Did the Bulldog Bite the Bishop? An Anglican Bishop, An Agnostic Scientist, and a Roman Pontiff

DURING THE LONGEST PONTIFICATE of the twentieth century, John Paul II has many times addressed the problem of the relations of faith and science. Without ever claiming to give definitive answers to complex questions—even less defining dogmas on these matters—John Paul has nevertheless offered specific and definite opinions on a wide range of topics falling under the rubric "science and religion." His particular concern has been to dispel perceived conflicts between these two realms of human culture that remain a continuing obstacle to a healthy interaction between them. John Paul has maintained that Western culture, at least in the twentieth century, has viewed science and religion primarily under the aspect of conflict, in part because certain historical episodes seem to lend credence to this thesis. On his own authority he established a commission in July 1981 to investigate the famous Galileo affair in hopes that the scientific, philosophical, and theological issues would be clarified enough to put to rest what he calls the "myth of conflict." ¹

The Galileo affair, however, is not the only important episode of conflict. The debate that took place at Oxford University in June 1860 between the Anglican bishop Samuel Wilberforce and the biologist Thomas Henry Huxley ranks as one of the most celebrated episodes of the conflict of science and religion in the English-speaking world. These two episodes, taken together, have been viewed as quintessential encounters of fundamentally different visions of the cosmos and humanity, visions that rest on different foundations and produce different results. The symbolic significance of this encounter partly stems from the colorful personalities of the antagonists. "Soapy" Sam Wilberforce, the bishop of Oxford, was known in intellectual circles as a fiery but honest rhetorician. Thomas Huxley, often dubbed "Darwin's Bulldog," was both a highly regarded practicing scientist and an able apologist for Darwin's theory of the transmutation of the species. In this paper, I reexamine their famous exchange and show how popular and even scholarly perceptions have been historically inaccurate.

It is important from the outset to note some of the superficial differences between the Galileo affair and the Oxford debate if we are to understand their relevance for our view of the science/religion interface. In addition to the obvious differences of time and space, these two events lack other commonalities we might expect to find if they are to be held up in tandem. The main protagonists in each event were different. Galileo was a practicing member of the Church that tried him. Thomas Huxley was not a practicing Anglican, or even a practicing Christian of any stripe. The duration of the two events was different. The placement of Copernicanism on the Index of Prohibited Books (1616) and Galileo's later trial (1633) was a lengthy and sustained affair that occurred over approximately twenty years. The Oxford debate took place one evening in a limited professional setting, although one might argue that it had ramifications for years to come. Last, there were differences in the actions involved. The Galileo affair involved officials of the Catholic Church acting in official (though disciplinary, not dogmatic) capacities. Bishop Wilberforce's speech was not an official episcopal act. He spoke entirely on his own person. Thomas Huxley did not speak as a representative of all scientists. There were many scientists in late nineteenth-century England who radically differed with him on fundamental issues.

Given these differences, one might reasonably ask why these two episodes have been placed in juxtaposition. It is because both episodes have undergone a process of mythical interpretation and have been used to reinforce certain views of science and religion that suffer from historical distortion and conceptual confusion. In addition to charting this mythical interpretation, I also argue that the...