I am a strong believer in evolution through natural selection. This does not however mean I think religion and evolution are mutually exclusive. I do think that religion is silly and unnecessary but I can’t unequivocally state that there is no God. In scientific endeavor, while there is always uncertainty about certain “truths” like evolution, there at least does exist some physical evidence that support the theories, instead of blind faith to support religion. But this is not a post about my religious beliefs or my justification for them. Rather, in this post, I wish to clarify that belief in evolution does not necessarily constitute religion nor does it preclude the existence of a God.
A couple of months ago, the Economist magazine showed the results of a survey comparing American and British attitudes. One question asked, Which explains the origin of the earth? The choices were the theory of evolution, the Bible and intelligent design. The survey was commissioned by the Economist - not formulated by them - but I’m disappointed that such a reputable magazine could make such a glaring mistake. The theory of evolution does not purport to explain the origins of the earth. It doesn’t even purport to explain the origins of life. What’s more disturbing is that 60% of British and 30% of American responses indicated this choice (though, to be fair, there was no none of the above choice). The question and its results reflect a lack of knowledge apropos one of the most important scientific theories in existence.
I am not an expert in evolutionary biology but I enjoyed and studied enough of it to understand the basic idea. Here’s the lowdown. Evolution by natural selection describes a non-random process that tries to explain the progression of life from its primitive forms to the current manifestations. That’s it. It doesn’t explain for example why animals moved from the sea to land. And it most certainly does not explain the origins of life. Scientists may use conclusions from natural selection to help them explore these and other problems but that’s about it. Because of its fairly cosmically limited scope, natural selection can coexist with and does not necessarily replace religion because it does not have the answers to the questions of creation.
That being said, I think evolution (in concert with other sciences) does a thorough job of invalidating organized religions - or at least their scriptures. The fact that the earth is billions of years old and that the universe is heliocentric are two of the major empirical threats to scriptural claims. Furthermore, natural selection confronts a very important concept in religion (at least that of the Western variety): the dominion of man. Knowing that humans are only a recent addition on our fair planet pretty much takes care of that notion. So now religionists can take refuge only in that other major idea: that creation is the work of a greater Power.
The question of creation and its implications, however, is one for another day. So, take heart, o ye believers, and don’t look upon evolution and natural selection as works of the devil (or devils, depending on your particular belief). Sure, you may have to rethink some of the balderdash you’ve been fed by your priests, but isn’t that part of the growing process? I myself think it’s lovely and marvelous that we once shared a common ancestor with Chimpy down at the zoo and even the herbs that spice up our lives. As for the other side, use the theory of natural selection selectively - not as a shotgun approach to tackle all the cosmic claims of religion. Denials can be as narrow-minded as beliefs.
Since I started thinking about this, I’ve run across a couple of interesting links. First, here’s a link to a poll showing that 20% of Americans and even more of other nationalities believe the sun revolves around the earth. Granted, the poll was taken ten years ago but I’m not sure much has changed in the past decade when the knowledge is thousands of years old. And here’s an interesting set of essays concerning the relationship of religion and science.
Unfortunately, this very basic explanation, escapes most people of average intelligence - which is basically the majority of the population.
Even a hurricane, like Katrina, was sent over by God and was sent over to do damage to all the sinners. Because a lot of sinning happens in New Orleans, apparently. To a deeply religious person, it has noting to do with warm water, moist air, and converging winds. That would be too simplistic an explanation.
It is much easier to show people the damage that God can do, if you don’t follow scripture, versus explaining something as some random event that happens naturally. It would defeat the purpose of religion and expose God as not being the powerful being we should all be so fearful of.
This bad start that the Yankees are in, does that mean God hates all Yankee fans? I hope not. I know this really nice old lady across the street that’s a big Yankee fan, why is God punishing her? So anything bad that happens to me is all God’s work and he’s conspiring against me because I’m some evil mother f-cker.
I think not!
I sincerely feel there is no God, it is quite simply up to us to do what’s right and be accountable for own actions and life. There is no heaven and there is no hell, if there is a hell then it was in the streets of NYC during the crack epidemic in 80’s - yes Doruk, I know, I’m showing my age. Now I think of hell as being any nutty country in Africa.
I’d like to think I won the birth lottery, I’m not suffering through a life of despair and making dirt cookies - i.e Hati. If there is a God, then he never would have let me off the hook that easy. Ha!
Unless Doruk is my Personal Jesus.
That’s quite a diatribe and I agree with the gist of it. I’d also like to point out that’s an interesting user name you’ve got there but I’ll pass on the easy jokes.
One point of this post was to show that even though arguments for for religion are based on blind faith rather than any sort of methodology, arguments against religion can be just as bad if you don’t get the basic tenets of whatever science you’re using. I don’t like it when hardcore atheists use bad science to make a point. It’s analagous to politics: I’m liberal, but I dislike the hard-core left-wingers as much as the hardcore conservatives.