In this blog post, we will examine why religion still has influence in the long-standing conflict between evolution and creationism, and the scientific validity of intelligent design.
Evolution and creationism have been in conflict for a long time, since Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution 150 years ago. The emergence of evolution was a huge shock to both the scientific and religious communities at the time, and creationists, especially those of the Christian faith, strongly opposed it. Darwin’s theory was the first attempt to explain the origin of life scientifically, and it was bound to clash with faith-based creationism. Today, with the advancement of science, the theory of evolution has developed into neo-Darwinism, which provides a more sophisticated explanation of the principle of natural selection. During this process, some scientists predicted that as science uncovered more and more unknown areas, the influence of religion would decline. However, contrary to these predictions, people still believe in religion, and rather than declining, the number of believers is actually increasing.
Not only that, but recently there has been a movement to make creationism appear scientific under the name of intelligent design. Scott Atran discusses whether religious beliefs are the result of adaptation in the process of evolution. Here, adaptation refers to characteristics that are advantageous for survival and reproduction in a particular environment as a result of biological evolution. Like most scientists, Scott Atran also views religion as an adaptation. He argues that although there is no gene that directly causes religious belief, the cognitive and emotional mechanisms that humans have acquired through evolution create religion and make it easy to believe. To explain Scott Atran’s opinion in more detail, he sees religious belief as a by-product of various cognitive and emotional mechanisms that humans have evolved to perform everyday tasks.
These mechanisms interpret random movements as acts with internal motives and have caused humans to evolve to instinctively seek protection in uncertain situations. This was very helpful for survival and, as a result, contributed to the creation of religion and made it easy for humans to believe in it. In addition, humans face existential problems that cannot be solved in life, and in such situations, religious beliefs help humans solve those problems.
This is one of the reasons why religion has not disappeared from all cultures and the majority of individuals around the world. Ultimately, religion arose as a by-product of cognitive and emotional mechanisms and has continued to exist by bringing practical benefits to humanity. My position on whether religion is an adaptation is affirmative.
Like Scott Atran, I do not believe that there is a gene that directly causes religious belief, but I do believe that humans’ tendency to have religious beliefs was determined by natural selection. In other words, it can be described as weak evolutionism (religion as an indirect product of evolution). I am not an expert on human cognitive mechanisms, so I cannot explain it in detail, but I agree with Scott Atran’s opinion. To add another example, even if you do not believe in a major religion, you can see people who believe in the existence of something absolute that cannot be explained by science, and these people are examples of the product of human cognitive mechanisms. These people do not have a gene for believing in religion, but they form a belief in an absolute existence based on human cognitive mechanisms.
Even if humans evolved to be prone to believing in religion, if it had seriously harmed their survival, the number of religious people would have gradually decreased, and religion would not have flourished as it has today. However, religion has often been helpful for survival. For example, suppose there are two groups of people. One group easily believes in religion, and the other does not. Which group is more adaptable to the environment? In order to survive in human society, it is important not only the survival rate of individuals but also the survival rate of the group as a whole. From this perspective, religion is very effective. Religion is favorable to those who believe in it, but not to those who do not. In some cases, it can even be very hostile to those who do not believe in it. Therefore, it can be beneficial for individuals to believe in religion in order to survive in that group, even if it requires some sacrifice.
When viewed from a group perspective, groups that believe in religion are more likely to survive than those that do not. The strength of a group depends on its size and cohesion, and forming a group centered on a single religion allows for the creation of a much larger group while ensuring the same level of cohesion as a kinship-based group. In addition, people who believe in religion form strong bonds through mutual trust, which is very effective in countering external threats. This is precisely why religious groups are so powerful in terms of survival.
Furthermore, religion not only helps survival, but also brings mental stability. As Scott Atran said, humans often face problems that they cannot solve, and belief in an absolute being greatly helps them escape from these problems. Unlike the formation of families or groups of trustworthy people, which helps increase the survival rate of a group, providing mental stability is a unique function of religion.
However, not all religious practices are positive. Some religious practices sometimes seem irrational or even harmful from a survival perspective. For example, child sacrifice, asceticism, or the construction of huge buildings used only for religious purposes may seem inefficient. However, even these seemingly inefficient practices play an important role in forming strong bonds and trust within religious groups. As Scott Atran pointed out, the greatest threat to humans is other humans, and in this context, strong bonds ultimately ensure higher survival rates.
One of the most prominent groups opposing the argument that religion is an adaptation is intelligent design theorists. Intelligent design theorists believe that a creator (an intelligent designer) actually exists. However, they take slightly different positions and deliberately use vague language to avoid scientific counterarguments. Despite these attempts, many scientists have presented logical and powerful counterarguments to intelligent design. Jerry A. Coyne’s essay “Why Intelligent Design Is Not a Scientific Theory” is a representative example.
Intelligent design proponents argue between ‘weak’ and “strong” forms of intelligent design. The “weak” form of intelligent design argues that certain features of living organisms are irreducibly complex and that the nature of the designer is unknown. However, this argument merely lists adaptations that have not yet been proven by scientific methods and does not provide any evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer. Furthermore, the claim that the nature of the designer is unknown is nothing more than an illogical assertion that cannot be verified or refuted.
