In later years, T.H. Huxley wrote of
Darwin's reception in the scientific community. (<Project Gutenberg link) Not the easiest reading, and full of disinformation, but it still bears witness in its own twisted way.
Myself, I was primarily interested in tracking down the ever-elusive "conversion" story. No luck.
On the whole, then, the supporters of Mr. Darwin's views in 1860 were numerically extremely insignificant. There is not the slightest doubt that, if a general council of the Church scientific had been held at that time, we should have been condemned by an overwhelming majority.
(I'm adding bold)
That which we were looking for, and could not find, was a hypothesis respecting the origin of
known organic forms, which assumed the operation of no causes but such as could be proved to be actually at work. We wanted, not to pin our faith to that or any other speculation, but to get hold of clear and definite conceptions which could be brought face to face with facts and have their validity tested. The 'Origin' provided us with the working hypothesis we sought.
A confession follows in the following paragraph.
In my earliest criticisms of the 'Origin' I ventured to point out that its logical foundation was insecure so long as experiments in selective breeding had not produced varieties which were more or less infertile; and that insecurity remains up to the present time.
So it was not on the basis of any tested hypotheses that evolutionism was adopted. Earlier Huxley had insisted on the methodological requirement that an hypothesis must be tested; looks like he "mellowed with age."
More than once he refers to the "old" and "new" generations. The alert reader will have no trouble understanding that a process of replacement took place. He does not name a single man-of-science "converted" from "YEC"-style creationism; although he lists converts from other denominations within evolutionism itself.
Hux' language is prejudiced throughout the piece. If he put any effort into concealing his bias, it doesn't show. Now can you imagine the praise he'd've heaped upon the head of anyone who'd abandoned truth for their pile of lies! ...If only such a fool could've been named... Instead, he is forced to paint "his generation" as stubborn.
It was badly received by the generation to which it was first addressed, and the outpouring of angry nonsense to which it gave rise is sad to think upon. But the present generation will probably behave just as badly if another Darwin should arise, and
inflict upon them that which the generality of mankind most hate--the necessity of revising their convictions. Let them, then, be charitable to us ancients; and if they behave no better than the men of my day to some new benefactor, let them recollect that, after all, our wrath did not come to much, and vented itself chiefly in the bad language of sanctimonious scolds. Let them as speedily perform a strategic right-about-face, and follow the truth wherever it leads.
This is typical Huxley double-talk. Earlier he said
It would indicate a lack of sense, as well as of modesty, to ascribe to the men of that generation less capacity or less honesty than their successors possess. What, then, are the causes which led instructed and fair-judging men of that day to arrive at a judgment so different from that which seems just and fair to those who follow them?
If this seems like overkill, please remember that this is history with which we deal. It is difficult to over-verify conclusions.
