountable - it seems sensible for his future readers to be aware of them also. If there is a reason why a modified version of theory of evolution has become, in twenty-first century, explanation for origin of life, there must also be a reason why that theory seemed to be in terminal decline at end of nineteenth. For students of Church of England's history, generation of Anglican priests, scientists, and literati lived and worked in last three decades of nineteenth century and first two decades of twentieth is, in one sense, more interesting than Darwin's generation. First, to steal an idea from Bible, they were pharaohs who knew not Joseph. They were alive during tempest which surrounded initial publication of On Origin of Species but were too young to participate in it as central protagonists. …