My first example is William Paley's Natural Theology, first published in 1802, and reprinted numerous times throughout the nineteenth century. William Paley (1743–1805) was an English (Anglican) clergyman (pictured below). In this very popular book, Paley argued that thenatural world proved the existence – and the goodness – of God. Paley was struck by the exquisite mechanisms discernible in the structure of living organisms, such as the human eye, and he asserted that such perfect and intricate DESIGN could not have come about without a DESIGNER. This is an example of what would later be called the “argument from design,” a type of argument later (and still) used by critics of evolution. Natural theology was actually a genre of writing (Paley’s book is just one example of this genre). The idea that divine wisdom could be discerned in nature was attractive in different ways, both to Christian apologists and to deists (those who believed God existed, but denied that He intervened in the natural world or in human lives). Christians found the argument from design useful in their attempts to convince atheists (those who denied that God existed). But deists used the design argument to assert that nature was so perfectly designed that there was no need for its designer to ever meddle with His creatures.

George Romney, "William Paley" (National Portrait Gallery). Wikimedia Commons.

My second example is Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, first published in 1818 (and continuously in print ever since). Shelley was deeply familiar with the scientific work of her day. Her scientist, Viktor Frankenstein, robs graves to assemble materials for his research, as did many medical researchers at that time. And he uses something very like an electrical spark or charge to bring his creation to life. in this period, experiments on electricity were very popular (recall Stephen Gray’s hanging boy) and at the cutting edge of physical and physiological research. there was much speculation that electricity was a kind of life force, and there were actual (serious) experiments with reanimating dead tissue, and even entire animals, using electricity. But Shelley’s novel, as you probably know (whether you’ve read it or not), is not a cheerful tale about how scientific and technological progress improve human life. Victor Frankenstein’s monster runs amok and causes death and destruction. Discovering the forces of nature does not, in Frankenstein, reveal the glories of God’s creation. Instead, Viktor Frankenstein goes too far. He tries to become like God, manipulating the forces of life and death for his own ends. Shelley’s novel raises questions about the relationship between science and religion (or some more abstract principle of morality) that human beings still grapple with today. Can scientists go too far? Are there things human beings are not meant to know? Are there forces we should not mess with? These questions and fears are new in the nineteenth century. In earlier periods, while certain scientific theories (like heliocentrism) were sometimes seen as incompatible with religious doctrine, there was never any sense that scientific research might lead human beings to have destructive power over nature. This sense that human beings should not “play God” is beautifully captured in this clip from the 1931 film addaptation of Frankenstein. After his creation comes to life, Frankenstein (clearly stark raving mad!) shouts, “Now I know what it feels like to be God!” (Yes, it’s over the top and now seems a bit silly. Suffice it to say that styles of acting have changed enormously since the 1930s!)

My third example is William Dyce's painting of Pegwell Bay in Kent (ca. 1858). Pegwell Bay was a popular seaside resort in the southeast of England. In this painting, Dyce reflects on scientific advances in cosmology and geology. The date of the painting, October 5, 1858, is significant because a comet was visible then, and Dyce has included it in the painting. (Look carefully. It is faint and a bit hard to see in reproductions.) The cliffs in the painting were highly detailed and refer to the contemporary development of geology, a science that revealed that the age of the earth was considerably longer than previously thought. The earth was now millions, not thousands, of years old, and human occupation of the planet had come late in its history. The interpretation of the painting is open to question. Did Dyce mean to convey a sense of awe and wonder at the newly discovered size and age of the cosmos and the earth? Or did he mean to convey a sense of futility and isolation by depicting human figures as tiny little mortal specks against the infinite vastness of space and time? Is the painting serene or gloomy? Look at it closely and draw your own conclusions.