Angelina Lanza
18 March 2025
During the Victorian era, scientific discoveries challenged long-standing religious beliefs, sparking intense debates about the origins of life. Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species and The Descent of Man introduced the revolutionary concept of evolution through natural selection, suggesting that species, including humans, evolved over time rather than being divinely created in their current forms. While some embraced Darwin’s ideas as a triumph of science, others viewed them as a direct threat to religious doctrine. Among the most vocal figures in this debate were Thomas Huxley and Edmund Gosse. Huxley, often called “Darwin’s Bulldog,” (Damrosch & Dettmar 1313) staunchly defended evolution, arguing that empirical evidence supported Darwin’s claims. In contrast, Gosse, influenced by his deeply religious upbringing, grappled with the tension between scientific progress and faith, offering a more skeptical perspective on Darwin’s theories. Their works demonstrate contrasting responses to Darwin’s evolutionary theories and their arguments reflect the broader Victorian struggle between scientific progress and theological tradition.
Charles Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection, presented in Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871), reshaped the scientific understanding of life and human origins. In Origin of Species, Darwin introduced the concept of natural selection, arguing that species gradually evolve over time as those with advantageous traits survive and reproduce. He explains, “...as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species or with the physical conditions of life” (Darwin 1274) highlighting the competitive nature of survival, where only the fittest organisms pass on their traits to future progenies. Darwin ends Origin of Species with “the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply” (Darwin 1277), further alluding to the idea that only the “fittest” can thrive and survive. In The Descent of Man, Darwin extended his theory to humans, suggesting that mankind evolved from common ancestors shared with primates. He challenges the belief in divine creation, stating, “He who is not content to look, like a savage, at the phenomena of nature as disconnected, cannot any longer believe that man is the work of a separate act of creation. He will be forced to admit that the close resemblance of the embryo of man to that, for instance, of a dog...” (Darwin 1277). Here, Darwin emphasizes the conspicuous similarities between human and animal embryos as evidence of a shared evolutionary past, undermining the idea that humans were uniquely created apart from other species. These radical ideas ignited controversy in Victorian society, dividing intellectuals, scientists, and theologians over the implications of evolution for humanity’s place in the natural world.
Thomas Huxley, one of Darwin’s most vocal supporters, defended the theory of evolution by emphasizing its scientific basis and rejecting the notion of divine intervention in natural processes. Huxley “built on Darwinian ideas, arguing that although mankind is the natural product
of evolutionary forces, we are inescapably at war with nature” (Damrosch & Dettmar 1313), following Darwin’s concept of “survival of the fittest.” In Evolution and Ethics, he argues, “As a natural process ... evolution excludes creation and all other kinds of supernatural intervention” (Huxley 1314). By using the word “natural” Huxley reinforces the idea that evolution is an inherent process of Earth, governed by observable laws rather than divine influence. His statement directly challenges religious perspectives that attribute the origin of species to a supernatural creator. Huxley further acknowledges the ongoing struggle for survival within nature, aligning with Darwin’s argument. He states, “supposing this course of conduct to be scientifically determined and carefully followed out, it cannot put an end to the struggle for existence in the state of nature; and it will not so much as tend, in any way, to the adaptation of man to that state” (Huxley 1316) reinforcing Darwin’s principle that life is defined by competition and adaptation, suggesting that human efforts cannot eliminate this struggle. Huxley further implies that humans, like all species, are bound by the same evolutionary forces. His defense of evolution highlights the growing divide in Victorian society between scientific reasoning and religious tradition, positioning him as one of Darwin’s strongest allies in legitimizing the theory of evolutionary.
Edmund Gosse’s rejection of Darwin’s theories was deeply influenced by his strict religious upbringing, which shaped his perception of science and faith. Raised in an Evangelical household, Gosse was taught that storytelling and fictional narratives were sinful, as his mother believed that “to tell a story ... to compose fictitious narrative of any kind, was a sin” (Gosse 1317). This rigid perspective extended to his education, which omitted fairy tales and supernatural elements, resembling the ideology of Mr. Gradgrind in Hard Times (1854) by Charles Dickens. His father, a devoted member of an Evangelical sect, reinforced these beliefs, leading Gosse to struggle with the concept of faith. Despite his strict upbringing, he began to question religious doctrine, referring to the “mysterious question of prayer” (Gosse 1318). His doubts were further amplified when he inquired about idolatry, a sin his father condemned. Gosse tested this by placing a chair on a table, praying to it as “O Chair!” and waiting for divine punishment. When nothing happened, he concluded, “I had committed idolatry, flagrantly and deliberately, and God did not care” (Gosse 1319). This moment of defiance highlights his inner conflict—while he intellectually questioned his faith, he still clung to the religious framework instilled by his parents. His father’s rejection of Darwin’s theory was a defining moment in Gosse’s life, as he later admitted, “My Father’s attitude towards the theory of natural selection was critical in his career, and, oddly enough, it exercised an immense influence on my own experience as a child” (Gosse 1320). This influence led him to make one of the most infamous claims against Darwinism: “God hid the fossils in the rocks in order to tempt geologists into infidelity” (Gosse 1321). His argument, while rooted in faith, was widely ridiculed by both scientists and theologians alike, illustrating “the desperate lengths to which some were willing to go to refute Darwin’s theories” (Damrosch & Dettmar 1317). Ultimately, despite his intellectual curiosity, Gosse’s upbringing prevented him from fully embracing scientific reasoning, making his rejection of Darwinism deeply personal and ultimately flawed.
The debate between science and religion is often framed as a battle between reason and faith, but I believe the two can coexist in harmony. In Thor, the titular character tells his love interest, Jane, “Your ancestors called it magic, and you call it science. Well, I come from a place where they’re one and the same thing” (Thor 1:14:08). This sentiment helped me find my own perspective: what once seemed mystical or divine is often explained through science, yet that does not diminish its wonder. Darwin’s theory of evolution transformed our understanding of life, revealing the intricate mechanisms that shape species over time. Huxley built upon this, arguing that evolution is a natural process, devoid of supernatural intervention. While his view was rigidly secular, it underscores the idea that life is constantly adapting and evolving—something that, to me, does not contradict the presence of a higher force. Gosse, on the other hand, exemplifies the struggle of reconciling faith with science, clinging to the idea that divine intervention must explain nature’s mysteries. His resistance highlights how deeply personal belief systems shape our interpretations of truth. Unlike Gosse, I do not see faith as an obstacle to scientific understanding, nor do I see science as a threat to spirituality. Instead, I embrace the idea that they are two sides of the same coin—one explaining the how, the other offering meaning to the why. Just as Thor suggests, science and faith are not opposing forces, but rather different ways of perceiving the same reality.
The clash between science and religion during the Victorian era reflects a broader human struggle to understand existence, yet it does not have to be a battle of absolutes. Darwin’s theories of evolution provided a groundbreaking explanation for the development of life, while Huxley championed empirical reasoning as the foundation of knowledge. Conversely, Gosse’s resistance to scientific progress highlights the difficulty of reconciling faith with new discoveries. However, in my opinion, science and faith do not have to be opposing forces; rather, they can be different lenses through which we interpret the world. Just as our ancestors once saw magic where we now see science, what may seem irreconcilable today might one day be understood as two parts of a greater truth. In this way, evolution and faith, logic and wonder, can exist not in conflict, but in tandem—each enriching our understanding of life’s complexity and beauty.
References
Damrosch, David, and Kevin J. H. Dettmar. The Longman Anthology of British Literature. Longman : Imprint of Pearson, 2010, p. 1272-1321.