In this blog post, we will look at whether religious criticism of the “origin of species” is a denial of science or a debate for coexistence.
“On the Origin of Species,” which was published by Charles Robert Darwin at the end of the 19th century, exerted a great influence regardless of the authenticity of its content. There is no doubt that this book is an exceptional biology book that has had a huge impact on society as a whole, including history, religion, philosophy, art, and biology. Although the modern evolutionary theory based on “The Origin of Species” is accepted by many scientists as the orthodox explanation for the origin of life, some are still skeptical and critical of it. Most of these criticisms come from religious people who follow the Old Testament’s Genesis doctrine, and this remains true today. The main reason is that creationism and evolutionism conflict with the Bible. In particular, considering that Christianity dominated Western society in the 19th century, we can imagine how heretical the content of “The Origin of Species” must have been. Furthermore, we can imagine how strongly the theory of evolution was suppressed at the time.
In the 19th century, the debate continued without breaking away from the dichotomous thinking of “Darwin’s theory of evolution or the Bible’s theory of creation.” However, today, both evolutionary and creationist theories have evolved into various forms. Currently, there are many compromise theories, such as the theory of purpose, which states that the creator designed living things to evolve in a certain direction. Nevertheless, the view of religious people on the “Origin of Species,” which is the foundation of modern evolutionary theory, is still not favorable. In this article, we will look at what is controversial when looking at the “Origin of Species” from a religious perspective.
First, let’s look at “mutations that occur in breeding.” Darwin argued that species can be mutated through artificial environments or reproductive control, based on the fact that livestock breeds gradually improve over time. In other words, he emphasized that the mechanism of biological evolution is mutation through the example of breed improvement. Religious people may raise the following questions in response. First, is breeding really done by human artificial efforts? Isn’t it designed by God to be improved over time? Second, is breeding an evolution in the true sense? Can we call it an evolution just because livestock have mutated in a direction more beneficial to humans? Isn’t this an overly anthropocentric idea?
The first question is a refutation of some of the claims in “The Origin of Species” itself, which suggests that breeding is not the work of God. However, the example of a ranch shows that breeding is clearly influenced by human efforts. The cattle of one ranch may have better meat quality, while the cattle of another ranch may have increased milk yield. On the other hand, in regions like India, where the quality of beef or the amount of milk is not important, cows live with humans, but their quality is relatively poor. This shows that livestock breeds have been selectively bred under human intervention. Therefore, the argument that breed improvement is done through human intervention is more valid.
The second question stems from a misunderstanding of Darwin’s argument. Darwin never called breed improvement “evolution.” What he said was that artificial efforts can cause the differentiation of species. Evolution is when a species changes in a better direction, but differentiation is when it changes in a different direction. The fact that cows with better meat quality or more milk are not better than wild cows through human intervention is simply a difference in their characteristics. In other words, Darwin explained the differentiation of species through breeding, not evolution. Therefore, the second question of religious people can be answered.
Next, let’s look at “Natural Selection: Survival of the Fittest.” Here, Darwin argued that in the process of organisms competing to survive in a given environment, mutations can occur in a direction that is beneficial for survival. And these mutations are passed on to offspring, becoming the driving force behind the creation of different individuals. Darwin emphasizes that the intervention of nature is greater and more continuous than that of humans, and that this has created the differentiation of species. This is the core argument of “The Origin of Species,” and it is also where most friction with religious people occurs.
Religious people can raise two counterarguments to this. First, they argue that science should only include rigorously verified facts, and that the incomplete theory of evolution is just a hypothesis. They believe that the theory of evolution is not rigorous because there are no fossils of intermediate stages. Second, the theory of evolution is said to erase the sense of moral responsibility in humans and is a means of justifying social evils. If the theory of evolution is true, then human evil acts are just a manifestation of natural instincts.
The first counterargument denies the absolute truth of science. Science is only part of the process of pursuing absolute truth, and it can sometimes be subjective. For example, Isaac Newton’s law of universal gravitation was once considered an absolute truth, but Einstein’s theory of general relativity proved that it was partially wrong. Nevertheless, we still recognize Newton’s law as an important scientific principle. This is a prime example of how science does not seek absolute truth. It is problematic to dismiss the theory of evolution as an unscientific hypothesis simply because it is not perfect. The theory of evolution can be accepted as a scientific theory through various evidences and logical reasoning.
As for the second counterargument, it can be pointed out that the claim that human behavior is determined by animal instincts is an overreaching assumption, even if humans and animals have the same origin. Even though the DNA of humans and chimpanzees is 98% identical, the 2% difference makes a huge difference in terms of characteristics. Similarly, it is an overgeneralization to attribute human evil deeds to animal instincts alone. Human unethical behavior is formed and expressed by social factors. Therefore, it cannot be explained by animal instincts alone.
So far, I have examined the counterarguments to “mutations that occur in breeding” and the counterarguments to the theory of evolution itself, and presented my own arguments. Darwin’s theory of evolution is scientifically sound, as it explains the phenomenon of speciation and evolution in a rational way. The process of organisms adapting to their surroundings and mutating over time can be seen as evidence of evolution. Extremely religious people may simply explain the principle of breeding or survival of the fittest as the work of God and claim that the theory of evolution no longer needs to be studied. However, this is a denial of the scientific process of inquiry. Both creationism and evolution are theories about areas that cannot be observed, so neither can be absolutely proven or disproved.
In conclusion, religion and the theory of evolution must be mutually reconciled. The scientific community must recognize that religion plays an important role in explaining the origin of the universe and life, and religion must also recognize that Darwin’s theory of evolution is reasonable based on various evidences. If the two fields are in conflict, endless disputes and wasteful criticism will continue. Accepting the theory of evolution does not undermine the value of the Bible or weaken the role of religion. The theory of evolution should be respected as part of science, and through this, religion and science should be harmonized.
