Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Can Evolution and Religion Coexist?

Hey guys,
I’m one of the moderators for today and just wanted to get the discussion going with a few questions. Do you think evolution and religion are opposing ideas? Or can the two exist in dialogue with each other? Another question I had, dealing with the discussion we had at the end of class on Tuesday, was whether you think accepting evolution is also a form of faith?
I personally do not believe in any form of creationism, but that does not mean that religion and evolution cannot coexist. For example, even though almost all scientists accept evolution to be true, many of them still believe in God. Even when strong proponents of evolution point to Darwin’s The Origin of Species, they often neglect to note that Darwin never mentioned the role of God. On the other end of the spectrum, many Christians do not necessarily reject the theory of evolution. This is where the theory of intelligent design comes into play. Proponents of intelligent design agree that evolution is true, but maintain that God set forth this process. Therefore, it seems that there can always be a relationship between evolution and religion. However, this is wholly dependent on the people involved. Some people are willing to objectively give both sides a chance, while others just cling to what they have been told and tentatively reject the other notion.
Of course there are conservatives on both sides. For instance, some people reject the theory of evolution because it contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible’s text regarding the origin of the universe: that God created heaven, Earth, and all species in six days. On the other hand, conservative scientists may argue that religion should play no role in science. One point from earlier in the semester that I like is the discussion of the different realms religion and science are in. It seems that science serves to answer the “how” questions, while religion answers the “why” questions.
I personally think that evolution and religion can coexist as long as people are willing to give both sides a fair chance. To answer my second question, I would say that accepting the theory of evolution is not a matter of faith in terms of the religious way of thinking of it. Of course, accepting the scientific studies and experiments dealing with natural selection and evolution requires some sense of trust, but I think that the word faith does not really apply to this discussion.

26 comments:

  1. I do believe evolution and religion can co-exist. There are many deeply pious people who believe that the writings in their respective religion are meant to be taken figuratively. Perhaps this could be adopted for the creation of man. That said, I would think that many times, devout believers of religion either compromise their beliefs on religion to accept the theory of evolution, or simply do not believe in it. I don't think a conflict stance MUST be taken in order to be religious...there seems to be a trend for people to adopt either side, not both. I don't think it unreasonable for a person to accept the existence of God, but to believe in evolution as well. There are some religions who believe that God takes a teleological stance in relation to the earth, often compared to a watch maker and referred to as an intelligent designer. I think this approach allows for the existence of both God as a creator, and the stance of evolution.

    It is a difficult situation, but the relationship between evolution and religion doesn't HAVE to be anything, it is what people make it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Ruchi that there are religions who agree with the notion that God created the world and then allowed it to develop on its own after that. I remember learning about this idea in high school as deism when we were learning about the thinker Voltaire. Voltaire has a famous quote that states: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." People like him might not even believe in a specific organized religion, but instead believe in a maker who as Ruchi put it, takes a teleological stance in relation to the earth. In addition, Voltaire and people with similar beliefs would have advocated for dialogue between evolution and revolution. I personally think if those involved keep an open mind, maybe not agreement, but a tleast some respectable dialogue could occur.
    I think acccepting evolution, like any other scientific theory or like any religion, is a matter of faith because theories are not set in stone. We discussed in class how science is viewed by some people as fact, but these "facts" can be proved wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you are right in what you say at the end because in science we say "a theory is true until it is proven wrong". So the theory of evolution has to be true unless we find a way to prove it is not. But then, there is the problem of the evidences that support the theory: are these relationships between species actually completely random? Would it be possible that the flaw in the theory comes from the foundations of the evidences?

