The connection between evolution and creation is validated by evidence and does not vilify science in any way. Rather, it illustrates the fundamental role that Christian faith has had on scientific development. However, Christianity does not answer all questions and nor does evolution, but the engagement of both communities is incredibly vital in expanding scientific knowledge. More harm than good is done when there is hostility between religion and science.
The first claim that most individuals question is whether the theory of evolution, in some way, undermines the authority of the Biblical authors. When interpreting the Bible, the authorities of the writers are respected when their writing is taken in the means that they were meant to be taken. In the Bible, sections are meant to be taken in their literal sense while other sections are not to be taken literally. As readers and interpreters of the text, our goal is to listen to the writers and not superimpose outside thinking or agendas onto them (Keller 4).
The Book of Genesis is often cited in most debates disputing creation and evolution. When taken literally, Genesis 1 shows an order of events that do not correspond with the natural order, such as the creation of light before the physical presence of the sun or stars. Genesis 1 was written in a semi-poetic language; it narrates a succession of events using the characteristics of a prose (Keller 4). On the other hand, Genesis 2 follows closely to the natural order of events (the example being that shrubs and plants fail to exist without the presence of rain), which would lead to the conclusion that Genesis 2 can be interpreted in a more literal sense than Genesis 1. Yet, neither Genesis 1 nor Genesis 2 can be read as a historical account of events. To generalize this understanding, Genesis 1 and 2 do not teach evolution, as it does not address the actual method by which God created human life (Keller 5). Tim Keller expands this by stating, “However, it does not preclude the possibility of the earth being extremely old. We arrive at this conclusion not because we want to make room for any particular scientific view of origin, but because we are trying to be true to the text, listening as carefully as we can to the meaning of the inspired author.” (Keller 5) A reinterpretation of a Bible does not reduce the messages delivered by the teachings nor does it ‘water-down’ the evidence towards evolution.
Evolution is often taught as a worldview rather than a theory. The theory of evolution states that life forms on Earth share a common ancestor and are a result of variation and selection over extremely long periods of time. Evolutionism, in its purest form, is a belief (not a theory) that the universe is a result of ‘cosmic accidents’, chance events, and simple probability (BioLogos – What is Evolution). This belief is debated very little in the scientific community, as there is almost a unanimous consensus that individuals who hold and share this belief are misinformed about the scientific principles behind the theory of evolution or are aiming to mislead the public (BioLogos – What is Evolution). Evolutionists will often cite scientific texts, such as Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”, as evidence towards the lack of existence of God. However, Darwin himself has argued against these ideas stating that although the forces of natural selection continue to affect species on Earth, God was the ultimate lawgiver and First Cause for life (Sydow 141).
It is important to note that if any scientific research confirmed the existence of a genetic component from which we inherit religious beliefs from our ancestors, this would not be incompatible with the Christian faith. It would illustrate that God could have utilized evolution has a vehicle to predispose his people to believe a God. (Ingawen 1)
In an Evolutionist’s perspective, the universe is lawless and all living species have to survive this lawless environment. This belief would conclude that even answers to the questions about human nature could be explained to be the result of genes and ancestral behavior. However, the evolutionist belief fails to answer the presence of an ‘innate nature’. This fundamental human nature or moral awareness can be clearly observed in the way people interact socially and even politically (Sytsma – The Problem with Evil). These are characteristic ways of feeling, thinking, and acting is so similar amongst individuals (even those from culturally different societies) that they can be coalesced into laws to follow. These laws follow the innate belief that harming others is bad and deny behaviours we deem morally ‘incorrect’. A fundamental bar or “evil” cannot exist without a fundamental “good” (Sytsma – The Problem with Evil). Regardless of the philosophical belief, one holds about whether these natures are altruistic or selfish, it can be agreed upon that there is a fundamental nature that dictates our actions. However, in an evolutionist’s view, these fundamental natures do not exist. Humans are, therefore, dictated by only genes. That the behaviours intrinsic to all humans are simply the result of variations to environmental stresses. This reasoning fails to encompass how substantial it is that humans, regardless of their cultural origin or ancestor, manage to share the same understanding (Sytsma – The Problem with Evil). The theory of evolution is a substantial scientific achievement, but it is in no way the answer to every question. Since there are questions that still remain unanswered by science, it would be illogical to ignore another method of understanding (Sytsma – Faith and Science).
In a study conducted by YouGov, a large majority of adults in the UK and Canada accept evolutionary science (Elsdon-Baker). Moreover, both religious and non-religious groups are more likely to accept evolutionary science rather than deny it. According to those conducting the survey, the individuals who often said it was difficult to accept these scientific claims expressed an interest in science-based subjects, including new ideas and discoveries in genetics and genomics (59% in the UK and 57% in Canada) (Elsdon-Baker).These doubts about evolutionary science seem to be related to the limitations of the science-based explanations of human origin, and more metaphysical questions such as understanding the origin of human consciousness.
