EVOLUTION: RELIGION'S NEMESIS?
For centuries, Science and
Religion have maintained a state of constant competition with each other; their
respective supporters endlessly coming up with new methods of attack against
the other in order to strengthen their own claims. Currently, this state of
tension continues, though through the works of prominent figures in the field
of science such as Gould, Dennet, and most
noticeably, Kenneth R. Miller, a new approach to the dispute between science
and religion has emerged. This approach entails the supportive coexisting of
religion and science (specifically evolution). More importantly, emphasized by
Miller in his novel “Finding Darwin’s God”, this approach seeks to demonstrate
how instead of the legitimacy of evolution and religion being dependant on
their existence independently of one another, evolution serves to strengthen the existence of an ultimate
being: a concept never before approached until recently.
The scientific status of
evolution as presented by the National Academy of Sciences leaves no
possibility for an alternative cause for the present state of all living organisms
other than through evolution:
“ Evidence demonstrate[s] …that evolution occurred as a historical process and
continues today… it is no longer possible to sustain scientifically… that
living things did not evolve from earlier forms or that the human species was
not produced by the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the rest of the
living world” (Miller 166).
No matter how legitimate and
official the source from which this statement comes
from, nor how much supporting evidence is found, there are those who refuse to
believe in the existence of such a process as evolution. For those belonging to
this population, a present day example of the process and result of evolution
used by Miller will be supplied. This example can be found through observation
of the herring gull and the black-backed gull, referred to as “ring species”
(Miller 47). These birds indicate highly different nesting habits, coloration,
and do not mate with one another. However, upon closer observation of the
herring gull while moving westward, an obvious change in appearance begins to
transpire as the species become more and more similar to that of a black-backed
gull- so much as to classify them as the same species. Miller defines ring
species as being a group of organisms with such widely varying differences as
to classify them as distinct species, but whose variations are connected by
“intermediates” (Miller 47). The establishment of these organisms as truly
separate species could come to pass through either the extinction or isolation
of the intermediate species brought about through natural (or man-made)
processes (Miller 47). Following skepticisms concerning evolution’s occurrence,
the most common attack posed against evolution is the denial of its status as a
legitimate science. This is the most common form of argument directed against
evolution because by disclaiming its legitimacy in the scientific field, then
all that evolution entails will likewise be pure theory and of no substantial
consequence. Thus, before an attempt to merge religion with science we must
first establish evolution, and the study of evolutionary biology as scientific
and factual. Evolution, the modification of heritable traits within a
population over time resulting in speciation and the diversity of life on
Earth, is, as affirmed by Miller, both fact and
theory. Evolution is factual in that it is a truthful account of life’s history
on this Earth, fashioned by a process involving decent with modification. That
beings did not appear in their current form out of thin air has been
established together with the fact that our ancestry as well as that of
thousands of other species can be mapped out in accordance with an evolutionary
process (Miller 53).
Evolution as a theory seeks to explain the manner in which evolutionary change
transpired; with consideration to the effects of a three part mechanism
consisting of mutation, variation, and natural selection. Miller effectively
condenses this information when he states that evolution is a fact in that
“evolutionary change took place…and evolution is also a theory that seeks to
explain the detailed mechanism behind that change.” The existence of evolution
having been established, the question of the scientific validity of evolution
has yet to be addressed: The attack claims that evolution as a historical
science is in itself an oxymoron due to evolution’s inability to be recreated
in a laboratory and for its variables to be controlled in experimentation.
In order to strengthen our
support of the ability, and overall beneficial outcome of the merging of
evolution and religion, it is necessary to first address a vital question: What
hinders their concurrent existence? That is, why does evolution pose such a
threat to the fundamentals of religion? Whereas Gould refers to the creation of
a methodology for evolution as the greatest result of
Miller addresses all of the above
questions, beginning by stating firmly that the knowledge that science provides
us with is indefinite due to the fact that science depends on scientific
evidence obtained through observation and experimentation (Miller 21). At
anytime, if novel evidence is introduced refuting initial scientific claims,
any scientific theory, including evolution, can be refuted. This places Science in an unstable position,
though is not sufficient reason to state that science and its knowledge cannot
displace religion at least until significant evidence is found refuting
evolution. Until that day, if indeed it comes, can we not depend on
materialistic science to answer our questions about our existence? As always, Miller
has already evaluated this possibility. He defines the success of materialistic
sciences as the day in which materialist and scientific explanations replace
religious faith: a victory he claims is impossible. Science’s limitations stem
from uncertainties that make it impossible for science to fully explain nature
and reality (Miller 219). An example of these shortcomings can be seen in
sciences inability to predict events occurring at an atomic level, such as the
behavior of an electron. These limitations are significant because according to
science, there is a scientific explanation to be found behind every phenomenon.