      Delete
  3. I definitely agree that evolution and religion can co-exist. Though I am not a very religious person, I believe that evolution can compliment religious beliefs, not oppose them. I thought it was extremely interesting that Darwin was so upset by the fact that other scientists were taking his theories as a means of war against religion. The two extremes of science and religion are not capable of being compatible, however, more moderate views on both allow for them to work together. For example, many people can believe that God allowed for the original creation of the world and then let everything evolve from there. Answering whether accepting evolution as truth is a form of faith is a much more difficult question. Accepting anything as truth requires some faith. I do believe that accepting evolution means that you have faith in science, but it is a different kind of faith than in religion. Faith in both religion and science require the acceptance that there are things much bigger than you as an individual, but science has tangible facts, while religion does not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Personally, I believe in evolution in the theory that Darwin put forth, one because it plays to my sense of scientific logic and reasoning, but also because I will admit that I am not a very religiously educated or affiliated individual. I was not raised knowing the biblical literalisms that are usually said to be in conflict with Darwin's findings. However, that does not mean that I think that people believe in this can't also believe in the theory of evolution. Then there are people like Aristotle who think of God as the unmoved mover, who began this universe but has no interactions with it after that. I believe that science and evolution can coexist with religion because even Darwin and his wife were religious people yet they published findings that ultimately destroyed their previous truths that they knew concerning the creation of man and humanity. Of course there are people who only see them in conflict and those that see them not connected at all, but i think they can be as independent or conflicting or integrated as one wants, because it comes down to individual beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I believe that evolution was not intended to oppose religion; as we saw in the film clips shown in class and from historical knowledge of Darwin's religious persuasion. The two theories being at odds is a product of modern interpretation of Darwin's text, and I'd argue that, while one was not intended to contradict the other, interpretation over close to two hundred years has placed them on opposite ends of the spectrum of science and religion, and for that purpose alone, we sort of have to think of them as such. Darwin himself has shown that the two theories CAN exist in dialogue with one another, but I'd argue that again, modern interpretation has placed them in conflict, so it only lends to think of them as such. I would argue that, as with any theory, evolution and creation are both provable, and have been disproved by those in opposition. These theories, whichever you believe, have to be taken on faith, as neither can be stated with absolute certainty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with this post. I don't think that the idea of evolution was created to be in conflict with religion's theories of how we all came to be. While they are very different ideas, what you chose to believe has a lot to do with who you are able to trust with making these decisions for you. Since is can be said that religion has no hard data to back up its theory, today's society seems to be more inclined to believe in the theory of evolution due to the scientific proof that is it able to provide. These two theories were not created to fight against each other, and as Calle said only time has placed them so far apart of the spectrum. These two theories have existed for all of this time together, and while there are many people largely opposed to the side they don't agree with, there are also many people who are able to give credit to the opposite side. I think that dialogue between the two different ideas is possible.

      Delete
  6. This is a difficult question cause part of me believes society is making great strides in allowing science and religion to co-exist, and another part of me believes this coexistence can only go so far. In doing my paper on integration I have learned that it is not as foreign or extremist as I originally thought. It makes sense that religion can fill voids science leaves and science can do the same for religion. It also seems quite possible that there is some divine power that allowed for evolution or the fact that the universe had the perfect qualities for its beginning. Still, there are too many groups at conflict and for science and religion to ever coexist in perfect harmony these groups would have to accept each other, which is not going to occur any time soon.
    I believe in evolution and I do think that it is a type of faith. Of course, it takes far less faith to believe in evolution than necessary for religion. This is due to the fact that there is scientific evidence backing up evolution. Faith is trust in something you may not have tangible evidence for, therefore religion requires more faith.
    I personally like to keep science and religion separate, but that does not mean there aren't areas where they overlap. I think it is nearly impossible to just believe in science or only believe in religion, for these are two parts of our culture. It is similar to love and hate, they are opposites, completely different ideas, yet in many cases people love and hate someone at the same time. I think if we polled the population most people would fall into the category dialogue. Because most people have science and religion in their lives, it is not until the masses can accept integration that we could say science and religion coexist. Whether or not that will occur, only time can tell.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Evolution and religion coexisting is a difficult one...I think they can (and do) coexist in some shape or form, whether it be dialogue, integration, or independence. Because neither of those three categories place science and religion at war with one another, they're all a form of coexistence to me (I hope I'm understanding that right). As many have mentioned above, many believe God could have had a hand in some part of evolution, whether in the creation of the world or in the mechanics of evolution. I'm not too sure what I believe yet when it comes to science and religion...I'm still working on that. I do know, however, that I believe in evolution. Whether evolution was God's will or not, somehow, it happened to bring us to where we are today.