The “clash” between non-religious views and the religious view is often framed around the acceptance of evolution. But studies suggest that the issue is not simply an “us” versus “them” in regards to the public view and understanding of evolutionary science (Elsdon-Baker). Many religious people do not reject evolutionary science and scientific research. Results show that almost all individuals raise questions about their origins, purpose on Earth, and their future. These questions affect every individual on a fundamental level and are universal amongst almost all faiths, and even those who do not follow a religion.
It is not scientific denial to question a scientific theory. The strongest way to strengthen a theory is through peer review, and in some way, the public questioning about details regarding evolution is a form of peer. Like all active areas of scientific research, there remain many questions about evolution that are unanswered (Elsdon-Baker). The questioning of evolutionary studies does not vilify the science in any way. It may, in some cases, even aid in strengthening the theory. https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2017/sep/05/questioning-evolution-is-neither-science-denial-nor-the-preserve-of-creationists
The Middle Ages is often cited as the origin of the conflict between the Church and scientific developments. Colloquial knowledge conveys the message the Church was brutal in curbing the progress of science, often stating of the treatment of Galileo is the key example of the Church’s treatment of noteworthy scientists. Galileo’s treatment by the Church, as unjust as it was, went against the doctrine of the Church (Systma – The Church of the Middle Ages). The aim of the Church was not to bring people to trial for being atheist or for their religious beliefs (Sytsma – The Church of the Middle Ages). Individuals who began to teach doctrines that went against the church or were incorrect were the ones who would get in trouble with the Church. Often, these individuals also happened to be scientists. However, scientists were given free rein to pursue science because of the value scientific inquiry held in Church. Scientists also were allowed to present different scientific theories than those the Church believed. It was the scientists who aimed to teach more than science (i.e. theological interpretations) who would land in trouble with the Church (Sytsma – The Church of the Middle Ages).
Like all scientific research, evidence and theories would arise that would contradict the teachings of the Church. The Church supported scientists to pursue these theories, but it was precisely when scientists took it upon themselves to reinterpret scripture for themselves that the Church drew the line. It is in no way an excuse for the Church and her behavior during that period, but the Church of the Middle Ages was the largest supporter of the sciences compared to any other institution up until that point (Sytsma – The Church of the Middle Ages).
Even today, the Catholic Church remains firmly rooted in her responsibility to support scientific development. The Church has recognized the evidence that supports the theory of evolution, stating that there are actually multiple theories of evolution that this evidence points towards (Pope John Paul II 4). Moreover, even with the theory’s foundation in scientific ideas, “it borrows certain notions from natural philosophys” (Pope John Paul II 4).
The Church states that conflict between evolution and faith is nonexistent as long as one condition is met: “the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God” (Pope John Paul II 5). This answers many questions raised by both non-religious and religious individuals. It serves as the hallmark intersection between both science and faith. This theory remains compatible with both scientific evidence and Christian faith. The emergence of human consciousness remains one of the biggest questions of all fields of science, and a metaphysical origin would answer the question for why it is so difficult to study consciousness. If it is in a realm beyond our own, then we do not have the resources to study it adequately. This theory stands strong as it does not sneak in bad philosophy nor does it degrade the scientific integrity of evolution. The consequence of this on evolution is almost neutral. Here, the Church does not insult or disregard science, it aims to “shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter” (Pope John Paul II 2).
In recent years, there has been increased distrust, fear, and dissent that has fueled social and political divides between the scientific and religious communities. Often, these ideas of divisiveness have emerged from the lack of understanding between the ideals of both groups, which in many instances, don’t defer very greatly (Shah). Both the scientific and religious communities hold evidence-based facts to a high ideal and wish to further the understanding of the natural world and the universe. It is known, historically, that the communication between scientific institutions and the Church have incredibly useful outcomes towards scientific development (Systma – The Church of the Middle Ages). It would be unreasoned to assume that the modern division between the two groups would result in better scientific development or better interpretations of the scriptures. Both communities have much to gain from the contributions of others. Moreover, theology has more to gain from science than it has to fear, the same applying to science (Shah). Both science and theology are fundamentally similar – both seek to make sense of the world and create a deeper understanding of who we are and what we’re meant to be. The conflict between science and religion often arises when religion thinks of itself as a science and when science thinks of itself as a religion (Shah).
Religion is not the cause of the conflict between itself and science, yet it is often cited as the source of perceived conflict. It is unknown to many in the public that in huge tracts of human history, religion and science coexisted. The conflict that has come to light between the two groups often arises from other economic, social, political, or psychological origins (Shah). Increased work has to be done from both groups to promote awareness of the lack of conflict between the two. The exchange of false information regarding the two sides has resulted in this conflict. The mindset has to be changed that an individual can either be scientific or religious and not both (Shah). Both are methods of thinking that are deeply intertwined with one another. Professor Alister McGrath of Oxford University describes that “Science is now asking deep questions about the meaning of life which have typically been beyond the scope of that mode of thought and its methods; opening the door perhaps to religious thinking.” (Shah).
Religion and science are incredibly compatible, and while neither answers all the questions that we have, the collaborations of the two have the capability of contributing more greatly to society than they do individually.