early responses to darwinism in australia

8/3/2019 Early responses to Darwinism in Australia

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/early-responses-to-darwinism-in-australia 1/26

Abstract

Science and Christianity have a long and complex history, the complexities of

which are lost by the reductionist views advocated by spokespeople from the

extremes. These extreme positions, in particular the so-called “New Atheists”

and the “Creation Science movement,” seek to polarise two intellectual camps

suggesting an irreconcilable conflict between theology and science. These

camps represent the logical conclusions of two responses to the scientific

discoveries of the 19th century.

This conflict was the production of Britain’s Thomas Huxley, in his fierce

response to the publication Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species , Huxley saw

the new science as an opportunity to make naturalism an intellectually

tenable position.

It finds that the Australian response to Darwinism was heavily influenced by

its colonial links to Europe, rather than to the response in the United States,

and demonstrates that initial responses to Darwinian science from the

Christian church in Australia and Europe, took the form of a cautious

welcome, based on a view of science as Natural Theology.



Introduction: Science, Christianity and Darwinism

Before Darwin published his seminal work, The Origin of the Species (Origin),

in 1859, the idea that science could provide any intellectual defense for the

atheistic philosophy was intellectually absurd. William Paley’s “Watchmaker

Analogy” was the philosophy underpinning an inductive, Baconian,

approach to science.1

Just a year after publication, Origin became a tool for those arguing for

philosophical naturalism. Thomas Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce publically

debated Paley’s watchmaker analogy, and the rationality of religious belief in

the light of Darwin’s natural selection.2 Huxley boldly declared that science

and theology were necessarily in conflict.3

Once the ripples within the scientific community had settled, the initial

international Christian response to Origin was a cautious welcome.

Churchmen in the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (US), and

Australia largely held a sympathetic view to scientific findings, treating them

as a category of natural revelation, but were concerned to fight against any

use of this new finding to bolster modernism’s anti-supernatural bent. This

1 Where design was assumed, and science was understood as a revealer of thenecessity and complexity of design involved in creation , for the description of theanalogy, see W. Paley, Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, (London, J Faulder, 1809), 1-52 G.M Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, (New York, OxfordUniversity Press, 2006), 177 , Huxley’s use of Darwinian Evolutionary theory as a scientificargument against Christianity has been seized on by modern atheist apologists, R. Dawkins,The Blind Watchmaker: Why the evidence of Evolution reveals a universe without design , (New York,W.W Norton, 1986, 2010 edition), 6, Dawkins famously claims Darwinian theory “made itpossibly to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” 3 G.M Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 178-179, while this positionhas been the adopted by some quarters of the church, this was, in the main, a 20 th century

development – the 19th

century church viewed science as a stream of natural theology,though, this, in part was because the scientific method had been inductive and based onBiblical assumptions.



international response then took divergent paths in Europe and the United

States, with Australia’s response driven by the colony’s links to the mother

country. Australia’s British trained clergy, and a stream of itinerant preachers

and philosophers who made the journey to the antipodes, defined the

Australian view of this new science. We will explore the nature of the

response to Darwinism in Australia, and in the nation’s churches.

Debates about Darwinism within Australia initially took place amongst the

intellectual elite (including the clergy), so initially had little bearing on the

views of the common man. Australia was not an overwhelmingly “Christian”

nation until the turn of the 20th century, and at that point a laissez-faire

approach to the question of Darwin was the norm within the Australian

church, which, as a rule, was disinterested in the eschatology driven literalism

that typified the emerging American response, which took the form of

Christian Fundamentalism. This initial disinterest explains fundamentalism’s

relatively small foothold in the Australian scene, and a relatively high degree

of scientific literacy in the Australian population today.

We conclude that adopting a natural theology treatment of Darwinism led to

a lack of critical engagement with certain Darwinian baggage. Perhaps the

most damaging effect of this compliance came in the form of social

Darwinism, and the application of unnatural selection to the nation’s

Indigenous population.



Darwinism and Christianity: An International Conversation

The Christian response to Darwinism occurred as an international

conversation, and the 1873 Evangelical Alliance Conference (EAC) in the US,

billed as “a meeting of universal Christendom,” 4 was a turning point, which

marked the divergent approach in Europe and the US. It featured Scottish

Philosopher James McCosh, arguing to endorse natural theology via common

sense rationalism.5 George Weldon, an Englishman, was less optimistic about

automatic synergy between Scripture and Science, particularly Darwinism,

arguing that Scripture is the ultimate rule.6 Other delegates were not

concerned about Darwinism per se, but rather concerned that Paley’s

watchmaker remained unchallenged. 7 The result was that Darwinian

evolution could only be understood as the description of the acts of God.8

This view was popular in Europe, which set the tone for the Australian

response. Before assessing the European impact on the Australian church, we

will briefly examine the divergent view established in the US.

Darwinism in America: The rise of Fundamentalism and Inductive Science

4 ‘The Evangelical Alliance – The General Conference in 1873,’ New York Times, Nov 13, 1872,retrieved online Nov 2011,http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D16FE3D5F1A7493C1A8178AD95F468784F9 5 G.M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 17, McCosh believed the findings of science, were consistent with Scripture. He said, “both reveal order in the world, the one appointedby God, the other discovered by man.” McCosh maintained this position in a published lecture hegave in 1887, J. McCosh, The Religious Aspect of Evolution , The Bedell Lectures, (New York,Putnam’s Sons: The Knickerbocker Press, 1888), 77-806 G.M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 17-18, Weldon argued that rather than

being completely consistent, conflict between our understanding of special and generalrevelation is possible. He was especially worried about an incompatibility between theaccount of man’s emergence from primeval matter, and the Genesis account.7 G.M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 18-19, It was not Darwinian evolution,or the age of the earth that worried them. In fact, many spoke in favour of an old earth view,

held that the Hebrew in Genesis allowed the possibility of long periods of time, and saw thisas consistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith.8 G.M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 19