    You can definitely view people's belief in evolution as a form of faith. Faith, to me, means simply believing or trusting in something of the 'beyond,' if that makes sense. Even though Darwin (and many other scientists that followed) explicitly proved evolution through fossils and genetics, we can't actually physically see evolution happening because it takes millions of years for it to happen! We are evolving all the time, but it's not something we can isolate in a petri dish and watch, like we can mitosis or meiosis. So yes, evolution, even with all of its scientific proof, requires some amount of faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, I was thinking about what you said: "we can't actually physically see evolution happening". Couldn't natural selection, which can be observed on a "human-life time scale", be a good enough example to prove the theory of evolution right, or do you think evolution can only happen on a much longer period of time?

      Delete
  8. I agree that evolution and religion can definitely coexist. There are many people who believe that, while a higher being may have created the universe, that being took a hands-off approach thereafter and left nature to run its course. Like you said however, this depends on the person. While evolution and religion certainly CAN coexist and one can believe in both of them, that doesn't mean people necessarily want them to.

    I wouldn't consider evolution a type of faith, (although I would consider atheism a form of religion) because the word "faith" implies a belief in something you cannot empirically prove, which you can do with evolution. I'm not sure there will ever be a way to prove to creationism, so people are forced to go by faith.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey all, I am one of the moderators for today too,
    I will first give my personal opinion on this topic and then give you some other questions to think about, even though you can/should still answer henry's ones of course.
    To me creationism and evolution cannot coexist because they disagree on a fundamental statement: How did life start? Was it a series of fortunate events that made a single cell evolve to what we now nowadays as life, or was it a God who created everything in an instant? Still religion does not fundamentally imply creationism and in some ways I think that religion and evolution can coexist.
    I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution and as a bio major, I have had a lot of opportunities to try to understand this theory. I think that the evidences for natural selection through mutation are quite relevant: we have a lot of datas comparing DNAs from different species and showing how closely they are related, and a lot of striking morphological resemblance that could imply a common ancestor.
    But at the same time the chance for all of these evolutionary steps to happen as "well" as they did to bring life as we know it was close to none. The right conditions were there (water, enough heat and light...) but that is not always enough. So why did it work so well in this particular case? Could it be that Someone/Something gave it a little push to make it happen? Could this Something be called God?
    I see religion as a way to explain what science can't, so according to that the theory of evolution and religion could coexist. But a lot of people will disagree with that statement.

    In the movie we saw how devastated Darwin was when he was told he "had killed God", what do you think about this statement? Also, how do you define religion, when you think about its relationship with evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Answering this question can bring up many strong feelings for both sides. Over many years of interaction (that has usually been interpreted as conflict), both sides have built up arguments against one another. As many people have said in this thread, many people think that religion and science can co-exist or that they fill the gaps in one another. But science's relationship with religion is heavily dependent on what religion you are referring to. I think it is pretty obvious that most people are referring to Christianity when they are talking about this topic, and for practical purposes it is what we have to talk about.

    Personally I view science and religion as two very separate entities that must be either in conflict or independent. It is perfectly valid to say that evolution is a theory, but so is gravity, and technically God is theory as well. It all hinges on the fact that we cannot definitively prove any of these things, evidence may be found in support of them but they cannot be proven. Science is what I have come put "put my faith in" because it is based on experience in the physical world. Science, to the best of my knowledge has not been able to confirm most (if not all the things) of the things in Bible. Therefore it is generally said that the Bible is not to be taken literally, but if none of it can be taken literally, why is it worth worshipping? This is relates to what Henry was referring to, science answers "how" and religion answers "why". But when religion tries to answer how and it is disproven, then can we really believe the "why"? This is my own personal belief, so please do not take it as an attack on anyone's religion. Therefore religion only seems to explain what science cannot at this time or doesn't attempt to explain. After all, it is a logical fallacy to assume that anything that cannot be currently explained by science is an act of God. If religion and science do not agree, I am inclined to say they are in conflict but if they are answering separate questions then they have no reason be in conflict and can be independent.

