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 Britains Thomas Huxley, in his fierce response to the publication Charles Darwins 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 Paleys 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 Paleys watchmaker analogy, and the rationality of religious belief in the light of Darwins 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 modernisms anti-supernatural bent. This 1 Where design was assumed, and science was understood as a revealer of the necessity and complexity of design involved in creation, for the description of the

analogy, see W. Paley, Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, (London, J Faulder, 1809), 1-5 2 G.M Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, (New York, Oxford University Press, 2006), 177, Huxleys use of Darwinian Evolutionary theory as a scientific argument 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 it possibly to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. 3 G.M Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 178-179, while this position has been the adopted by some quarters of the church, this was, in the main, a 20th 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 on Biblical assumptions.

international response then took divergent paths in Europe and the United States, with Australias response driven by the colonys links to the mother country. Australias 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 nations 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 fundamentalisms 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 nations 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 Paleys 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=F70D16FE3D5F1A7493C1A8178AD95F468 784F9 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 appointed by God, the other discovered by man. McCosh maintained this position in a published lecture he gave in 1887, J. McCosh, The Religious Aspect of Evolution, The Bedell Lectures, (New York, Putnams Sons: The Knickerbocker Press, 1888), 77-80 6 G.M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 17-18, Weldon argued that rather than being completely consistent, conflict between our understanding of special and general revelation is possible. He was especially worried about an incompatibility between the account of mans 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 this as 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 modernisms 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

Hodges objections were not based on Darwins views on the age of the earth, or natural selection, D.N Livingstone, Darwins Forgotten Defenders, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1984), 100-104, indeed, some Calvinists, like George Frederick Wright saw Darwinism as Calvinism applied 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 Hodges problem was not with the concept of evolution, but evolution without the designer, and G. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 116, Modernity was essentially a new movement in modern science where Bacons knowledge based on observation was replaced with testing based on hypotheses. 10 This opposition to naturalistic philosophy and Darwinian evolutions inevitable pairing with naturalistic philosophy, carried through to the publication of The Fundamentals in the early 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 not physicists but metaphysicians. Hume is more dangerous than Darwin the fatalism of the philosophers is more to he dreaded than the materialism of any scientific men Christianity, being a religion of fact and history, is a free-born son in the family of the inductive sciences, and is not specially hampered by the paradoxes inevitably connected with all attempts to give expression to ultimate conceptions of truth. 11 G.M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 30-33, Moody was not disinterested in controversial topics, but was much more interested in gospel work. He said: Couldnt they [the critics] agree to a truce, and for ten years bring no fresh views, just let us get on with the practical work 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 humanitys descent in to chaos, rather than gradual positive development, led to a rejection of evolutionary theory.
9

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

G.M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 116, In other words, are the facts that are permitted to occur in the universe to be determined by our precedently conceived world-view, or is our world 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, The authors of the Fundamentals were also divide on the issue, an anonymous essay titled View from the Pew, condemned evolution, while Wright and J.Orr were willing to accommodate an 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-belligerents united by their fierce opposition to modernist attempts to bring Christianity in line with modern thought. 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, but also 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 Bryans opposition to the social structures created by evolutionary theory in the 1920s, evolutionary social views led to social Darwinism and hence to anti-progressive politics and glorification of war. Bryan saw no room for compromise. 17 G.M Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 55-57, 60, 180, Inerrancy emerged as a factor in 1887, as the church responded to the challenges of modernism, and the conflation 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 Baconian system: 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 seeks to 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
13

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 decisionmaking, 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
G.M Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 188-194, in 1921, J.G Machen championed an approach to knowledge that was anti-modernist (in that it allowed for the supernatural), he started with the assumption that the claims of the Bible could (and should) 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 in 1925 set the legal precedent on the issue, and fused with Ellen Whites flood theory, became the 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 HuxleyWilberforce 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, 42-43 21 G.M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, (New York, Oxford University Press, 2006), 221 22 G.M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 222 23 G.M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 225-226 24 G.M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 227
18

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 Darwins adaptation to Australia Australians had Darwins 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