A year after the EAC, Charles Hodge, an attendee, produced What is

Darwinism , declaring, “Darwinism is atheism.” Hodge anticipated modernism’s

use of the scientific method, and the inevitable pairing of Darwinian

evolution and naturalism,9 which formed the basis of Christian reactions to

Darwinism in America.10

Three years after the EAC, D.L Moody launched his revivalist movement.11

Moody believed evolution was an atheistic teaching, because his premillenial

eschatology shaped both his anthropology, and his hermeneutical approach

to Scripture.12

With the rise of modernity at the turn of the 20th century, B.B Warfield

championed a return to a “Baconian,” deductive approach to scientific

9 Hodge’s objections were not based on Darwin’s views on the age of the earth, or naturalselection, D.N Livingstone, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders , (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1984),100-104, indeed, some Calvinists, like George Frederick Wright saw Darwinism as Calvinismapplied to nature, or 103-104, because of evolutionary theory, see also, G.M Marsden,Fundamentalism and American Culture, 30-31, citing C. Hodge, What is Darwinism? (New York,Scribeners, 1874), Marsden demonstrates that Hodge’s problem was not with the concept of evolution, but evolution without the designer, and G. Marsden, Fundamentalism and AmericanCulture , 116, Modernity was essentially a new movement in modern science where Bacon’sknowledge based on observation was replaced with testing based on hypotheses. 10 This opposition to naturalistic philosophy and Darwinian evolution’s inevitable pairingwith naturalistic philosophy, carried through to the publication of The Fundamentals in theearly 20th century. G. F. Wright, ‘The Passing of Evolution,’ The Fundamentals, Vol VII,retrieved 13 Sept 2011,http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=16&contentID=4590&commInfo=20&topic=The%20Fundamentals , “The worst foes of Christianity are notphysicists but metaphysicians. Hume is more dangerous than Darwin… the fatalism of thephilosophers is more to he dreaded than the materialism of any scientific men… Christianity, being areligion of fact and history, is a free-born son in the family of the inductive sciences, and is notspecially hampered by the paradoxes inevitably connected with all attempts to give expression toultimate conceptions of truth.” 11 G.M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 30-33, Moody was not disinterested incontroversial topics, but was much more interested in gospel work. He said: “Couldn’t they[the critics] agree to a truce, and for ten years bring no fresh views, just let us get on with the practicalwork of the kingdom.”12 G.M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 35-38, his literal interpretation of

eschatological passages led him to premillenialism, and his calamitous view of the end times,typified by humanity’s descent in to chaos, rather than gradual positive development, led to arejection of evolutionary theory.



knowledge.13 Warfield was carefully accommodating of evolutionary theory,

but at the end of World War 1, the church in the US was divided over a literal

Young Earth view of Genesis, and an accommodation of Darwinism. 14

American fundamentalism emerged as a combination of these positions.15 It

involved a rejection of modernist epistemology,16 and a literal reading of

Scripture as the basis of deductive knowledge.17 By the 1920s this

methodology included a reliance on the common sense realism advocated at

the EAC, though this realism was based on a literal interpretation of

13 G.M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture , 116, “In other words, are the facts that arepermitted to occur in the universe to be determined by our precedently conceived world-view, or is ourworld view to be determined by a due consideration of all the facts that occur in the universe.” 14

T. Frame, 160-162, also, G.M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture , 122, Theauthors of the Fundamentals were also divide on the issue, an anonymous essay titled “Viewfrom the Pew,” condemned evolution, while Wright and J.Orr were willing to accommodatean evolutionary account of human origins, as a divine mechanism.15 G.M Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,1991), 180 defines fundamentalism as “a loose, diverse and changing federation of co-belligerentsunited by their fierce opposition to modernist attempts to bring Christianity in line with modernthought.” 16 G.M Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 180, Particularly the use of science as a philosophical weapon through the conflating of naturalism and modernity, butalso the application of evolutionary theory to social structures, this was particularly true of later opposition, see, G.M Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 173-175,who details William Jennings Bryan’s opposition to the social structures created byevolutionary theory in the 1920s, “evolutionary social views led to social Darwinism and hence toanti-progressive politics and glorification of war.” Bryan saw no room for compromise.17 G.M Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 55-57, 60, 180, Inerrancyemerged as a factor in 1887, as the church responded to the challenges of modernism, and theconflation of modernism and naturalism. In 1895, Arthur Pierson began the process of rejecting modernism by suggesting natural law must be deducted from the Biblical evidence,rather than through the testing of scientific hypothesis, advocating a return to a Baconiansystem: “I like Biblical Theology that does not start with the superficial Aristotelian method of reason,that does not begin with an hypothesis, and then wrap the facts and the philosophy to fit the crook of our dogma, but a Baconian system, which first gathers the teachings of the word of God, and then seeksto deduce some general law upon which the facts can be arranged.” At 60, Dispensationalism was

based on a literal reading, which became the method of deduction



Scripture,18 this became the dominant view in America, so that the teaching of

evolution was essentially banned in public schools.19

Fundamentalism, Darwinism, and deductive Natural Theology in Europe

and Australia

Concerns about the epistemic claims of modernity, and the links drawn

between Darwinism and naturalistic atheism, were not limited to the US.20

However, fundamentalism was, in a sense, a uniquely American response.21

Britain was initially supportive of the Fundamentalist movement, with a

quarter of The Fundamentals written by British authors.22 But different

historical and social factors at play in Europe and the US led to a rapid

divergence. Unlike their European Counterparts, who shared the historic

scars of the Reformation, the US Church was deliberately protestant,

committed to the principle of Sola Scriptura , and unattached to church

traditions.23 The American church typically emphasised rational decision-

making, broken from the past, and based on common sense realism, and

inductive reasoning from Scriptural truths.24 European intellectuals were

committed to romanticism, and recognised an incremental, natural

18 G.M Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 188-194, in 1921, J.GMachen championed an approach to knowledge that was anti-modernist (in that it allowedfor the supernatural), he started with the assumption that the claims of the Bible could (andshould) be taken at face value, and that this hypothesis is the best explanation of the facts.This “face value” reading was said to be the common sense approach to a text.19 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia, 164-170, the Scopes Trial in1925 set the legal precedent on the issue, and fused with Ellen White’s flood theory, becamethe basis of the Creation science movement which reached full steam in the 1960s.20 They had been at the heart of European responses to evolution, exemplified in the Huxley-Wilberforce debate, and this naturalistic ideology, championed by Huxley and Tyndall,spread through Europe, and to Australia, see B.W Butcher, ‘Darwin Downunder: science,religion, and evolution in Australia,’ 42-4321 G.M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture , (New York, Oxford University Press,2006), 22122

