Darwin's Theory

“Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance.”  (Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, atheist—1872-1970)

There was a time when the findings of science, especially physics and astronomy, seemed to demonstrate an orderly and predictable universe.  Just as a clock cannot make itself, a world governed by mathematical rules and laws cannot have made itself. The findings of science were interpreted as affirmation of a creator, God.

However, as science evolved, especially biology, religious tenets were called into question. Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, published in 1859, became a catalyst for debate, suspicion, and even animosity, between science and religion.

Darwin’s theory presents a serious challenge to religious dogma. Species have evolved one from another, changing or dying over time, in a fashion different from the account in Genesis. Evolution happens in time measured by millions of years, in contrast to the literal biblical dating of creation. Humans have evolved from earlier pre-human species, the human species evolving in continuity with the animal kingdom, not special, and not in God’s image.

Hardest to reconcile with religious tenet is that evolution is a random, unguided process that occurs without aim or purpose.  The arbitrary process of evolution does not require the guidance of a higher power.

Authors Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, collectively called The Four Horsemen of Atheism, build their case for atheism upon evolutionary theory. Evolution explains the origin of species, including man, without invoking a need for God.  Furthermore, unlike religion, science is premised on testable hypothesis and is open to revision.  These authors go a step further, arguing that religion, unlike science, is based on irrational superstitions that are harmful to society. They believe that religious belief should be actively confronted and refuted.

Evolutionary theorist, Stephen Jay Gould, disagreed.  He felt that science and religion could peacefully and respectfully coexist. Shortly before his death he wrote that science and religion asked different questions using different tools and should be considered separate domains of inquiry, what he called “non-overlapping magisteria”.  Gould maintained that questions of purpose, meaning, and values were best addressed in the domain of religious inquiry.

I recently taught an introductory philosophy class to a group of medical students. We talked about evolutionary theory and its challenge to religion.  In this class there were several Hindu students who, unlike those of us raised in Western religious tradition, did not see any conflict between science and their religion.  In fact, they believed that science must be fully accepted and integrated into religious belief.  For them, science is a reality that exists within a greater Reality. It is a truth that exists within a greater Truth that they call Brahman.