In other words, according to scientific thought, with enough time, a complete
understanding is meant to be accessible to humans, though scientific theories
hold that some uncertainties are incapable of ever being conquered. Thus,
materialistic science can never fully reign in the absence of religion; it
cannot answer the fundamental question of why our material world is prearranged
in a manner that inhibits our complete understanding of it (219).
In order to arrive to the
conclusion that the coexisting of Science and Religion is not only possible,
but advantageous to both foundations, all of the alternative possibilities must
be refuted. We have established that science in itself in the absence of
religion fails to provide us with definite knowledge on all matters. The
possibility of the reign of religion without consideration to evolution, though
highly unfeasible, has been proposed by young-earth creationists. Young-earth
creationists hold the firm belief that the age of the earth does not exceed
10,000 years, and in order to support this belief, they refute any concept
supporting evolutionary biology. Believing in a young Earth supports the series
of events as stated in the bible, though it also threatens the existence of
evolution by rendering the fossil record (a vital support of evolutionary
processes) useless. Considering for a moment that the young-earth explanation
for the fossil records; the great flood, is feasible, their whole argument
concerning the age of the earth can still be destroyed through experimentation
with a single phenomenon: radioactivity. Through scientific and geological
studies with radioactivity, researchers were able to discover that the planet
did indeed have a definite beginning, and that the actual age of the earth is
measurable (Miller 66). Young-earth creationists deny the existence of defined
geological ages, as they indicate creation over a considerable expanse of time.
Through the use of the potassium-argon method to determine the age of rocks
containing radioactive isotopes, radiometric geology was able to confirm the
structure of sequential geological ages, which affirmed the age of the earth to
be even older than
“Evolution dashed the hopes of those who might have seen life as the one thing
in the natural world that science would never
Science should not constitute a threat in the presence of religion, and those
who base the strength of their faith on science’s inability to explain the
world around us are setting up highly unstable foundations, not to mention
misconstruing the whole concept of faith itself. This leads us to the conclusion that if a
means of coexisting is not possible, it is certainly needed, as it is the only
possible resolution to the battle between science and religion. Luckily, the view
of the ability of both practices existing simultaneously and free of conflict
is one that is gaining gradual support.
The National Academy of Sciences
took the first step in presenting science and religions’ ability to live in
harmony by stating that a belief in God as well as in the process of evolution
is a definite possibility, due to the fact that religions and science differ in
their methods of obtaining knowledge, and in the way that they address questions
concerning the universe: “Whether there is a purpose to the universe or a
purpose for human existence are not questions for science (Miller 169)”.
Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould demonstrated his support for this view by
stating that religions and science should coexist, though within their
respective boundaries defined by the different fundamentals that they address.
Gould viewed religions and science as being two “non-overlapping magisteria,” and defined their respective when he wrote: “the
of science is factual truth on all matters, and the magisteriamagisteriummagisterium
of religion… is the realm of morality and the meaning of life (Dennet 30)”. Any conflict between the two, according to
Gould, is due to an overstepping of either one’s boundaries. This proposal of
peace was not favored by the majority due to the fact that it required that
sacrifices be made by either side, diluting both principles. Gould’s proposal
posed further complications because it required that science and religion
coexist independently of the other, which proved to be impossible. Though there
are differences in the ways in which religion and science address questions and
provide explanations, these differences are not unambiguous, and as mentioned,
any attempt at making them so would be restrictive to both practices. With each
new scientific discovery concerning our origins, the original feelings of
tension arise; making Gould’s theory of harmonious living between science and
religions unfeasible; the introduction of punctuated equilibrium to the public
serves as a perfect example.
For years, the “modern synthesis”
theory of evolutionary change, identified by
All alternative options excluded,
our last resort is to entertain the notion that the merging of the two
principles of science and religion, based not on the limitations of the other,
but on their compatibility and ability to reinforce one another’s foundations
is possible; a notion that constitutes the central theme of Miller’s novel. In
order to demonstrate that such a notion is in fact possible, it would be
helpful to revert back to the central cause of conflict as indicated by Miller;
that evolution endangers the fundamentals of religion in that it casts God from
his role as the source of all life and provider of a meaning for our existence.
For creationists, to accept evolution is to accept that we are not the direct
result of a divine creator, but the outcome of random chance. Because the
possibility of a middle ground in which God’s role is evident is unconceivable,
accepting evolution would, understandably, hold very scary implications.