G.M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 22223 G.M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 225-22624 G.M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 227



development of history, prior to Darwin.25 The enlightenment commitment to

inductive reasoning gave way to a deductive approach,26 and natural

theology based on the observation of process,27 which allowed the European

church to accommodate Darwinism.28

The Mother Country, and Darwin’s adaptation to Australia

Australians had Darwin’s Origin of the Species just months after its European

release, 29 and while the initial responses from the scientific and Christian

communities were skeptical of this new thinking,30 Australian scientists (often

clergymen) were quick on the uptake, applying Darwinian science to other

natural fields, including botany,31 and geology,32 and then to social

25 G.M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 226-227, Romanticism idealised thenatural man, the unity between man and nature, it was big on process, and cause and effect –evolution was basically replacing a rigid, mechanical, rational view of the world.26

D.W. Bebbington, ‘Science and Evangelical Theology in Great Britain,’ Evangelicals andScience in Historical Perspective, Ed. D.N Livingstone, D.G Hart, M.A Noll, (Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press, 1999), 124-126, So, for example, Christians committed to romanticism, like

John Wesley, idealised Newton for his explanation of mechanical natural laws, and sawinductive reasoning as safe, but this gradually gave way to the view that imaginativehypotheses and deduction were essential for developing knowledge.27 D.W. Bebbington, ‘Science and Evangelical Theology in Great Britain,’ 126-13028 D.W. Bebbington, ‘Science and Evangelical Theology in Great Britain,’ 132-13529 B.W Butcher, ‘Darwin Downunder: science, religion, and evolution in Australia,’Disseminating Darwinism: The Role of Place, Race, Religion and Gender , ed. R.L Numbers, J.Stenhouse, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999), 3930 B.W Butcher, ‘Darwin Downunder: science, religion, and evolution in Australia,’ 39, 44, Inthe 1860s a Catholic Priest named John Beasdale called evolution a “Swindle” fit for “the half educated intellect fashioned in mechanics institutes.” T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes: CharlesDarwin and Australia, 112, in 1860, Charles Perry, an Anglican clergyman, who later becomesBishop of Melbourne, speaks against Darwinism on the basis that the book of Genesis isproved by geology, he argued that fossil evidence doesn’t support Darwinism. On theresponse of the scientific community in England see, 'Origin of the Species,' The Argus (Melbourne, Vic), Monday 30 December 1861, page 7, National Library of Australia, Trove,http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5707507 , retrieved Nov 2011, a review of adiscussion regarding the publication of the Origin of the Species in a meeting of the BritishAssociation of Science31 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 94-95 , Australian Botanist Robert Fitzgerald appliedDarwin’s botanical observations to the study of orchids, and won Darwin’s approval, B.WButcher, ‘Darwin Downunder,’ 40, suggests Fitzgerald’s work was a tour de force, which didmuch to establish Australia’s rapid adoption of Darwinism between 1875 and 1885.32 L. Aldridge, The Australian Religious Reaction to The Origin of Species,’ Centre for Public

Christianity, retrieved 13 Sept 2011, http://publicchristianity.org/library/the-australian-religious-reaction-the-the-origin-of-species , also T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes: CharlesDarwin and Australia, 109-110



structures.33 Australian churchmen were generalists, they were university

trained in England, and conversant with biology, geology and botany, and as

such, were influenced by the response to Darwinism in their ancestral home.34

For example, Anglican clergyman William Clarke was an English born

geologist, who held to the view that science and religion were not in conflict.35

In 1860, he worked with Darwin to expand his geological horizons, and was

mentioned in the 3rd edition of The Origin of the Species.36

The connections with the mother country, especially in Victoria, were still

strong.37 Marcus Clarke, an intellectual and atheist, who migrated from

London as a young man,38 adopted Huxley’s view of the conflict between

faith and science, and wrote passionately to establish science as the basis of

modern social structures.39 His views found some support from Justice

Higinbotham, an Irishman who emigrated as a 27 year old in 1853,40

Higinbotham was invited by Presbyterian minister Charles Strong, to deliver

a controversial 1883 lecture titled Science and Religion.41 Strong was already on

the outer with the denomination for his views, and Higinbotham’s

33 B.W Butcher, ‘Darwin Downunder: science, religion, and evolution in Australia,’ 4334 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia, 109, B.W Butcher, ‘DarwinDownunder,’ 4035 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia, 111-112, A. Mozley,'Clarke, William Branwhite (1798–1878)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University , http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/clarke-william-

branwhite-3228/text4865 , retrieved November 2011.36 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia, 11237 C. W. Dilke, Problems of Greater Britain (London: Macmillan Company, 1890), Questia, Web,28 Nov. 2011, 155, In 1868 a third of the population of Victoria was British Born, and a thirdAustralian born – though in many cases these were the children of the British ex-pats.38 C. W. Dilke, Problems of Greater Britain , 154, Marcus Clarke was an author of some repute in

both England and Australia.39 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia, 115, cites M.A.H Clarke,‘Civilisation without Delusion,’ “The measure of people’s knowledge is the measure of people’sreligion. Educate your children to understand the discoveries of Tyndall, Huxley, and Darwin, and

you will find them pleasantly laughing at the old fables of Jonah, Balaam, and Lazarus.” 40 G. Dow, ‘Higinbotham, George (1826-1892),’ Australian Dictionary of Biography, NationalCentre of Biography, Australian National University ,

http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/higinbotham-george-3766 , retrieved Sept 201141 I. Breward, Australia: “The Most Godless Place Under Heaven?” , (Adelaide, LutheranPublishing House, 1988, 2nd Edition), 34



presentation precipitated his downfall.42 Higinbotham believed an intellectual

gap had emerged between the church leaders and the educated laity, and that

the church should embrace the truths of science.43 He promoted a deistic,

heterodox version of Christianity.44 His presentation provoked a heated

debate, winning over the intellectual set.45

Darwinism in the Churches

The public debate was echoed within Australia’s churches, 46 as Huxley’s

aggressive use of Darwinism challenged protestant views.47 The Australian

42 G. Dow, ‘Higinbotham, George (1826-1892),’ Australian Dictionary of Biology, B.W Butcher,‘Darwin Downunder,’ 5143 This gap was articulated in 'Faith and Science' Empire, Friday 8 April 1870, page 4, a reviewof J.P Thompson's Man in Genesis and Geology, National Library of Australia, Trove,http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/60896629 , retrieved Nov 2011, “…at the present timemost of our Schools of Theology have no sympathy with modern scientific thought, and do not in theleast appreciate the vantage grounds it has gained. Their instruction in 'natural theology' is givenprecisely as it was twenty or thirty years ago, when Paley was the authority and as though Darwinand his school had not existed. The enemies they attack no longer exist, and the weapons they hurl fall

