Since the Greeks, our world has been understood in terms of one of two root metaphors – the world as an organism (“organicism”) and the world as a machine (“mechanism”). With the coming of evolutionary ideas in the eighteenth century, we see that there are interpretations in terms of both metaphors.

In the United States wealthy tycoons funded fossil-hunting expeditions and new natural history museums to display their discoveries. Dinosaurs from the Western states dramatically transformed the way the ascent of life could be represented because they were quite unlike any living reptiles and confirmed that the ‘tree of life’ had many more branches, some of which had disappeared completely. There was increasing evidence of relatively abrupt transitions in the earth’s history, forcing geologists and evolutionists to reconsider their impression that change had been more or less continuous. As the tree of life became more complex, the assumption that the human species was the inevitable outcome of progressive evolution became less plausible. Although non-Darwinian theories were retained by some authorities, the new vision of evolution came to seem more compatible with Darwin’s vision of an open-ended and less predictable process.

What are the implications of Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection for thinking, prejudicial or otherwise, about foreigners, race, Jews, sexual orientation, and women? Did Darwin himself, caught in Victorian prejudices, have any awareness of the full implications of his theorizing?

This chapter explores the debates over human origins in the popular media to show how the topic influenced the ways in which Darwin’s theory was perceived (and misunderstood). The impact of the public’s fascination with the gorilla as a possible human ancestor helped to sustain the image of evolution as the ascent of a ladder. The cultural evolutionism promoted by archaeologists and anthropologists also adopted the linear model of development. Physical anthropologists saw the allegedly ‘lower’ races as intermediate steps in the ascent from the apes, in effect as ‘living fossils’ filling the gap created by the lack of genuinely ancient remains at the time. The impact of Darwin’s Descent of Man is explored in the context of the existing preconceptions generated in the 1860s. The relationship between general models of evolution and emerging ideas of social evolution, not all Darwinian in form, is explained.

Darwin was no rebel. Every item in his theory of evolution was drawn from his culture or society. However, Darwin reordered the elements, like a kaleidoscope, to produce a truly revolutionary vision of the world – in science, in philosophy, in religion, and in literature, with major implications for our thinking about social issues.

Remarkably, literature was the field where Darwinian thinking was immediately and warmly received. Charles Dickens’s weekly magazine, All the Year Round, at once published articles that gave detailed, sympathetic accounts of the theory of the Origin, and these were followed by writers using Darwinian themes in their fiction and poetry, Dickens himself using sexual selection to structure a key relationship in Our Mutual Friend. This continues to the present, when leading novelists like Ian McEwan and Marilynne Robinson use very different reactions to Darwin to mold their narratives.

The organicism–mechanism divide continued. Darwin was a Newtonian and a mechanist. Herbert Spencer was a Romantic and an organicist. Thomas Henry Huxley denied full status to natural selection. Louis Agassiz continued to deny evolution. Henry Walter Bates used selection to explain mimicry. Amateurs explained industrial melanism. All accepted the fact of evolution. Darwin was honored by being buried in Westminster Abbey.

This introductory chapter notes the expansion of interest in the history of popular science and its role in shaping the relationship between science and society. It outlines the elements needed to understand how science is popularized, including the work of both scientists and media figures. The chapter then shows how historians now interpret the rise of evolutionism, noting that Darwin’s theory of natural selection was at first challenged by rival views of how evolution works with very different implications for the ascent of life, not all compatible with the image of the ‘tree of life’. The application of these ideas to human origins and to ideologies based on social evolution is noted for its potential impact on how the theory was perceived. All of these positions need to be taken into account to understand how the topic was displayed to the wider public.

New book series and magazines were founded in the 1870s and helped to publicize evolutionism. Many popular accounts focused on the ascent of life, still portraying it as a linear development toward humanity. They often used living rather than fossil species to characterize the main stages in the ascent, and stressed the parallel with the development of the embryo (the recapitulation theory). A few key fossils were discovered to boost the case for evolution, including the ancestry of the horse. Both Darwinians and the supporters of Herbert Spencer’s philosophy exploited the technique of the ‘evolutionary epic’ to make their case. But so did the promoters of rival explanations, including the Lamarckians and those who saw progress as the unfolding of a divine plan. Darwinism remained a source of controversy, and the opposition began to increase toward the end of the nineteenth century.

The standard trope is that evolution and religion are at war. Bishop Wilberforce against science professor Thomas Henry Huxley. John Thomas Scopes was prosecuted for teaching that humans evolved from apes. Many, however, welcomed evolution, bringing it into their religious world picture. This was particularly the case for those drawn to organicism, Henri Bergson and Teilhard de Chardin in France, and Alfred North Whitehead, founder of process theology/philosophy in America. Evolution, Darwinism in particular, was now seen as a stimulating challenge rather than as a dire threat.