The following is a short guest post from Robert Nijssen of the Gibburt blog, on the nature of science and religion, and why they do not conflict. I’m sure everyone has their own opinions on this topic, so I’d strongly encourage you all to share your thoughts in the comments under this post.
—–
The Origin of Species vs. Genesis, What do you believe? by Robert Nijssen
Each time a discussion comes up on Darwin’s evolutionary theory, somewhere in that discussion someone says that he believes or does not believe it. This is at least a bit curious as I have never heard anybody say the same for Newton’s law of mechanics or Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Furthermore when matters of religion come on the table a commonly heard statement is that someone is not religious, because he believes in evolution. Never mind that the last thing evolutionary theory tries to do is to come up with answers to those questions typically belonging to the realm of religion, questions like ‘why are we here?’ or ‘how should I live my life?’
Obviously neither discipline is going to provide the answers the other one striving to give. Where science is very good at looking at how things happen, it is notoriously weak in looking at the why. Religion on the other hand tends to cut corners as to the how, but the why is amply provided.
Applying this to the ever raging battle between the story of Genesis and Mr. Darwin’s theory of evolution, we can see clearly the difference in approach. Evolutionary theory tries to explain how it is possible, that certain fossils are found, certain embryos of certain species closely resemble one another etc. and at this stage (at least in my non professional eyes) it seems to be the best possible candidate to explain just that. However why evolution is taking place in the first place is not answered by the theory. Attempts at answering this question are made by other disciplines such as religion or philosophy.
Summarizing, I do not think there is a need for conflict between the sciences and religion provided they both remain in the realm they were intended for. The thought of evolution theory trying to answer why we are here or religion trying to answer in what day of creation that particular fossil was put in the ground seems as pointless to me as trying to use a Norton virus scanner to battle a common cold.
For more articles of this writer please see his own blog: www.gibburt.com
What is it with Evolution that scares so many religious people? These days evolution is accepted as a fact by the vast majority of the scientific community. Even many of the religions and their leaderships agree that evolution is a sound theory. Perhaps if the rest of the religious community (the American evangelicals seem the worst) accepted the fact of evolution, and spent their time concentrating on the 'why,' then there might be less conflict between science and religion?
evolution happens because the universe and more specifically, our planet presents constant challenges to life. Organisms must adapt through selection of traits that permit the organism to reproduce, or the lineage ends. Its no great mystery, evolution is in response to the universe we find ourselves in. life wouldnt survive otherwise. Thats why.
Also, religion doesn’t provide a why, it simply invokes a ‘god did it’ argument which falls outside the realms of rationality and gives those who invoke it a sense of higher purpose, rather than accepting the universe and how it operates and for how it wonderfully is.
Evolution is the only candidate as it is the only scientifically based method to explain variance we see today. We may change the way we understand how evolutionary processes drive selection, but the central paradigm will remain.
Ive just typed this on my phone, so excuse spelling etc.
[...] Today I published an article on the blog Homologous Legs about the everlasting discussion between evolution theory and Genesis. Please find the article here . [...]
About the only thing I find religion really good at doing is providing enough smoke and mirrors to justify their existence.
summerwino,
I agree that the argument god did it falls outside the realms of rationality. But my main point is that there are certain questions within us that do not want a rational answer. And thats good because the universe is constructed in such a way that certain question cannot be answered scientifically. So we search for other methods, one of which may be religion.
Robert,
Haven't you just fallen into the trap of invoking a god/mystical being for something you don't understand? Why does religion become the default for when things aren't comprehensible? We are a long way off understanding the universe, and that fact alone is exciting. By using a god hypothesis to cover everything we don't yet understand we are in effect undermining progress and achievement by not allowing the natural wonder of the universe to amaze on its own merit. It may be as we uncover more of the "how" questions we start to piece together "why". These two aspects may be intrinsically linked, we just haven't ventured far enough. Invoking religion by default is rather offensive to scientific endeavor. If we can't answer every question with science (in its present form) it doesn't mean there isn't a scientific answer, it just may be lurking outside our human perception.
Summerwino,
I agree with you that we should not immediately default to the God-argument for things we do not understand. My point was not so much that there things we do not understand 'yet' scientifically. My point is that there things from which I wonder whether it would be possible 'at all' to understand scientifically. To give an example: I study ethics and the approach of ethics where we consider humans as nothing more than (albeit very complicated) biological machines I do not buy. No scientific explanation I know has a sufficient explanation for free will and as such for individual responsibility. Here science stops but nonetheless we are confronted with the lack of it every day. Science cannot explain great art or great music either.
So I just wanted to say there are realms where if we try to reduce them to science we might lose a lot. I am not a religious person but I can imagine that religion is one of those areas. The moral of the story is then: get truths in the scientific realm by applying scientific criteria like evidence etc… Get 'truths' in other realms by using the criteria for those realms like beauty, insight or comfort.