discourse. Quite the contrary was true. After all, both Christianity and the sciences have not merely a cognitive side, but a concrete existence as well in the form of people, careers and institutions, part of the rough and tumble of distinct networks of power. This banal fact takes on significance if we want to deepen our understanding of the forces that drove the debates. A single text or a particular argument might have different and even contradictory meanings depending on 'geography', including ideological geography, as compellingly argued by David Livingstone.44 This emphasis helps reveal the embeddedness of the religion-science literature in the many and various vested interests that were circumscribed by the institutions of nation-states, churches, denominations or political parties. Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise as well as his earlier Vindiciaegeologicae (1820), for example, must be institutionally situated in order adequately to grasp the meaning of these texts. At the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris, the explicitness of concern with deluge and design in these texts represented an instance of antiquated theory, yet 'on the ground' -Anglican Oxbridge - it meant quite the opposite, being part of a latitudinarian, broad church reform movement to establish the natural sciences at England's ancient universities.45 Robert Young and others have contended that natural theology in Britain provided a 'common context' for debate and co-operation among the social and scientific elite. Different religious denominations could come together under the umbrella of a teleological world-view in the cultivation of science.46 For this very reason, John Henry Newman (1801-90), his Tractarian followers and various other traditionalists regarded Buckland's teleology as a form of dangerous interdenominational libertarianism. What is more, its arguments for the existence of a divine power did not extend to the elements of Christianity: 'It cannot tell us anything of Christianity at all.'47
The reception of Darwin's theory of evolution was equally multi-levelled, as Alvar Ellegard long ago documented in impressive detail.48 The creation-evolution issue could function as a vehicle of modernisation and church reform, and accordingly was instrumentalised by the liberal wings of denominations. Scottish and American Calvinists form a case in point. James Moore has shown in his The post-Darwinian controversies that Darwinism, in spite of the problems it raised for many Victorian intellectuals, could be accommodated by orthodox Protestants, in particular Calvinists - Asa Gray being
44 Livingstone, Putting science in its place.
45 Rupke, The great chain of history, pp. 21-6, 51-63.
46 Young, Darwin's metaphor, pp. 126-63.
47 Rupke, The great chain of history, p. 271.
48 Ellegard, Darwin and the general reader.
Was this article helpful?