    This quote from Dr. House pretty much sums up the conflict discussion I think: "You know I'd get it if people were just looking for a way to fill the holes, but they want the holes, they want to live in the holes and they go nuts when someone else pours dirt in their holes"

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hello class! I am also a moderator of this blog post and will do the same as Henry and Victoria: offer my personal answer to the question of whether religion is in conflict with science and then pose some more related questions.

    As a biological anthropology major and a practicing Catholic, my response to this question would be a strong yes, science and religion CAN coexist. Whether they should coexist or not is a different issue, but I will say that they should. I argue that the two even foster one another. Everything I have learned and been taught by relgion and science has brought me back to this conclusion. The two are able to coexit peacefully simply because they do not carve up the world in the same way. One does not apply to the other. And I still do not see where exaclty the rational conflict lies between the two. I think the conflict stems from misinterpretation of the purpose that religion serves and the human desire to be "right" or "win." I beleive that people that place religion and science in conflictg have an extreme view of one or the other. Now this is my personal opinion and I think that my kind of view between the two disciplines is the most harmonious.
    Something that we have not talked about yet is the fact that religion is a huge part of human evolution and what is actually means to be human. It is indeed something that separates us from animals. The practice of religion came long before science. If science shuts the door on relgion or vise versa, the meaning behind our existence is potentially lost.

    I want to ask a question very similar to one that Victoria asked: what role does religion play in human evolution? And does this at all affect your views on a science-religion relationship?
    Also, does religion even attempt to answer the question of "how?" as Luke A mentions above? Or is it that some religious people/groups attempt are trying to answer "how" with religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see you point, but I do not think there is a difference between religion answering how and people answering how with religion. The people that are answering how with religion presumably have some sort of religious based evidence. I think the difference between our opinions is rooted in what we think religion is/should be. As I alluded to, my belief is that if something like the Bible is worth worshipping then there has to be some sort of literal truth to it, otherwise it is at best a 2000 year old science fiction novel. So in this respect I think that the Bible does answer how in the (admittedly two different) creation stories in Genesis. I don't agree with the creation stories, but I think that is Christianity's answer to how.

      Delete
  12. I agree that the ideas of religion and evolution can coexist, seeing as they have for decades. I think that the majority of people tend to hold moderate views and lie somewhere in the middle of these two perspectives. A person can sill be religious while believing in some or all aspects of evolution. I think that only people who maintain very extreme views believe that you must choose one or the other. For the rest of us religion and evolution do exist with dialogue. In response to Sophie's question, I think that both science and religion attempt to answer the question of "how" but in different methods. Religion tries to answer "how" through God, whereas science attempts to do so through empirical evidence. I think answering the question of "how" goes back to what one considers to be truth. To answer Sophie's other question, I am not sure how or if religion plays a role in evolution other than evolutionists originally trying to disprove God as it stated in the movie "Creation." The only other way I see religion playing a role in evolution is if one believes that God created evolution and the world is still going through this process.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I absolutely agree that religion and evolution can coexist; There are alternative theories to creationism, such as intelligent design, as Henry mentioned in his beginning point. I think that sometimes, both sides aren't entirely fair to each other, by assuming the other is ignorant. As a practicing Catholic, I deal with this all the time. Because I'm so involved in my faith, I have a lot of people ask me questions about creationism and evolution, and what I believe. In extreme cases, (such as in the case of creationism), science and religion conflict with one another. But in general, I believe, such as Sophie pointed out, that they are harmonious. They complement each other. When science answers the question "how," my faith answers the question "why?"
    So, to answer Sophie's question, I don't think religion does answer the question "how." That is science. But it doesn't make religion any less important, because religion attempts to answer the greater questions: "why?"