wide of the mark. They fight with the ghost of the past instead of the bona fide foes of today”…Regarding the physicists…"In their own field they show themselves as dogmatic and unscientific intheir modes of thought as the theologians themselves," and earlier, in 'Science and Sermons,' Letterto the Editor, The Argus (Melbourne, Vic), Tuesday 24 November 1868, page 7, NationalLibrary of Australia, Trove, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5833128 , retrieved Nov2011 44 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 11745 This was the default position of the elite for the next half-decade. A defense of Higinbotham’s address, published by H.A Dugdale, argued both that the Biblical record wasconsistent with Darwinism, and that geological and biological evidence places the humanrace at more than 200,000 years old. Further, he argued that Christianity has been responsiblefor historical nastiness, and thus deism is socially preferable, see H.A Dugdale, ‘Science andReligion,’ Judge Higinbotham’s Admirable Lecture Defended, A Reply to the Rev. A. W.Creswell, 1883, 1-8 retrieved 13 Sept 2011, http://www.nla.gov.au/apps/doview/nla.aus-vn5095301-p.pdf , “Better, far better, had the majority of humans always been deists: their historywould not that have been stained with the dreadful record of thousands burnt at the stake, or torturedto death by fiendish means for the love of Christ. When we think of the unhappiness of millions fromthat myth, the cruel doctrine of the atonement becomes more and more repugnant to the veneration andreverence born of a more evolved understanding.” 46 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia, 110,47 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia, 110, Prior to the 20th Century, the Catholic Church considered Darwinism a subset of modernity, and thusirrelevant to the practice of faith (however, in 1910, Catholics were called to swear an oathagainst modernism), Pope Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism , 1910, retrieved 13 Sept 2011,http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P10MOATH.HTM , “Furthermore, I reject theopinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should

first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about

the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret thewritings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and withthe same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.”



church followed its European counterparts, eventually adopting Darwinism

as natural theology.48

Darwinism in the Churches: Responses within Australian Denominations

a) Presbyterian Church

Presbyterian minister Robert Steel provides an individual case study of the

church’s response to Darwinism. In 1868 Steel flip-flopped between positions,

first, he rejected Darwinism because he held to a young earth view, while

simultaneously commending geologists who sought to harmonise the

creation accounts with an old earth. 49 Next, he appeared to adopt a gap theory

view, and then a day age view, where he held that Moses wrote as a prophet

rather than as a historian, while also holding that:

“There is no opposition between the truths of God in his works and the truths in his

word, Science and theology can agree together, and will be seen in a happy union

when we attain a perfect knowledge.”50

He maintained some theological concerns about Darwinism,51 though later

made it clear that belief in Darwinian theory was not incompatible with

Christianity.52 He never truly reconciled the competing streams of revelation.

48 B.W Butcher, ‘Darwin Downunder: science, religion, and evolution in Australia,’ 5549 P. Barnes, ‘Robert Steel,’ Presbyterian Leaders , 10850 P. Barnes, ‘Robert Steel,’ Presbyterian Leaders in 19th Century Australia , Ed. R.S Ward,(Maryborough, Australian Print Group, 1993), 10751 P. Barnes, ‘Robert Steel,’ Presbyterian Leaders , 108, Steel rejected a young earth viewexplicitly in his commentary on the Shorter Catechism, while saying “The Darwinianhypothesis, that man was developed from lower animals, does not account for the sinful condition of mankind.” 52

P. Barnes, ‘Robert Steel,’ 108, he said “the ranks of the evolutionists, and even of the Darwinians,as a fact, embrace believers in the most diverse systems of philosophy including many of those whoaccept Christ’s teaching as an authoritative and divine revelation.”



In 1885 he said “probably the greatest difficulties to belief in the present day arise

from the methods and results of modern science.” 53

George Grimm, a fellow Presbyterian, put forward a fundamentalist

understanding of inspiration and inerrancy, though he was prepared to

extend the days of creation to stave off criticisms from evolutionists.54 He

believed submitting to the authority of the Bible produced desirable

outcomes, while also holding that the Bible had “nothing to fear from rational

enquiry.” He, like Steel, was wary of the impact of modernity on Biblical

studies in the form of Biblical criticism.55

b) The Anglicans

In 1869, Huxley published a controversial article entitled ‘Protoplasm: The

Physical Basis of Human Life,’ which promoted scientific materialism to the

commoner. The article was controversially published in Australia as a

pamphlet,56 and the University of Melbourne censoriously refused to allow a

discussion in support of Huxley’s position, further stoking the debate.57 The

53 P. Barnes, ‘Robert Steel,’ Presbyterian Leaders , 108-109, In 1888, he criticised his friend andcolleague, James Cosh, who had adopted liberal Biblical criticism, an application of modernism to the interpretation of the Biblical text, The next year he condemned themoderator, Archibald Gilchrist, who used a moderatorial address to proclaim that evolutionand revelation were irreconcilable.54 P. Barnes, ‘George Grimm,’ Presbyterian Leaders , 11655 P. Barnes, ‘George Grimm,’ Presbyterian Leaders , 11656 'Professor Huxley's Theory of Protoplasm: Lecture by the Rev H. Higginson,' The Argus (Melbourne, Vic), Thursday 1 July 1869, page 5, National Library of Australia, Trove,retrieved Nov 2011, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5816139 , Higginson responded toHuxley's theory by bemoaning an erosion of Baconian principles, and rejecting Huxley'sattempts to fuse naturalism with Darwin's theories.57 ‘Darwin Wiped Out,’ Letter to the Editor, The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.), Tuesday 15 August1871, 7, retrieved Nov 2011, National Library of Australia, Trove,