G.M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 226-227, Romanticism idealised the natural 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 and Science in Historical Perspective, Ed. D.N Livingstone, D.G Hart, M.A Noll, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999), 124-126, So, for example, Christians committed to romanticism, like John Wesley, idealised Newton for his explanation of mechanical natural laws, and saw inductive reasoning as safe, but this gradually gave way to the view that imaginative hypotheses and deduction were essential for developing knowledge. 27 D.W. Bebbington, Science and Evangelical Theology in Great Britain, 126-130 28 D.W. Bebbington, Science and Evangelical Theology in Great Britain, 132-135 29 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), 39 30 B.W Butcher, Darwin Downunder: science, religion, and evolution in Australia, 39, 44, In the 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: Charles Darwin and Australia, 112, in 1860, Charles Perry, an Anglican clergyman, who later becomes Bishop of Melbourne, speaks against Darwinism on the basis that the book of Genesis is proved by geology, he argued that fossil evidence doesnt support Darwinism. On the response 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 a discussion regarding the publication of the Origin of the Species in a meeting of the British Association of Science 31 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 94-95, Australian Botanist Robert Fitzgerald applied Darwins botanical observations to the study of orchids, and won Darwins approval, B.W Butcher, Darwin Downunder, 40, suggests Fitzgeralds work was a tour de force, which did much to establish Australias 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-australianreligious-reaction-the-the-origin-of-species, also T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia, 109-110
25

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 Huxleys 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 Higinbothams
B.W Butcher, Darwin Downunder: science, religion, and evolution in Australia, 43 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia, 109, B.W Butcher, Darwin Downunder, 40 35 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia, 111-112, A. Mozley, 'Clarke, William Branwhite (17981878)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/clarke-williambranwhite-3228/text4865, retrieved November 2011. 36 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia, 112 37 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 third Australian 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 peoples knowledge is the measure of peoples religion. 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, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/higinbotham-george-3766, retrieved Sept 2011 41 I. Breward, Australia: The Most Godless Place Under Heaven?, (Adelaide, Lutheran Publishing House, 1988, 2nd Edition), 34
34 33

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 Australias churches,46 as Huxleys aggressive use of Darwinism challenged protestant views.47 The Australian

G. Dow, Higinbotham, George (1826-1892), Australian Dictionary of Biology, B.W Butcher, Darwin Downunder, 51 43 This gap was articulated in '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, at the present time most of our Schools of Theology have no sympathy with modern scientific thought, and do not in the least appreciate the vantage grounds it has gained. Their instruction in 'natural theology' is given precisely as it was twenty or thirty years ago, when Paley was the authority and as though Darwin and 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 in their modes of thought as the theologians themselves," and earlier, in '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 44 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 117 45 This was the default position of the elite for the next half-decade. A defense of Higinbothams address, published by H.A Dugdale, argued both that the Biblical record was consistent with Darwinism, and that geological and biological evidence places the human race at more than 200,000 years old. Further, he argued that Christianity has been responsible for historical nastiness, and thus deism is socially preferable, see H.A Dugdale, Science and Religion, Judge Higinbothams 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.ausvn5095301-p.pdf, Better, far better, had the majority of humans always been deists: their history would not that have been stained with the dreadful record of thousands burnt at the stake, or tortured to death by fiendish means for the love of Christ. When we think of the unhappiness of millions from that myth, the cruel doctrine of the atonement becomes more and more repugnant to the veneration and reverence 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 thus irrelevant to the practice of faith (however, in 1910, Catholics were called to swear an oath against modernism), Pope Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, 1910, retrieved 13 Sept 2011, http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P10MOATH.HTM, Furthermore, I reject the opinion 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 the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
42

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 churchs 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.