    ReplyDelete
  14. I believe that evolution and religion can co-exist, but they often do in conflict. It's important to establish what religions are being referred to. If they the Judaic-Christian religions, then there are obvious reasons why the two can't co-exist unless in conflict. Whether people take the story of creation to be literal or metaphorical, the story itself contradicts evolution. A long time ago, almost every follower of the religions believed the story of creation to be infallible. As scientific discoveries took place over the course of hundreds of years, many adapted their beliefs to acclimate. I feel that evolution is often taken as a contradiction to God even though the theory technically doesn't have anything to do with God. Many people today believe in evolution and still believe in God. Several of them even believe God's hand is in evolution. For the people who strictly adhere to their religious teachings, evolution can often conflict.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Evolution and Religion can coexist; but only temporarily. Eventually, one will transform the other so radically that it will no longer be recognizable; it will, in effect, have been strangled to death by the other.

    While it might seem like I'm suggesting evolution will strangle religion into submission, it is conversely possible that religion would strangle evolution into a tenant of Faith, thus making evolution more about God than about Science. Let me explain.

    Evolution suggests that life did not, in fact, rise in seven days. There was, according to evolution, no instantaneous moment of creation. This contradicts explicit passages within the Bible and therefore a tenant of Christianity. Christians abound who confess to believe in evolution and God. But for the whole of the Christian world to embrace evolution would be to admit that the Bible was either A) wrong, or B) simply metaphor. In either case, Christianity has lost the high ground of being absolute truth as told by God. Either the Bible is correct, or it is not. If the Bible was either false or metaphorical regarding creation, it opens the door to suggesting that all other passages are false or metaphors. Eventually, the argument will boil down to something along the lines of the most basic beliefs of Christianity: there is a God. But since the source of this knowledge is the bible, and the Bible has been proved wrong or metaphorical by Christianity embracing evolution, then God himself would eventually be called into question. Is he a metaphor, or is he simple a false passage as well. While Christianity could continue to adapt to these challenges, as stated in my opening, it would result in a brand of Christianity unlike anything familiar to us today.

    Then, it's also true, that Christianity could incorporate evolution into its dogma. The Bible has been changed before, and it can be changed again. If the Christian world adapts properly, and makes Evolution, not an act of science, but an act of God, then the world will soon see evolution as biblical fact, rather than scientific fact. Here, we'd see the process of evolution being co-opted to glorify God, rather than as a process of natural selection.

    So, yes, Christianity and Evolution can coexist. But they will transform each other in serious ways, and ironically, both with evolve to meet the challenges presented by the other.

    As a side note, I didn't address other religions - I honestly don't know enough about Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism to specify their compatibility with evolution. However, Buddhism, in my opinion, might actually suggest and support evolution as a spiritual exercise of the soul - that is, we continue to be reborn, changing, shedding our faults and paying penance for our suffering, until we eventually evolve into a perfect being without a body. If evolution suggests constant change to adapt to an environment, it would stand to reason that eventually evolution would stop at a perfect being - and a perfect being could only be free from imperfection if it had no body.

    Just some thoughts :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Coincidentally this topic has come up in my Biology class this week. The entire class of 300 people took a poll on whether or not we thought science and religion SHOULD coexist. About 80 percent of the class said no, which is interesting to me. I think that they can coexist but one should not hinder the others research or beliefs. I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want but they should not force those beliefs on others. My biology professor, later in lecture, disagreed with the class, saying that in fact they can coexist. I think when we address this topic of Science vs. religion we look at it simply through evolution and this is too narrow a scope for me to analyze. Just because the two topics disagree on evolution does not mean that they cannot otherwise coexist. In fact, I know a very respectable pediatric surgeon who goes to church every morning before he operates. He treats children with cancer, some of them are terminally ill. This would be a hard task for any person to handle, but when I asked him how he could possibly deal with such a burden, he pulled out rosary beads and said "This helps." Even though he is a doctor and believes in medicine and science, he still believes in however big or small a way that prayer and religion play a part in the way he treats children with cancer. I found this to be very moving as well as a great example of how the two fields can work together.

