Many people assume that upon publication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species that its weight of argument was so convincing, belief in his theory was compelled from all quarters.

Not so. In fact most scientists initially rejected it. It is true that within 20 years his theory had received general acceptance; but this was not so much due to the weight of argument as the prevailing climate of the times. For example, Cynthia Eagle Russett, a lecturer in American history at Yale University and specialist in American intellectual history, observes that Darwin’s theory was not so much a revolution as a catalyst for a much broader emerging change that had been waiting in the wings:

But the implications of Darwin’s theory were so vast that the Pelican Classics edition of the Origin of Species observes it "was greeted with violent and malicious criticism."2

Not only did his Origin (1859) receive constant critical review, but "The scientific world also was almost wholly against the Origin. In later years, T. H. Huxley, speaking of the year 1860, described the situation by saying, ‘The supporters of Mr. Darwin’s views were numerically, extremely insignificant. There is not the slightest doubt that if a general council of the church scientific had been held at that time, we should have been condemned by an overwhelming majority.’"3

The reason for such criticisms is well expressed by Michael Denton, M.D., a researcher in molecular biology and author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:

This was true from the start. Below we present a sampling of illustrations of the critical response. [The fact that a few of these critics may have held to various evolutionary ideas or may later have joined Darwinian ranks does not discount the validity of their criticisms. Men can accept a theory which they acknowledge is contrary to the facts and which they suspect may not be true for want of, in their minds, a better theory to replace it.]

That the acceptance of Darwinism was by no means universal can be seen from the review of Henry Fawcett (professor of political philosophy at Cambridge) writing in Macmillan’s magazine for December, 1860, Vol. 3, p. 81: "No scientific work that has been published within this century has excited so much curiosity as the treatise of Mr. Darwin. It has for a time divided the scientific world into two great contending sections. A Darwinite and an anti-Darwinite are now the badges of opposed scientific parties. Each side is ably represented."5

As remains true today, many of the severest criticisms of Darwin’s theory were from scientists. Philosophy professor David L. Hull observes that Darwin had not "anticipated the vehemence with which even the most respected scientists and philosophers in his day would denounce his efforts as not being properly ‘scientific.’" And, "With the publication of the Origin of Species, large segments of the scientific and intellectual community, turned on him."6

As Hull demonstrates, it was not only the scientists who objected, it was also the leading philosophers of the day:

Further, the scientific reviewers were not pre-disposed against the idea: "Many of the reviewers were competent scientists honestly trying to evaluate a novel theory against the commonly accepted standards of scientific excellence, and evolutionary theory consistently came up wanting."8

Adam Sedgwick (one of the founders of the science of geology in England, a colleague of Darwin and Woodwardian professor of geology at Trinity College, Cambridge):

Sedgwick summarized his view of Darwin’s thesis as follows:

Richard Owen (M.D.), Superintendent of the Natural History Department of the British Museum and the leading comparative anatomist of his time:11

William Hopkins. Hopkins was an important mathematician who took his degree from Cambridge and was influenced in his geological studies by Adam Sedgwick. His analysis is described as "a detailed criticism of evolutionary theory on the basis of the best views then current on the nature of science."14

Hopkins’ approach was to demand of Darwin’s theory "the same kind of general evidence that we demand before we yield our assent to more ordinary physical theories. While we admit the same principles of research, we cannot admit different principles in interpretation, and yield our assent to the naturalist on evidence which we should utterly reject in the physicist.... He who appeals to Caesar must be judged by Caesar’s laws."15

Hopkins’ review (in which the above statements occur) comes from Fraser’s magazine, June and July, 1860. He further stated: "We venture to assert, without fear of contradiction, that any physical theory of inorganic matter which should rest on no better evidence than the theory we are considering, would be instantly and totally rejected by everyone qualified to form a judgment upon it."16

In commenting on Darwin’s method for overcoming his many difficulties, Hopkins replies as follows:

Henry Charles Fleeming Jenkin (Professor of Engineering at Glasgow University who worked with Lord Kelvin in laying the Transatlantic Cable). Jenkin’s review, quoted from The North British Review, June 1867, in the words of Darwin "has given me much trouble."20

Jenkin stated of evolution that "its untruth can, as we think, be proved…"23 and "any one of the main pleas of our argument, if established, is fatal to Darwin’s theory."24 He concluded, "A plausible theory should not be accepted while unproven; and if the arguments of this essay be admitted, Darwin’s theory of the origin of species is not only without sufficient support from evidence, but is proved false by a cumulative proof."25

Samuel Haughton (Physiologist and Professor of Geology at Dublin University). In the Natural History Review (1860, Vol. 7, pp. 23-32) Haughton wondered:

(to be continued)