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5853340 , this letter to the editor suggests theUniversity’s Professor of Natural Sciences would be better positioned as a Professor of Theology, after Professor McCoy refused



stage was set for the real fight, a debate on the age and origins of humanity.58

While others had fanned the flames on this issue, it was Anglican clergyman

and headmaster of Melbourne Grammar School, John Bromby, in a public

lecture titled ‘Prehistoric Man,’ who generated the most heat.59 A Christian

Socialist, Bromby recognised that the trajectory Darwinism established for

humanity involved the ongoing development of the human race.60 He ruled

out a literal interpretation of Genesis, but argued this wasn’t necessary for

Christianity.61

The Anglican Church, eventually followed William Clarke, and John Bromby,

adopting a Darwinian framework as its default position,62 but the issue was

not without controversy. The Anglican Bishop, Charles Perry, had grave

reservations about the social impact of unfettered Darwinism, and a

conviction regarding the accuracy of the Biblical account, he was careful not

to pit science and theology against one another,63 but argued against

Darwinism on the basis that Australian indigenous culture had not evolved in

the same manner as European culture,64 and on the lack of evidence in the

fossil record.65 He stressed the fluidity of scientific knowledge, the different

claims made by Scripture, and held out hope that different views adopted by

58 B.W Butcher, ‘Darwin Downunder: Science, Religion, and Evolution in Australia,Disseminating Darwinism: The Role of Place, Race, Religion and Gender, 49-5059 B.W Butcher, ‘Darwin Downunder,’ 50, others speaking on the issue included Catholicgeologist J.T Woods,60 B.W Butcher, ‘Darwin Downunder,’ 50-51, an interesting presuppositional contrast to thatadopted by those committed to a premillenial eschatology.61 B.W Butcher, ‘Darwin Downunder,’ 51, Bromby’s account required pre-Adamitehominoids, which was held to contradict the Genesis account.62 Aldridge, op cit, see also, M. Clark, ‘Bromby, John Edward (1809-1889),’ AustralianDictionary of Biography , retrieved 13 Sept 2011, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/bromby-

john-edward-3063 63

T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 11264 B.W Butcher, ‘Darwin Downunder,’ 5165 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 112



scientists and theologians were the result of faulty methodology on either

part.66 He also refused to denounce Bromby’s views as heresy.67

Perry’s successor, Bishop James Moorhouse, set the tone for the gradual

acceptance of evolutionary theory in the Anglican church.68 In a response to

Marcus Clarke, he argued that scientific knowledge did not necessitate

naturalism, as naturalism could not account for the spiritual experience of the

Christian.69

C) The Methodists

By the 1880s there was a growing dissatisfaction with the church’s attempts to

reconcile science and theology, fueled mostly by an influx of Huxleyan

scientists into positions of influence within the Australian academy.70 As a

result, the church began flirting with modernism.

In the mid 1880s, Englishman Joseph Symes, a Wesleyan minister turned

atheist, toured Australia peddling his “free thought” movement.71 Symes was

tried before now Chief Justice Higinbotham, who perhaps ironically

condemned Symes for his “gross and outrageous insults upon the faith of a large

section of the community.”

66 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 113-11467 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes , 11468 B.W Butcher, ‘Darwin Downunder,’ 54-5569 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 115-117 70

B.W Butcher, ‘Darwin Downunder,’ 54-55 71 R.C Thompson, Religion in Australia: A History, 21, Symes attacked Christianity, promotingthe idea that only science could provide true human happiness.



Symes may have been a loose canon,72 but his position was not far removed

from the Wesleyan response to Darwinism. In 1887, influential British

Wesleyan, William Henry Dallinger, advocated an “unreserved acceptance of

evolution.”73

Darwinism and the church at the end of the 19th century

In the mid-to-late 19th century, Australia was fertile ground for modernity,

and secularism, due in part to its convict roots, which made regional

Australia a hotbed of irreligion,74 and the commitment of the urban

intellectual set to socialism, and deism.75

However, as the century drew to a close, the tide was turning. Christianity

gained a foothold in Australia as migration continued to dilute the convict

population, and as the church adequately accounted for Darwinism.76 The

church’s adaptation was completed by the visit of a dynamic preacher from

Scotland’s Free Church, Henry Drummond. Drummond promoted a

theologically driven view of evolutionary Christianity, suggesting evolution

was a necessary understanding of an immanent God’s involvement with

72 Pun intended.73 R. Numbers, ‘A Christian Response to Darwinism,’ Biologos Foundation, online, retrieved 13Sept 2011, http://biologos.org/questions/christian-response-to-darwin 74 C. Stevenson, ‘Felons, Ratbags, Commies, and Left-Wing Loonies,’ Australian Book of Atheism , ed. W. Bonett, (Melbourne, Scribe Publications, 2010), 16, In 1893, poet BanjoPatterson wrote The Bush Christening highlighting the absence of Christianity in outback communities. “On the outer Barcoo where the churches are few, And men of religion are scanty, On aroad never cross'd 'cept by folk that are lost, One Michael Magee had a shanty.” Patterson, andHenry Lawson were both committed to atheism – Patterson said the ideal reformer of societywould be a “bastard atheist born at sea” – somebody owing allegiances to nobody. Lawsonsaw trade unionism rising to extinguish all other distinctions between people as “a newreligion,” A.M Grocott, Convicts, Clergymen, and Churches, (Sydney, Sydney University Press,1980), 163, Atheism had a real foothold in outback Australia, with men of the cloth a rarity

because settlement prioritised the “unholy trinity” of horses, grog, and gaol.75 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 11776 On migration and Christianity see, A.M Grocott, Convicts, Clergymen, and Churches, 284, onthe impact of the church’s changed approach to Darwinism, see T. Frame, Evolution in the

Antipodes, 118, By 1890, mainline protestant denominations had followed the Anglican’s leadin adopting evolution and had “adjusted their theology accordingly,” the clergy and educatedlaypeople were united on the issue.