    ReplyDelete
  17. My username is messed up, this is Kevin Marshack

    I believe they can coexist because religion and science answer two fundamentally different questions. As Barbour states in his intro, science addresses the how question and religion addresses the 'why' question. It is not religion's job to tell you how the world exists as it does. You are fundamentally missing the point of religion at that point. Religion was never intended on being the authority of how everything exists as it does in nature. Religion does not want us to turn a blind eye towards science, and as an extension science, evolution. Evolution only contradicts religion when you take the words of your scripture to its absolute literal interpretation.

    So I believe that to the common religious person, evolution is not at odds with their core beliefs and morals. To this group of people, evolution and science are something they should embrace without fear of contradicting fundmental morals of their faith.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I believe that science and religion can co-exist, although they may not always agree with each other. I am rather a religious Catholic and I still do believe in evolution and if anything, I believe in evolution more than I do creationism. I don't think the bible should be interpreted literally and rather metaphorically.
    Even if religious people do not want to believe in evolution, they should accept the fact that it is there. I remember my biology teacher told our class a story of a state in midwest where they did not teach evolution at their schools. When those students graduated from high school and went on to college in other states, they were extremely behind in studies because they did not know the basics of evolution. In this sense, religion and science may be able to co-exist because now (from what I understand), schools teach evolution to children, even if it is a private Christian school.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I believe science and religion can co-exist. Science is just another way of explaining the world around us. This spot was once held for religion but with time, science has been able to offer more explanations for the ever changing world.

    I once believed that science and religion could not co-exist but after watching the film on Charles Darwin and seeing how conflicted he was on whether or not to publish his works. Charles Darwin after all is the founding father on the theory of evolution. Im sure he was still religious, but in the case of creationism over evolution, science offered a better answer to his question.

    I also believe that even the deepest believer in science can have belief in faith.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As far as I know, although evolution and religion seems to be opposing ideas, it could co-exist. To be more accurate, it could still be accepted well by people who don’t have extremely strong belief towards any of them. I never think that a fanatical follower or believer could be rational. They actually would not have time to do the research and analyze themselves or compare themselves with others as we do. They have different standard system towards this world and their purposes are different. That’s what I think why scientists and religious people couldn’t get on well with each other sometimes. They could not look at each other in different values to a large extent.

    As a normal person without particular purpose or bias, I always try to help others make excuses and forgive their so-called inappropriate behaviors. However, it makes me suffer. But with the increase of my reading and my knowledge, I find myself more and more rational though sometimes confused and fallen into the bed of agnosticism. I believe that everybody should have a faith. To this point, I think accepting evolution can be a form of faith. Like the movie we watched on Tuesday, Darwin’s wife who was a religious person and didn’t believe in evolution at all still helped him with his book. I feel like it was a kindness and love that made her do this. And I believe that love could make people with conflicts finally sit on a table and talk.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Coming from a non religious person, who does not practice religion, I feel unfair to make claims regarding the existence of a religion. I am more science oriented, to an extent, as evolution does have the scientific backing to support its claims rather than the non factual, not fictitious, claims other religions to make. Taken as a whole, evolution and other religions in context, by embracing one of said options they can not coexist. Embracers of evolution won't necessarily agree with the religions and vice versa. Even different religions that coexist today contradict. Such as a monotheistic religion not open to the concept of there being more than one god would conflict with a polytheistic religion that openly acknowledges multiple deities. Both sides have millions of followers, yet they exist in the relative harmony we experience in modern culture.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I do not believe that they can go together. Even though most religious texts are to be taken figuratively, there are fundamental beliefs and facts, which the science and religion cannot go together in any ways. Like the Big Bang theory and the origin of human that the humans were first monkey-like animals cannot be accepted by many radical or conservative religious people. Although in contemporary society, there are people who believe in both the religion and science, but majority takes on the side of either religion or science and condemn the other wrong. Whether the ‘creator’ or the ‘intelligent designer’ actually exists or not is a question that cannot be answered but from what is shown and proven to the people, I take on the side of science and do not believe that God exist. Since it is obvious that I am also one of those who cannot believe in both science and religion, I may not be able to make a fair judgment, but as far as what I have learned and seen, I believe that there is no way science and religion can go together since the believers of either side are so different that they cannot compromise their own thoughts.

    ReplyDelete