B.W Butcher, Darwin Downunder: science, religion, and evolution in Australia, 55 P. Barnes, Robert Steel, Presbyterian Leaders, 108 50 P. Barnes, Robert Steel, Presbyterian Leaders in 19th Century Australia, Ed. R.S Ward, (Maryborough, Australian Print Group, 1993), 107 51 P. Barnes, Robert Steel, Presbyterian Leaders, 108, Steel rejected a young earth view explicitly in his commentary on the Shorter Catechism, while saying The Darwinian hypothesis, 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 who accept Christs teaching as an authoritative and divine revelation.
49

48

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 Huxleys position, further stoking the debate.57 The

P. Barnes, Robert Steel, Presbyterian Leaders, 108-109, In 1888, he criticised his friend and colleague, James Cosh, who had adopted liberal Biblical criticism, an application of modernism to the interpretation of the Biblical text, The next year he condemned the moderator, Archibald Gilchrist, who used a moderatorial address to proclaim that evolution and revelation were irreconcilable. 54 P. Barnes, George Grimm, Presbyterian Leaders, 116 55 P. Barnes, George Grimm, Presbyterian Leaders, 116 56 '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 to Huxley's theory by bemoaning an erosion of Baconian principles, and rejecting Huxley's attempts to fuse naturalism with Darwin's theories. 57 Darwin Wiped Out, Letter to the Editor, The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.), Tuesday 15 August 1871, 7, retrieved Nov 2011, National Library of Australia, Trove, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5853340, this letter to the editor suggests the Universitys Professor of Natural Sciences would be better positioned as a Professor of Theology, after Professor McCoy refused
53

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 wasnt 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, 49-50 59 B.W Butcher, Darwin Downunder, 50, others speaking on the issue included Catholic geologist J.T Woods, 60 B.W Butcher, Darwin Downunder, 50-51, an interesting presuppositional contrast to that adopted by those committed to a premillenial eschatology. 61 B.W Butcher, Darwin Downunder, 51, Brombys account required pre-Adamite hominoids, which was held to contradict the Genesis account. 62 Aldridge, op cit, see also, M. Clark, Bromby, John Edward (1809-1889), Australian Dictionary of Biography, retrieved 13 Sept 2011, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/brombyjohn-edward-3063 63 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 112 64 B.W Butcher, Darwin Downunder, 51 65 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 Brombys views as heresy.67

Perrys 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 churchs 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.

T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 113-114 T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 114 68 B.W Butcher, Darwin Downunder, 54-55 69 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, promoting the idea that only science could provide true human happiness.
67

66

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 churchs adaptation was completed by the visit of a dynamic preacher from Scotlands Free Church, Henry Drummond. Drummond promoted a theologically driven view of evolutionary Christianity, suggesting evolution was a necessary understanding of an immanent Gods involvement with
Pun intended. R. Numbers, A Christian Response to Darwinism, Biologos Foundation, online, retrieved 13 Sept 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 Banjo Patterson 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 a road never cross'd 'cept by folk that are lost, One Michael Magee had a shanty. Patterson, and Henry Lawson were both committed to atheism Patterson said the ideal reformer of society would be a bastard atheist born at sea somebody owing allegiances to nobody. Lawson saw trade unionism rising to extinguish all other distinctions between people as a new religion, 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, 117 76 On migration and Christianity see, A.M Grocott, Convicts, Clergymen, and Churches, 284, on the impact of the churchs changed approach to Darwinism, see T. Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 118, By 1890, mainline protestant denominations had followed the Anglicans lead in adopting evolution and had adjusted their theology accordingly, the clergy and educated laypeople were united on the issue.
73 72

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 and published, H. Drummond, The Ascent of Man, (New York, Cosimo Classics, 2007, first published 1894), 334, if God appears periodically, he disappears periodically. If he comes upon the scene at special crises he is absent from the scene intervals. Whether is all-god or occasional-god the nobler 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 Drummonds lectures included disenfranchised non-church goers, including 136 non-Christian medical doctors, who found his message about the compatibility between Christianity and Darwinism appealing. 79 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/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/10072ec3 ffc4f7b4ca2570ec00787c40!OpenDocument 80 R.C Thompson, Religion in Australia: A History, 22-23 81 R.C Thompson, Religion in Australia: A History, 24 82 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 not believe 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: dogmatic religious 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 to contribute funds for that purpose, the 1875 Education Act added the word secular to the type of education available in Queensland. This was removed in 1910. Also, R.C. Thompson,