creation over time.77 Thousands flocked to hear him, including many

scientists who had been influenced by the Huxleyan view of the

incompatibility of science and Christianity.78

By the 1911 census, 96% of Australians identified as Christian.79 Christianity

in Australia had grown since the publication of the Origin of the Species ,80 not

through conflict, or triumph, as Darwinism was simultaneously gaining

momentum.81 By the turn of the century it was accepted both in Europe, and

Australia, that Darwinism could be accommodated with legitimate Christian

belief.82

Scientific Education and Fundamentalism in Australia

Australian legislators were committed to a separation of church and state to

avoid sectarianism.83 The public education systems had been secular from

1874,84 and the Australian constitution prevented the development of a state

77 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 118-119, 158, His lectures were later expanded andpublished, H. Drummond, The Ascent of Man, (New York, Cosimo Classics, 2007, firstpublished 1894), 334, “if God appears periodically, he disappears periodically. If he comes upon thescene at special crises he is absent from the scene intervals. Whether is all-god or occasional-god thenobler theory? Positively, the idea of an immanent God, which is the God of evolution, is infinitely

grander than the occasional wonder-working God.” 78 B.W Butcher, ‘Darwin Downunder,’ 54-55, the audience at Drummond’s lectures includeddisenfranchised non-church goers, including 136 non-Christian medical doctors, who foundhis message about the compatibility between Christianity and Darwinism appealing.79Australian Bureau of Statistics, 'Special Feature: Trends in Religious Affiliation,' 4102.0 -Social Trends 1994, retrieved online, Nov 2011,http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/10072ec3ffc4f7b4ca2570ec00787c40!OpenDocument 80 R.C Thompson, Religion in Australia: A History, 22-2381 R.C Thompson, Religion in Australia: A History, 2482 B.W Butcher, ‘Darwin Downunder,’ 55,83 But not necessarily opposed to the influence of Christianity on public life, see T. Frame,Evolution in the Antipodes, 109, in 1880, the “father of federation,” Henry Parkes said “I do notbelieve in any people becoming a great people without a profound faith.” 84 H. Wilson, ‘Public Education in Queensland,’ Australian Book of Atheism , ed. W. Bonett,(Melbourne, Scribe Publications, 2010), 113, the Lilley Royal Commission said: “… dogmaticreligious instruction is the business not of the state but of the several churches, and the state is neither

entitled to, nor required to undertake the teaching of the distinctive doctrines of any sect or tocontribute funds for that purpose,” the 1875 Education Act added the word “secular” to the typeof education available in Queensland. This was removed in 1910. Also, R.C. Thompson,



church.85 This separation, and Australia’s continuing relationship with Britain,

ensured the approach to scientific education in Australia did not see inductive

based Fundamentalism as the solution to modernity. The influx of Huxleyan

scientists, and compliant view of the church, meant Darwinism was taught

unopposed in Australian schools.86

Pockets of moderate fundamentalism developed in the 20th century,87 but

these were against the grain in terms of the mainline response,88 representing

a separate stream of thought, which deliberately adopted the American

position.89 The Creation Science movement in Australia gained some traction

in the mid-to-late 20th century,90 as American influence on Australian culture

Religion in Australia: A History, (Melbourne, Oxford University Press, 2002, 2nd Edition), 20, In1879, Henry Parkes introduced the Public Instruction Bill which abolishes state aid todenominational schools.85 This was, in a sense, a lesson learned from Europe’s history. The same anti-sectarian agendawas the driving force behind this separation, rather than an intention for Australian society to

be non-religious. Which was not consistent with the views of the Federators, T. Frame,Evolution in the Antipodes, 109, in 1880, the “father of federation,” Henry Parkes said “I do notbelieve in any people becoming a great people without a profound faith.” Section 116 of theConstitution ensured Australia had no state church, see M. Wallace, ‘The Constitution, Belief,and the State,’ Australian Book of Atheism, ed. W. Bonett, (Melbourne, Scribe Publications,2010), 36, High Court decisions since that time have interpreted the decision as operating toallow for freedom of religion (or non-religion), C. Wright, ‘Religion and the Law in Australia,’Australian Book of Atheism , ed. W. Bonett, (Melbourne, Scribe Publications, 2010), 42-4386 T. Frame, Evolution and the Antipodes , 241, this was the case from 1914.87 D. Parker, Fundamentalism and Conservative Protestantism in Australia 1920-1980, A Thesispresented to the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Queensland, 1982, 34088 D. Parker, Fundamentalism and Conservative Protestantism in Australia 1920-1980, 34289 D. Parker, Fundamentalism and Conservative Protestantism in Australia 1920-1980, iii-iv,“Rather than drawing upon the nineteenth century movements defending orthodox Protestantism forits stimulus and direction, Australian fundamentalism has depended on its overseas counterparts,which, therefore, form the primary context of the Australian movement… Australian fundamentalismis derivative rather than innovative and can be categorized successfully in terms of the paradigmsalready established.”90 G. Oppy, ‘Evolution Vs Creationism in Australian Schools, Australian Book of Atheism , ed.W. Bonett, (Melbourne, Scribe Publications, 2010), 143, Creationism is on the rise in Australiaas a result of small Christian schools. A survey in 1986 polled 30,000 Sydneysiders and 65% of people believed six day creation should be taught. 75,000 Australian students attendindependent Christian schools, also, J. Buckingham, ‘The Rise of Religious Schools inAustralia,’ Center for Independent Studies Policy Monograph , 2010, retrieved 13 Sept 2011,http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-monographs/pm-111.pdf , 12, The nature of Australian education means parents are able to send their children to an educationalinstitution that matches their beliefs, and Darwinism and Creation Science are both free to be

taught in appropriate contexts, “The main battle is over creationism and evolution, with the bottomline being not so much whether creationism should be taught in schools at all but whether schoolsshould be allowed to discuss it in the science classroom. Even the Australian Academy of Science ‘sees



gradually increased. Adopting modern scientific literacy as a measure, it is

clear the increased influence of American culture has been muted by

Australia’s Colonial history; evolutionary theory is widely accepted in

Australia.91

Social Darwinism and the Australian Indigenous Population

The most unfortunate impact of Darwinism on the Australian church was the

application of Spencer’s “survival of the fittest” Social Darwinism to attempt to

eradicate or assimilate the indigenous population.92 Both Darwin and Spencer

believed Australian Aborigines were destined for extinction.93 Henry

Drummond’s influential presentation of Darwinian Christianity owed much

to Spencer’s social Darwinism.94

no objection to the teaching of creationism in schools’ if it is taught as part of religious studies or othernon-scientific context.” 91

