For an idea to gain almost universal acceptance it must answer major internal dissatisfactiond with the current world view. Darwin did not propose his theory of descent with modification to a world that placidly accepted the concept of a Creator God. Long before Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, major discontent had arisen with the view that the diversity of plant and animal life and all the earth's geologic structure could be adequately contained in the Creation and Flood stories given in the first chapters of Genesis.
Until the beginning of the 1700s the vast majority of individuals in the Western world wholeheartedly accepted the concept of Biblical creation and a universal flood. The church's grip on the intellectual activities of scholars was not yet fully loosened, even though the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation had jarred men from the dogmatism of earlier centuries. Allegiance to Christian faith was nearly universal throughout European civilizations, although the level of piety had certainly diminished when compared with that of the Reformers and their immediate followers.
Science was beginning to bloom. Nature was increasingly being observed independently of theology, and attempts were made to place the observations into a more secular context or overview. Carolus Linnaeus classified the plants and animals in Northern Europe and by 1735 published a major work containing examples from all over the world. Life-forms were arranged in a hierarchical manner based on similarities in form. Thus, for example, animals with back bones were separated from those without backbones, and each group was then assigned a number of subdivisions.
These forays into the realms of mod em science were not fully divested of Biblical trappings. The concept now known as natural theology still was a dominant force in the interpretation of the biotic world. This view placed man at the center of God's creation and relegated the rest of the natural world to a role of servitude for man's ease and pleasure. In its extreme application, for example, rabbits were thought to have little white tails to provide the hunter with a more visible target!
Another view in science supposedly supported by Scripture was the concept of fixity of species. Before the explorations of the New World, the Far East, and the African continent, it was generally thought that the animals in Europe were identical in form to those that came off Noah's ark. But with the arrival of seemingly boatloads of specimens from lands afar, it soon was realized that the ark had not been large enough to contain them all. Comparison of similar forms from all over the earth made the idea that all had come from the Creator's hand difficult to believe.
The possibility that change in species could occur was resisted by those who viewed nature as being perfect. To allow an organism to change in form or function to a better adapted state was, in essence, to say that God's original creation was imperfect. This concept approached blasphemy and was obviously unacceptable. If change occurred in animals and plants, it was always in a degenerative direction. These benighted forms, of course, were not successful and subsequently became extinct, leaving the perfect forms made by the Creator's hand.
The infant science of geology also played a significant role in allowing world opinion to pivot around Darwin's ideas. At first all the geologic formations were attributed to the work of a single universal deluge. However, examination of ancient cultures buried by sedimentary processes encouraged the conclusion that perhaps other natural processes were responsible for laying down the geologic formations. Sediments flowing into the seas, volcanism and its resultant changes on the landscape, wind, the movement of ice, and other physical forces all provided naturalistic alternatives to the Biblical account.
Fossils of organisms not presently living on earth were attributed by some to artifacts or to the work of the devil in his efforts to confuse man. By Darwin's time most recognized that these fossils were indeed remains of extinct organ isms. This type of evidence resulted in the conclusion that geologic processes in the natural world were far too slow to account for the formation of the then known strata in a time period of less than ten thousand years. Estimates of the length of earth history soon moved into the range of millions of years.
With the discovery of distinctive fossils in layers, along with other sets of distinctive fossils in surrounding layers, the concept of multiple catastrophes developed. Although God was still retained as Creator, the Biblical account of a single creative event was abandoned in favor of multiple creations and multiple catastrophes. No longer was the 6 MINISTRY/MAY/1984 Biblical flood story accepted literally.
Thus, Darwin came on the scene at a time of significant discontent with the Biblical view of origins and the destruction of the world by a single universal flood.
Darwin's early years were engaged in the study of natural history. Scholarly attempts at medicine and theology proved unfruitful. His first and only love was the world of nature. An energetic and careful observer, he soon gained the notice of several leading natural historians who further encouraged him in his pursuits. When given the opportunity to be the biologist on a five-year voyage around the world, he accepted eagerly. This experience proved to be the turning point in Darwin's view of the world.
Darwin began the voyage still hoping to see the hand of God in nature. Concerned with growing evidence for change in the natural world, he first attempted to correlate these with the Biblical account. However, as diversity multiplied upon diversity, it soon became obvious that change was indeed possible. By the time he reached the Galapagos Islands the concept that species arise from other species was fixed in his mind.
Upon his return to England, Darwin began a series of studies to determine how much change is possible in the natural world. Extensive examination of accomplishments by breeders of domes tic animals demonstrated that significant morphological change was possible. From these observations he postulated that nature could also select for certain characteristics.
Darwin differed from previous scholars in several ways. First, he recognized that each individual varied from other individuals in a species group. On the bases of size, color, the rate of movement, or a host of other characteristics, all showed variation within the group. No two individuals were the same. Each would respond differently to an environmental change. Some would have advantages based on inherited characteristics. Those that preferentially survived would pass on these "successful" characteristics to their progeny. Thus, slowly, over long periods of time, the species would evolve into something different.
Darwin also recognized that the reproductive capacity of individual organisms far exceeded what was needed to maintain a stable population. (In order for a population of sexually reproducing animals to be maintained at a constant number, there must be, on the average, only two surviving progeny. If reproductive rates are greater than this, the population will increase.) Yet, as Darwin looked about him, he saw that in general the population levels of animals and plants remained relatively constant.
With these two ideas in mind, all that was needed was a catalyst to blend them into a new theory. This catalyst came in the form of a book written by Thomas Malthus on human population controls. Malthus noted that while the reproductive capacity of humans was great, the ability to produce food was not. For example, if every family had four children, the population would double in a generation. Food production would be unable to advance at the same rate. Malthus resolved this dilemma by noting that famine, wars, disease, et cetera, provided natural checks against population growth.
At last Darwin had a mechanism for the process that he later called natural selection. It was obvious to him that if a population with all its variabilities was situated in a limiting environment, only those that had adaptive advantage would survive. The survivors would be slightly different from those of the past generation.
Darwin was correct in assuming that species could change. But if species could change a little, is it fair to say that given enough time, one can extrapolate the evolutionary scheme from single-celled animals to man himself?
Darwin came to these conclusions and conducted extensive research in all aspects of his theory for the next twenty years. When he realized that Alfred Wallace was about to publish similar conclusions, he was spurred to activity and in a matter of months tripled the size of his 20-year-old manuscript and sent it to press. When published in 1859, it sold out in a single day!
The reactions to Darwin's book were immediate and extreme. On one side, many in the scientific community grasped his concepts with eagerness and became evangelical in their promotion. On the other extreme, the general public, many clergy, and not a few scientists, while not disturbed over the idea that species could change, became very exercised over its implications. Many saw in Darwin's theory an attack on the Biblical record, the concept of inspiration, the nature of man, and subsequently the salvation process.
By the time the next generation came along Darwinism had won a large percentage of the scientific community. Proponents of creationism were largely found among the evangelical clergy. This situation remained much the same until the mid-twentieth century, when a small number of scientists within the scientific community began to agitate for a creationist hearing. This confrontation with the established scientific community has increased in intensity, as can now be seen in the news media, political scenes, and the courts.