However, the very concept that ignites frustration amongst believers; that of
the randomness of our creation, is exactly where God’s hand can be best
exemplified. Miller states that “room for the work of a deity can be found in
the physical nature of reality” (Miller 27). Physical occurrences, such as the
placement of an electron in the environs of an atomic nucleus, are never random
in a literal sense due to the fact that some results are more probable than
others, but are indeterminable to us, as was indicated previously. The nature of quantum physics, which includes
the inability to provide explanations as to certain occurrences at the atomic
level, has allowed us to comprehend that there is a definite hindrance to our capacity
to achieve knowledge concerning the nature of reality. Miller proposes that
this barrier, which indicates to us that we cannot possibly obtain complete
knowledge of all of natures mysteries, could well have been created by a
supreme being in order to grant us the freedom to choose whether or not to
accept his role and existence in the universe (Miller 214). In considering this
concept, it is necessary to realize that only when presented with uncertainty
are we truly free to choose. So as not to refute any claims that God is being
searched for in areas of uncertainty only, it would be necessary to illustrate
an obvious example given by Miller in which the Supreme Being’s work can best
be observed: through the perfections found within the physical constants of our
universe (Miller 228). Miller describes the exactness of the gravitational
constant for enabling the survival of all life forms on Earth as being nothing short
of a miracle. Likewise, astronomers B.J. Carr and M.J. Reese acknowledged that
“even if all anthropic coincidences could be
explained…it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by
physical theory happened to be those propitious for life” (Miller 229). The
acknowledgement of the exact precision of certain constants in such a manner as
to ensure our survival is referred to as the “anthropic
principle” (Miller 228). Keeping this in mind, we can clearly see how the
amazing process of evolution could be referred to as miraculous. Therefore,
accepting evolution’s role in the creation of our species is not giving in to a
random process as the source of life, but is accepting evolution’s identity as
a divine tool. Evolution then, goes from being religion’s most feared nemesis
to being, as Miller so eloquently phrases it; “the only way in which a creator
could have made us the creatures we are- free beings in a world of authentic
and meaningful moral and spiritual choices” (Miller 291). This is the crucial
basis of our association with God and creation; recognizing evolution as God’s
“physical intervention in our lives (Miller 291)” places evolution’s role in
support of religion, contrary to the dominant view stating the exact opposite. After
this acknowledgement of evolution’s new position, the decision to work through
evolution in order to create all earthly species becomes highly conceivable; Miller
points out that if we were to have originated instantaneously in our current
forms, our religious faith would be ensured, but this would come at a price in
that our freedom to choose to love God and thus our status as truly independent
beings would be sacrificed. Comprehending this point of view, does this not
place evolution as the ultimate representation of God’s love for humankind? According
to Miller, the “freedom to act and choose enjoyed by each individual requires
that God allow the future of his creation to be left open” (Miller 238).
Evolution perfectly achieves these means as it acts as a representation of the
freedom that God grants all human beings. Due to the unpredictability of
evolution’s results the future is left determinable by us and is the result of
our choices as individual beings.
Upon embarking on this attempt to find a common
ground upon which religions and science could peacefully coexist, I experienced
a fair amount of skepticism as to what novel scientific or religious evidence
would be introduced to support such a claim, and why this evidence had not
impacted the public to the extent that one would have expected it to if it was
in fact, effective in settling centuries of dispute. Much to my amazement, no
such never-before heard claims were presented; Miller made use of centuries of
established scientific findings and research, including Darwin’s guidelines to
the workings of evolution, research in molecular biology, quantum physics,
radial geology, and mathematical data, only he made use of their accepted
principles in ways that had never been entertained before. The process by which
the conclusion of the ability of religions and science to demonstrate a mutual
relationship was approached in this paper was an attempt at representing the same
formula used by Miller in his exemplary novel, though it does his methods no
where near enough justice. Miller effectively evaluates the arguments presented
by reputed representatives of both sides of the debate, entertaining the
possibility that either one could hold accuracy, leading the reader in a
step-by-step process to settle upon a consented conclusion. He provides
detailed explanations of scientific theories and processes, and is effective in
enabling feelings of apprehension to be replaced by emotions of liberating
understanding towards a new and definitely feasible approach to the unnecessary
dispute between religions and science. Miller brings his novel to a close with
a well suited excerpt from Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species:”
“There is a grandeur in this view
of life; with its several powers having been originally breathed by the creator
into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on
according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms
most wonderful and most beautiful have been. And are being evolved (Miller
292)”.
Certainly, if Darwin, the father of evolution himself chose to include the
Creator in the final summary of his research, then evolution and religion were
not destined to pose a threat to one another, and somewhere, for some reason,
we have gone astray. Miller, among others, is leading us to ‘the road back
home’. One can only wish that like the long and unnecessary battle between
these two principles can be settled with minor alterations in our mindsets and
through closer observation of evidence already provided to us, the answer to
the peaceful coexisting of the human species could be so clear.
References
Miller, Kenneth R. Finding
Dennet, Daniel D. Breaking the Spell.
New York: Penguin
Group USA Inc, 2006.
be able to explain” (Miller 168).
Eng. 110
Wikipedia main page