J. Hammond and D. Stolper, ‘Science Literacy in Australia,’ Australian Academy of Science, July 2010, retrieved 13 Sept 2011,http://www.fasts.org/images/News2010/science%20literacy%20report%20final%20270710.pdf , 71% of the population believes in evolution. 10% reject it outright, 11% are unsure, and8% believe evolution happened in the past but no longer occurs.92 On Spencer’s application of Darwinian theory to fields beyond biology, see B. Holmes,'Herbert Spencer: 1820-1903,' PROSPECTS: the quarterly review of comparative education , (ParisUNESCO: International Bureau of Education), vol.24, no.3/4, 1994, 533–54, retrieved Nov2011, 538-540,http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/publications/ThinkersPdf/spencere.pdf , also, D.W. Bebbington, ‘Science and Evangelical Theology in Great Britain,’ 132-135, T.Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes , 41-42, 256, suggests Spencer’s views were actuallydiametrically opposed to Darwinism, and Spencer, not Darwin, should be held to account forthe treatment of indigenous Australians. M. Francis, Social Darwinism and the Constructionof Institutionalised Racism in Australia, Journal of Australian Studies (1996), 90-105, 92,suggests Social Darwinism was a quasi-scientific racial ideology that informed popularprejudice and structured government policy, at 95, “Social Darwinism was a doctrine of naturalselection as distinct from artificial selection of the kind one found among plant and animal breeders.The ‘natural’ mechanism was competition or the struggle of some animals against others. The losers of the competition would have few descendants.” 93 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes , 241, 256, Spencer’s social Darwinism opened theintellectual possibility that a difference in race represented “a component of differently valuedhumanity.” 94 See H. Drummond, The Ascent of Man , 42-43, Drummond, following Spencer, suggestsDarwinism provides “fresh interest and meaning to the whole history of the human race,” hesuggests Spencer laid out the pieces, described them, and explained the game, but othersfailed to discern between kings and pawns. T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes , 120, suggests

Drummond did for the theological world what Spencer did for the social world,decompartmentalising the language of science and theology, in the same way Spencer usedscientific language to speak of sociological phenomena, D.W. Bebbington, ‘Science and



This was perhaps the most tangible impact of Darwinism on the Australian

social landscape. This move was not initiated by, or even exclusively

championed by, the church.95 But the church, in its understanding of

indigenous culture and people, and its own philosophy and modus operandi

for interactions with indigenous Australians, was complicit in its

application,96 and thus helped establish a long-term pogrom against

Australia’s indigenous people and their culture.

However, it was also members of the church fought against the application of

Social Darwinism to indigenous people, and for better government treatment

of the indigenous population. For example, Rev. J.B Gribble was a missionary

to the indigenous in the 1890s who campaigned against the Darwinian notion

Evangelical Theology in Great Britain,’ 133-134, suggests Drummond’s chief intellectual debtwas to Howard Spencer.95 So, for example, this quote from atheist Henry Keylock Rusden, a social Darwinist, in 1870,“Survival of the fittest meanst that might – wisely used – is right. And we thus invoke andremorselessly fulfil the inexorable law of natural selection, when exterminating the inferior Australianand Maori races… the world is better for it,” cited in C. Stevenson, ‘Felons, Ratbags, Commies,and Left-Wing Loonies,’ Australian Book of Atheism , ed. W. Bonett, (Melbourne, ScribePublications, 2010), 14, also M. Francis, ‘Social Darwinism and the Construction of Institutionalised Racism in Australia ,’ 94, “Of course, the reality is: that the historical tableau of nineteenth-century colonies needs some fine brush work, that there was no great gulf between aChristian providential world and a racist scientific one… In addition, while their popularly elected

governments often attempted to protect Aborigines, they also institutionalised ‘civilising’ and controlmechanisms which were as cruel as the racial evils they were meant to eradicate,” at 102,Government boards operated with barely a nod to “Christian and philanthropic mores,” butadopted the same assimilation or segregation policies “already laid down by state-subsidised

Missionaries.” Social Darwinism was simply the adaptation of scientific language to suitalready existing practices.96 The treatment of indigenous Australians by the church, on a broader level, is outside thescope of this piece, however, the church was a contributor to attempts to eradicate indigenousculture through an unfortunate view that conflated western culture with Christian culture.See M. Francis, ‘Social Darwinism and the Construction of Institutionalised Racism inAustralia ,’ 93, “For example, it was a theory of cultural evolution which promoted the idea that

Aborigines should be transformed into Christian workers which meant that the individuals wouldsurvive while their culture was eradicated. The biological individuals, or their descendants, would bepart of a more developed culture.”



that Australian aborigines were “allied to brute creation,” because he said it was

bad science driven by bad motives.97

Conclusion

The church in Australia cautiously welcomed the findings of Darwin’s Origin

of The Species , in a manner different to its American counterparts, and

consistent with the European approach to natural theology.

Its caution was recognition of the philosophical and ethical dangers

Darwinism posed, rather than theological. This view tempered its response to

Darwinism in the public sphere, and eventually in its application to social

policies.

As a result of its European intellectual heritage, the Australian church has

been better equipped to accommodate the philosophical challenges of the new

atheist movement because of its ready acceptance of science as a stream of

revelation. Natural theology provides an antidote to the modernist

philosophical views of Huxley, thus addressing the concerns of delegates at

the 1873 EAC.

The Australian church’s initial compliance with the pervasive and perverse

Darwinian account of Australia’s indigenous population is indicative of a

failure to give special revelation precedence over general. The Genesis

97 M. Francis, ‘Social Darwinism and the Construction of Institutionalised Racism inAustralia ,’ 99, Gribble suggested this view had been adopted because it suited the purpose of settlers, A conclusion supported by T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes , 256, In this, hefollowed Charles Perry, who in 1869, rejected the application of Darwinism to sub-divide

humans into categories of “savage” and “civilized.” J. Cruickshank, ‘Darwin, Race, andReligion In Australia,’ ABC Religion and Ethics, 11 Apr 2011, retrieved Nov 2011,http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/04/11/3187793.htm



creation narrative provides a better account for the value of all people,

grounding human identity not in the primeval goo, but in their representation

of the image of God.



