First, the prediction of Neptune was a big win for science in the eyes of the general public. It was not exactly spotless though, especially in the eyes of the scientists. Here is from [Kelley's How was Neptune Discovered?](https://hubpages.com/education/The-Drama-of-Neptunes-Discovery):

>"*The world was excited by the find, for never before had mathematics predicted a natural object. This confidence in the results was lessened, however, when discrepancies were noticed in the calculated values and the actual ones (Lyttleton 227). For example, Adams calculated an orbital period of 227 years and Le Verrier found it to be 218 years using Kepler’s Third Law (Period squared is proportional to average distance cubed). The actual value of the orbit is 165 years. This discrepancy was not a result of using Kepler’s Third Law but because of using Bode’s Law for the average distance (229). The only actual value they were close to, if one looks at the table, is the location in the sky it would be found. It is possible that both men were simply lucky with this. We shall never truly know (233).*"

Second, debate over evolution did not begin 14 years later, it was going on for a while. Lamarck proposed his version of evolution in 1801, and even the dominant in the early 19-th century [Cuvier's catastrophism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Cuvier#Catastrophism) posited a kind of evolution, although in discrete leaps. Lyell's gradualistic geology defended in [Principles of Geology (1830-33)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_Geology) that displaced it was far more influential in the acceptance of Darwin's ideas than astronomical events (and it was a direct inspiration for Darwin himself). In 1860 Leverrier himself moved on to a new prediction, Vulcan, blamed for the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury. A curious [report about the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/hunt-for-vulcan) in Manchester, 1861 (soon after the Oxford debate) indicates that Neptune was not much of a factor:

>"*In 1861, the city showcased both its wealth and brains as it hosted Britain’s largest celebration  of knowledge, the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Charles Darwin had published The Origin of Species less than two years before, and that explosion continued to reverberate through every gathering of the learned. At the Manchester meeting Darwin’s defenders prepared to battle religious doubters. One speaker, the “blind economist” Henry Fawcett, made the ultimate claim: Darwin was a true scientific hero, one who solved his problem by the same methods, the same approach to experiment, observation, and generalization that the great Isaac Newton himself had used in his physics. Much else was discussed, of course — advances in dredging engineering, a report on birds of New Zealand, news from the balloon committee. The astronomy section was relatively quiet...*"

Finally, in contrast to 17th and 18th centuries the role of the church in scientific debates was much diminished, and its reaction to Darwin (and more specifically to human origins, not evolution in general), was ambivalent. The nature and significance of the [Oxford evolution debate of 1860](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Oxford_evolution_debate) might also have been glossed:

>"*Though the debate is frequently depicted as a clash between religion and science, the British Association at the time had a number of clergymen occupying high positions (including Presidents of two of its seven sections)... a case could be made for saying that for the many clerics in the audience, the underlying conflict was between traditional Anglicanism (Wilberforce) and liberal Anglicanism (Essays and Reviews)...*
 
>*Many of the opponents of Darwin's theory were respected men of science: Owen was one of the most influential British biologists of his generation; Adam Sedgwick was a leading geologist; Wilberforce was a Fellow of the Royal Society (though at that time about half of the Fellows were well-placed amateurs)... The debate has been called "one of the great stories of the history of science" and it is often regarded as a key moment in the acceptance of evolution. However, at the time it received only a few passing references in newspapers, and Brooke argues that "the event almost completely disappeared from public awareness until it was resurrected in the 1890s as an appropriate tribute to a recently deceased hero of scientific education"*".