Evolutionary Theory According to Science and Religion

1780 Words8 Pages
Charles Darwin was a scientist and naturalist, primarily recognised as the first and most influential advocate of the evolutionary theory through natural selection. After the publication of his book in 1859, “On the Origin of Species”, people began to identify the foundations of humanity very differently. However, even though the scientific approval of his theory was close to becoming worldwide, there have been countless opposition groups, predominantly amongst the religious believers. (Darwin, 2008)

According to Darwin, the relationship between science and religion is commonly represented as an issue that is irreconcilable where one side is claiming something, the other can’t accept; the inconsistencies between the two cause them to deny one another. The popular view of what constituted as science held by the majority of scientists including Darwin himself was that science was the methodical study of the organisation and conduct of the natural and material world through experimental investigation and empirical observation. Whilst, religion was primarily concerned with spiritual and immaterial substance that cannot be empirically verified and therefore could not amount to knowledge in the same way science would; he recognised religion as a simple social construction which evolved overtime. As a result, he deemed those who believe in religion rather than science as ignorant, which is clearly stated in his book “The Descent of Man” (1871), where he observed that: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” (Darwin, 2010) In this case, it is noticeably evident that ...

... middle of paper ...

...usly stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature’s factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap.” (Gould, 1992) This means that there is always room for both scientists and religious thinkers to follow religion and science harmoniously.
Despite the several ethical and moral views opposing science, in effect the scientific assumptions that achieve empirical verification to support the hypotheses always avails over religious beliefs by the majority of the world. Therefore, science will probably continue to govern our understanding of the world and thus religious believers and secular thinkers are required to discover ways to incorporate their views into a consistent narrative of how we as humans came to be.
Open Document