Scientifi c Methods 317edly taken evolution too far in explaining the history of humanity or the
origin of life, sometimes acknowledged Darwin as the epitome of Bacon’s
ideal scientists or at least admitted that, though he was “over- fond of
theorizing,” science owed “him something for his collation of facts.”^36
But traditional rhetorical tools, though still widespread, were plagued
by increasing controversy. The variation in their meaning was probably
never more than earlier in the century, but the dramatic battles over Dar-
win’s evolution in particular exposed methodological disagreements to
the harsh light of publicity and deprived catchwords such as fact, induc-
tion, and Bacon of some of their inherent ambiguity, and hence fl exibil-
ity. This difference of opinion became particularly visible in discussion of
religion and the supernatural. In his famous (or infamous) address before
the Belfast meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Sci-
ence in 1874, John Tyndall declared that modern men of science “shall
wrest from theology the entire domain of cosmological theory” and that
“schemes and systems which thus infringe upon the domain of science
must, in so far as they do this, submit to its control, and relinquish all
thought of controlling it.” An unyielding commitment to naturalism pro-
vided one means of establishing such a fi ercely independent and well-
bounded science. In 1867, geologist William North Rice commented that
the “great strength of Darwinian theory lies in its coincidence with the
general spirit and tendency of science,” which aimed to “narrow the do-
main of the supernatural.”^37
A naturalistic science admitted only physical, sensible facts, a method
often associated with the “positivism” of French philosopher Auguste
Comte. Such assertions were hardly popular with Christians, who preferred
strong consensus on matters religious and scientifi c and carried with them
a broader view of the nature of science. The geologist- cleric George Fred-
erick Wright claimed that the supernatural inspiration of Scripture taxed
the imagination no more than Darwin’s pangenesis. Others objected that
any “mechanical, external, superfi cial, false” method threatened to “exalt
the senses, which are the servitors of the mind, into the mind’s masters.”
True science considered all the facts, including those of divine Revelation;
the true method of studying nature, which included the method of faith,
aimed to read God’s handiwork in these facts.^38
Not all of those concerned about defending Christianity in the per-
ceived face of materialistic assault championed a broad view of scientifi c
boundaries. Less permeable distinctions around science, especially in light
of Tyndall’s aggressive comments, were often in the interests of theolo-
gians, too, many of whom also sought greater autonomy in their own
work. As one forward- looking observer noted in 1839, “If phrenologists