Late-Victorian England was a society searching for solutions. Beset by profound problems and economic and social upheaval, answers were needed. Stale tradition had failed. Supernatural excuses for natural phenomenon were becoming openly ridiculed, but without rational foundation. What was needed was a 'sensible' alternative that could explain life without God's intrusion. An explanation for man's existence. What they got was Darwinism. What they got was a new religion, one where man's raison d'être was not an Adam created in the image of God, but a puddle-shaped amoeba. It sounded like a viable option. But was Darwinism so viable as to be responsible for the subsequent slide into unbelief? I suggest that though it wasn't solely responsible, it did play a central role in the undermining of religion by scientific naturalism.

To clarify the point of this article, a brief outline and explanation is required. Darwinism refers to the ideas proposed by Charles Darwin in his published works. For the purpose of the article, I will only consider the period which runs from the 1860s, (the period immediately after the appearance of the Origin of the Species) to early this century. Essentially, this piece attempts to answer the question, were the ideas of Darwin responsible for the decline in belief in God, and Christianity, from the late-1800s on?

Prior to the arrival of 'Origin of the Species' in November 1859, a growing number of intellectuals had been suggesting unorthodox scientific theories. Immanuel Kant, the great German philosopher, had proposed the theory of cosmic evolution. He had considered applying the same idea to the organic world, but shrank from it, fearing the inevitable furor. Almost simultaneously, Comte de Buffon questioned the age and structure of the earth. After conducting his study, he concluded the earth was old and had been formed gradually. Kant's fear had been well justified, for de Buffon had to soon recant as church pressure become too great. At the turn of the century, the two were joined by influential naturalists who began querying the accepted order of things. Their queries found support in other disciplines such as geology. Come 1859 and the groundwork had been laid to shake the foundation of the religious world:

the initial success of the Origin can be attributed to its perfect adaptation to the environment at the particular time at which it appeared. The time was right, the ground had been prepared in innumerable ways.¹

The seventeenth-century scientific revolution sparked by Copernicus was the root of the nature of the new thought. Many of the practical problems facing England were being solved through scientific means. Public health campaigns, the drive for agricultural efficiency and the necessity of meeting German industrial competition closely tied science to everyday life and the concerns of business. Science was constantly taking on greater significance. It was really only a matter of time before science would challenge Christianity for religious supremacy.

Darwin's theories as expounded primarily in 'Origin of the Species' and 'The Descent of Man', hit like a T-rex playing hopscotch in an amoeba colony. Though the reaction was very mixed, few were dispassionate. Some rejected it outright as heretical such as the Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce. Others accepted it with equal ferocity, some of whom would further the Darwinist cause almost more than Darwin himself. Men such as Thomas Huxley, Darwin's notorious 'bulldog', and Herbert Spencer. Yet others didn't know what to think and left the decision-making to more interested minds. Whatever Joe Bloe thought of Darwin's theories, almost all would have agreed it was exciting.

The force of Darwin's message was intensified by the impeccable accuracy found in the detailing of his evidence. He hadn't just proposed something heretical. It was a radical proposal with apparent substance and empirical data to endorse it. His case seemed formidable.

At first, many saw the debate between Darwinism and the religious establishment as a straightforward battle between progressive theory and traditional theological doctrine. In 1860, Huxley came face to face with the Bishop of Oxford. The confrontation became legendary, exemplifying this perceived struggle. Many saw Huxley's victory over Wilberforce as the emancipation of science from the shackles of oppressive religion. One exchange between the two truly resounded throughout England and represented the blow opponents of Darwinism were suffering:

Referring to the ideas of Darwin, who was absent on account of illness, he (Wilberforce) congratulated himself in a public speech that he was not descended from a monkey. The reply came from Huxley, who said in substance: 'If I had to choose, I would prefer to be a descendant of a humble monkey rather than of a man who employs his knowledge and eloquence in misrepresenting those who are wearing out their lives in the search for truth.'²

This failure of religious opponents to Darwinism to crush the theory and its disciples had a profound impact upon later developments. Competent opposition to Darwin was either shy or non-existent. As such, the public credibility of Darwinism became ever greater. Further damage was caused by the split amongst church leaders, some of whom actively supported Darwin and others who declared him a heretic. What was the public to believe? While the intellectual's arguments echoed in academic chambers, the masses were left to believe whoever made the most effort in convincing them. It is quite possible that without Huxley, Darwinism would never have had the same effect upon society:

In the course of the 1860s, the efforts of Huxley and other early supporters were enough to bring about a revolution leading to the general acceptance of evolutionism. From an attitude of hostility, or at best of 'wait and see', the majority of biologists were converted to open support for the basic idea that new species originated from old ones by a process of transmutation. The 'Origin of the Species' had clearly played a major role in precipitating this change, and many evolutionists chose to call themselves 'Darwinians' or 'Darwinists' in acknowledgment of the fact that Darwin had led them to confront this new area of biology.³

Huxley's almost fanatical zeal in promoting the cause of evolution could have only one outcome. Had the anti-evolutionist camp matched his zeal and ferocity in a conclusive and authoritative exposure of Darwinism, it is doubtful it would have gained as much support. However, there was no such opposition. The evolutionary movement continued to make large inroads, first into the scientific and then into other academic communities. Then, too, followed the trickle-down from these circles to the masses.