Bibliography

L. Aldridge, The Australian Religious Reaction to The Origin of Species,’ Centre for Public

Christianity, retrieved 13 Sept 2011, http://publicchristianity.org/library/the-australian-

religious-reaction-the-the-origin-of-species

P. Barnes, ‘Robert Steel,’ Presbyterian Leaders in 19th Century Australia , Ed. R.S Ward,

(Maryborough, Australian Print Group, 1993)

D.W. Bebbington, ‘Science and Evangelical Theology in Great Britain,’ Evangelicals and Science

in Historical Perspective, Ed. D.N Livingstone, D.G Hart, M.A Noll, (Oxford, Oxford University

Press, 1999)

J. Buckingham, ‘The Rise of Religious Schools in Australia,’ Center for Independent Studies

Policy Monograph , 2010, retrieved 13 Sept 2011,

http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-monographs/pm-111.pdf

B.W Butcher, ‘Darwin Downunder: science, religion, and evolution in Australia,’

Disseminating Darwinism: The Role of Place, Race, Religion and Gender , ed. R.L Numbers, J.

Stenhouse, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999)

M. Clark, ‘Bromby, John Edward (1809-1889),’ Australian Dictionary of Biography , retrieved 13

Sept 2011, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/bromby-john-edward-3063

J. Cruickshank, ‘Darwin, Race, and Religion In Australia,’ ABC Religion and Ethics, 11 Apr

2011, retrieved Nov 2011,

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/04/11/3187793.htm

R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the evidence of Evolution reveals a universe without

design , (New York, W.W Norton, 1986, 2010 edition)

G. Dow, ‘Higinbotham, George (1826-1892),’ Australian Dictionary of Biology , retrieved Sept2011, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/higinbotham-george-3766



H.A Dugdale, ‘Science and Religion,’ Judge Higinbotham’s Admirable Lecture Defended, A

Reply to the Rev. A. W. Creswell, 1883, 1-8 retrieved 13 Sept 2011,

http://www.nla.gov.au/apps/doview/nla.aus-vn5095301-p.pdf

C. W. Dilke, Problems of Greater Britain (London: Macmillan Company, 1890) 154, Questia,

Web, 28 Nov. 2011

H. Drummond, The Ascent of Man, (New York, Cosimo Classics, 2007, first published 1894)

J. Hammond and D. Stolper, ‘Science Literacy in Australia,’ Australian Academy of Science, July

2010, retrieved 13 Sept 2011,

http://www.fasts.org/images/News2010/science%20literacy%20report%20final%20270710.

pdf

B. Holmes, 'Herbert Spencer: 1820-1903,' PROSPECTS: the quarterly review of comparative

education, (Paris UNESCO: International Bureau of Education), vol.24, no.3/4, 1994, p. 533–54,

retrieved Nov 2011,

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/publications/ThinkersPdf/sp

encere.pdf

M. Francis, Social Darwinism and the Construction of Institutionalised Racism in Australia,

Journal of Australian Studies (1996), 90-105

T. Frame, Losing My Religion: Unbelief in Australia, (Sydney, University of New South Wales

Press, 2009)

A.M Grocott, Convicts, Clergymen, and Churches, (Sydney, Sydney University Press, 1980)

D.N Livingstone, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders , (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1984)



G.M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture , (New York, Oxford University Press,

2006)

G.M Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,1991)

J. McCosh, The Religious Aspect of Evolution , The Bedell Lectures, (New York, Putnam’s Sons:

The Knickerbocker Press, 1888)

A. Mozley, 'Clarke, William Branwhite (1798–1878)', Australian Dictionary of Biography,

National Centre of Biography, Australian National University ,

http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/clarke-william-branwhite-3228/text4865 , retrieved

November 2011

R. Numbers, ‘A Christian Response to Darwinism,’ Biologos Foundation, online, retrieved 13

Sept 2011, http://biologos.org/questions/christian-response-to-darwin

G. Oppy, ‘Evolution Vs Creationism in Australian Schools, Australian Book of Atheism , ed. W.

Bonett, (Melbourne, Scribe Publications, 2010)

W. Paley, Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, (London, J

Faulder, 1809)

D. Parker, Fundamentalism and Conservative Protestantism in Australia 1920-1980, A Thesis

presented to the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Queensland, 1982

C. Stevenson, ‘Felons, Ratbags, Commies, and Left-Wing Loonies,’ Australian Book of Atheism ,

ed. W. Bonett, (Melbourne, Scribe Publications, 2010)

S. Swain, ‘Do You Want Religion With That? Welfare History In A Secular Age,’ History

Australia , Volume 2, Number 3, 2005 Monash University Epress, 78.1-78.8



R.C. Thompson, Religion in Australia: A History, (Melbourne, Oxford University Press, 2002,

2nd Edition)

M. Wallace, ‘The Constitution, Belief, and the State,’ ed. W. Bonett, (Melbourne, ScribePublications, 2010)

C. Wright, ‘Religion and the Law in Australia,’ Australian Book of Atheism , ed. W. Bonett,

(Melbourne, Scribe Publications, 2010)

G. F. Wright, ‘The Passing of Evolution,’ The Fundamentals, Vol VII, retrieved 13 Sept 2011,

http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=16&contentID=

4590&commInfo=20&topic=The%20Fundamentals

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 'Special Feature: Trends in Religious Affiliation,' 4102.0 - Social

Trends 1994 , retrieved online, Nov 2011,

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/10072ec3

ffc4f7b4ca2570ec00787c40!OpenDocument

‘The Evangelical Alliance – The General Conference in 1873,’ New York Times, Nov 13, 1872,

retrieved online Nov 2011,

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D16FE3D5F1A7493C1A8178AD95F468

784F9

'Origin of the Species,' The Argus (Melbourne, Vic), Monday 30 December 1861, page 7,

National Library of Australia, Trove, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5707507 ,

retrieved Nov 2011

Darwin Wiped Out,’ Letter to the Editor, The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.), Tuesday 15 August

1871, page 7, retrieved Nov 2011, National Library of Australia, Trove,

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5853340



'Faith and Science' Empire , Friday 8 April 1870, page 4, a review of J.P Thompson's Man in

Genesis and Geology, National Library of Australia, Trove,

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/60896629 , retrieved Nov 2011

'Science and Sermons,' Letter to the Editor, The Argus (Melbourne, Vic), Tuesday 24

November 1868, page 7, National Library of Australia, Trove,

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5833128 , retrieved Nov 2011

'Professor Huxley's Theory of Protoplasm: Lecture by the Rev H. Higginson,' The Argus

(Melbourne, Vic), Thursday 1 July 1869, page 5, National Library of Australia, Trove,

retrieved Nov 2011, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5816139

Pope Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism , 1910, retrieved 13 Sept 2011,

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P10MOATH.HTM

early responses to darwinism in australia

Documents