church.85 This separation, and Australias 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, In 1879, Henry Parkes introduced the Public Instruction Bill which abolishes state aid to denominational schools. 85 This was, in a sense, a lesson learned from Europes history. The same anti-sectarian agenda was 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 not believe in any people becoming a great people without a profound faith. Section 116 of the Constitution 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 to allow 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), 42-43 86 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 Thesis presented to the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Queensland, 1982, 340 88 D. Parker, Fundamentalism and Conservative Protestantism in Australia 1920-1980, 342 89 D. Parker, Fundamentalism and Conservative Protestantism in Australia 1920-1980, iii-iv, Rather than drawing upon the nineteenth century movements defending orthodox Protestantism for its stimulus and direction, Australian fundamentalism has depended on its overseas counterparts, which, therefore, form the primary context of the Australian movement Australian fundamentalism is derivative rather than innovative and can be categorized successfully in terms of the paradigms already 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 Australia as 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 attend independent Christian schools, also, 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, 12, The nature of Australian education means parents are able to send their children to an educational institution 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 bottom line being not so much whether creationism should be taught in schools at all but whether schools should 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 Australias 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 Spencers 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 Drummonds influential presentation of Darwinian Christianity owed much to Spencers social Darwinism.94
no objection to the teaching of creationism in schools if it is taught as part of religious studies or other non-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, and 8% believe evolution happened in the past but no longer occurs. 92 On Spencers application of Darwinian theory to fields beyond biology, see 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, 53354, retrieved Nov 2011, 538-540, http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/publications/ThinkersPdf/sp encere.pdf, also, D.W. Bebbington, Science and Evangelical Theology in Great Britain, 132135, T.Frame, Evolution in the Antipodes, 41-42, 256, suggests Spencers views were actually diametrically opposed to Darwinism, and Spencer, not Darwin, should be held to account for the treatment of indigenous Australians. M. Francis, Social Darwinism and the Construction of Institutionalised Racism in Australia, Journal of Australian Studies (1996), 90-105, 92, suggests Social Darwinism was a quasi-scientific racial ideology that informed popular prejudice and structured government policy, at 95, Social Darwinism was a doctrine of natural selection 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, Spencers social Darwinism opened the intellectual possibility that a difference in race represented a component of differently valued humanity. 94 See H. Drummond, The Ascent of Man, 42-43, Drummond, following Spencer, suggests Darwinism provides fresh interest and meaning to the whole history of the human race, he suggests Spencer laid out the pieces, described them, and explained the game, but others failed 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 used scientific 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 Australias 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 Drummonds chief intellectual debt was 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 and remorselessly fulfil the inexorable law of natural selection, when exterminating the inferior Australian and 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, Scribe Publications, 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 a Christian providential world and a racist scientific one In addition, while their popularly elected governments often attempted to protect Aborigines, they also institutionalised civilising and control mechanisms 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, but adopted the same assimilation or segregation policies already laid down by state-subsidised Missionaries. Social Darwinism was simply the adaptation of scientific language to suit already existing practices. 96 The treatment of indigenous Australians by the church, on a broader level, is outside the scope of this piece, however, the church was a contributor to attempts to eradicate indigenous culture through an unfortunate view that conflated western culture with Christian culture. See M. Francis, Social Darwinism and the Construction of Institutionalised Racism in Australia, 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 would survive while their culture was eradicated. The biological individuals, or their descendants, would be part 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 Darwins 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 churchs initial compliance with the pervasive and perverse Darwinian account of Australias 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 in Australia, 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, he followed Charles Perry, who in 1869, rejected the application of Darwinism to sub-divide humans into categories of savage and civilized. 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

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-australianreligious-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 Sept 2011, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/higinbotham-george-3766

H.A Dugdale, Science and Religion, Judge Higinbothams 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. 53354, 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, Darwins 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, Putnams Sons: The Knickerbocker Press, 1888)

A. Mozley, 'Clarke, William Branwhite (17981878)', 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, Scribe Publications, 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/abs@.nsf/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