Within the church, acceptance, or at least accommodation, of Darwinism was becoming widespread. The belief was growing that the Bible was really an allegory containing good morals spiced with inspirational tales of great men and women. One could pick and choose what to accept or discard from the Good Book. This was nothing less than a turning down Unbelief Alley. Scientific naturalism (with Darwinism at its centre) was the signpost directing the traffic. People were beginning to put their faith into an explanation of creation rather than the Being who created it all. The highpoint of religious acceptance (at least in the Church of England) of evolution came in 1896 when Frederick Temple, Headmaster of Rugby, a well-known supporter of evolution and the scientific method, was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. He and F. R. Tennant later wrote various works attempting to completely re-explain Christianity in evolutionary terms.

Darwinism's effect upon Victorian society can also be traced through the literature of the period. Following the appearance of the Origin in 1859, popular literature, as well as critical essays and poetry, began to question the established order of society. There were challenges to the infallibility of the church. Exploration of deviations became more common and the darker side of early-Victorian times was being highlighted more often. Charles Dickens poked fun at Victorian conceit and smugness as represented by Mr. Podsnap in Our Mutual Friend. John Ruskin and Matthew Arnold questioned much of the pride and prejudice of the age. Essays and Reviews, a review of fundamental religious questions by a number of liberal thinkers caused huge controversy in 1860. The mood was definitely shifting. It was no coincidence that such a 'mood swing' came so soon after Darwin's works were published and had achieved a significant level of acceptance. Huxley, too, noted the changing climate:

Darwin's disciple, Thomas Huxley, an influential popularizer of science had noted during the 1870s that everything was in question – opinions, institutions and conventions – and the questioning thereafter never stopped ... The writers of the last decades of the 19th century included iconoclasts like George Bernard Shaw and deviants like Oscar Wilde. For both, as for many others like them, all that was 'established was now suspect.' Some commentators wrote of a general revolt against the accepted canons.⁴

Wordsmiths weren't the only ones getting in on the Darwinist act, so were many political, social and even economic theorists. Karl Marx and Adam Smith both adapted Darwin's theories of survival of the fittest (adopted later by Hitler and other tyrannical Frankensteins) and natural selection to their socio-political and economic concepts. Others recognised in the survival of the fittest theory, a rational explanation for social hierarchies and the conflict inherent in and between societies:

in England and other countries, Darwin was quoted by socialists in support of socialism: if the struggle for existence led to the survival of the fittest or the supremacy of the superior, then all must start out with equal opportunities.⁵

How does this relate to a slide into belief? This adaption of Darwin's ideas to these various fields of thought doesn't constitute a decline in belief in God does it? Yes, it does. The key point to recognise here, is that no longer was man's mind looking to God for explanations, but to man and his earthly environment. The outlook was becoming humanistic. In all spheres of life, God was slowly being eliminated from the picture until He became an object of nostalgic sentimentality. The sweet little bubby in a manger. Unbelief was the only possible result.

To illustrate what happened and Darwin's role, imagine society as a sheet of paper. Iron filings are scattered across it. Each filing represents a viewpoint which might question accepted beliefs and/or challenge established Christianity. These filings might be clustered into disciplinary and/or cultural groups such as geologists, biologists, philosophers, political theorists, theologians, socialists, poets etc. Before 1859 they remained scattered, lacking a common point of reference, or foundation. They required a rational explanation outside of the Bible.

November 1859 witnessed the arrival of a magnet for the filings. Origin gave the Minds what they needed. In the decades that followed, filings jumped onto the magnetic bobsled and slid their way down towards a humanistic outlook on life. Each group incorporated in their ideas something from Darwinism. Anthropologists saw survival of the fittest and natural selection as the explanation for 'superior' races. Socialists saw society as an organism. Laissez-faire economists used the survival of the fittest concept as a method of operating the economy most efficiently.

Darwin in his Beagle had sailed away with the imaginations of millions who were disenchanted with traditional religious institutions. By the time his theories came into port, society at large was already on the docks waiting for something tangible to free them from what they saw as religious oppression. The church had failed. Economic collapse, social problems brought on by industrialisation and a belief in science's potential to solve all, had driven society to a point where they were ready to accept beliefs outside of Christianity. It was Darwin who obliged them.