In one original formulation, the term Protestant identified those “protesting” or asserting the basics of Christian belief as discerned in the Bible and in the face of perceived distortions. “The Bible alone” (sola scriptura) quickly became a rallying cry for different kinds of religious agendas and political causes. In a more radical guise, it also made individual believers the final arbiters of religious truth. One consequence of this unstable mix of biblicism and individualism has been the proliferation of Protestant denominations. While many have retained a firm commitment to the Bible as their final authority others, particularly since the rise of biblical criticism in the nineteenth century, have given increasing priority to reason, experience, or individual conscience. Such diversity makes a discussion of the relations between Protestantism and Darwin at once problematic and absorbing. What we manifestly do not have is a single relationship between a well-defined religious movement and a fixed set of scientific or philosophical ideas (Figs. 58.1 and 58.2).

This complexity is indicated here by looking at a sample set of theologians and thinkers from Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Dutch and Swiss Reformed denominations. This denominational diversity alerts us to the range of views included within Protestantism but also points to Protestant perspectives not explored here (on Quakers, for example, see Cantor 2005; and for wide-ranging surveys, see J. R. Moore 1979; Livingstone 1984; and J. H. Roberts 1988). Of course, denominational affiliations do not map neatly onto other ways of registering diversity within Protestantism. More conservative or evangelical and more liberal or progressive versions of Protestantism cut across denominational lines. While it is true at some general level that most evangelicals have been more hostile to Darwin than liberal Protestants, this claim masks a messier history. In the end, no register of Protestant diversity provides a straightforward basis for predicting responses to Darwin (on this, see Livingstone 1992; J. H. Roberts 1999; and J. R. Moore 2001).