Is religious criticism of the Origin of Species a denial of science or an argument for coexistence between evolution and creationism?

Darwin’s Origin of Species has historically caused great friction with religion, and the debate between evolution and creationism continues today. This article explores the religious criticisms of Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific responses to them, and seeks to find a compromise that allows the two theories to coexist.

 

At the end of the 19th century, Charles Robert Darwin’s On the Origin of Species had an enormous impact, regardless of the truth of its content. It is arguably an extraordinary biological work that has had an enormous impact on all aspects of society, including history, religion, philosophy, art, and biology. Although the modern theory of evolution based on the “origin of species” is accepted by many scientists as the orthodox explanation for the origin of life, there are still some who are skeptical and critical of it. This criticism is mostly coming from religious people who follow the doctrine of Genesis in the Old Testament, which has not changed in modern times. The main reason for this is that creationism and evolution conflict with the Bible. Especially when you consider that Christianity dominated Western society in the 19th century, you can imagine how heretical the content of The Origin of Species would have been considered. Furthermore, we can imagine how strongly the theory of evolution would have been suppressed at the time.
In the 19th century, the debate was stuck in the dichotomy of “Darwinian evolution or biblical creationism”. Today, however, both evolutionary and creationist theories have branched out into various forms. There are now many compromise theories, such as purposism, which states that a creator designed organisms to evolve in a certain direction. Nevertheless, the Origin of Species, which is the basis of modern evolutionary theory, is still viewed unfavorably by religious people. In this article, we’ll take a look at what is controversial about the religious view of the Origin of Species.
First, let’s look at “variation in domestication”. Based on the fact that livestock are gradually improved over time, Darwin argued that species variation can occur through artificial changes in the environment or through the control of reproduction. In other words, he used the example of breeding to emphasize that variation is the mechanism of biological evolution. This raises the following questions for religious people. First, is breeding really a human endeavor? Couldn’t God have designed it to happen over time? Second, is breeding really evolution in the true sense of the word? Can we call it evolution just because livestock have mutated in ways that are more favorable to humans? Isn’t this an overly anthropocentric idea?
The first question is a rebuttal to some of the claims in The Origin of Species itself, which suggests that breed improvement is the result of divine design. However, if we look at the example of ranching, it becomes clear that breed improvement is influenced by human efforts. Cows on one ranch may be getting better and better meat quality, while cows on another ranch may be getting more milk. On the other hand, in places like India, where neither meat quality nor milk quantity is important, cattle live alongside humans, but their quality is relatively poor. This shows that cattle breeds have become selective under human intervention, making the argument that breed improvement is driven by human intervention more plausible.
The second question stems from a misunderstanding of Darwin’s argument. Darwin never called breed improvement evolution. What he said was that human endeavors can cause species to diverge. While evolution is when a species changes for the better, speciation is when it changes in a different direction. In other words, Darwin was explaining speciation through breeding, not evolution, and thus the second question of religious people can be resolved.
Next, let’s look at “natural selection: survival of the fittest”. Here, Darwin argued that as organisms compete to survive in a given environment, variations can occur that favor survival, and these variations are passed on to offspring, creating different individuals. Darwin emphasizes that natural intervention is greater and more persistent than human intervention, and this is what creates the differentiation of species. This is the core argument of the Origin of Species, and it’s where most of the friction with religious people comes from.
Religious people can raise two counterarguments. First, they argue that science should only include rigorously verified facts, and that an incomplete theory of evolution is only a hypothesis. The lack of fossils of intermediate stages, for example, suggests that evolutionary theory is not rigorous. Second, they argue that evolutionary theory removes human moral responsibility and justifies social evils. The logic is that if evolutionary theory is true, then human evil behavior is just a manifestation of natural instincts.
The first objection denies the absolute truth of science. Science is only part of the process of seeking absolute truth, which can sometimes be subjective. For example, Isaac Newton’s law of universal gravitation was once thought to be an absolute truth, but Einstein’s general theory of relativity proved some of it wrong. Nevertheless, we still recognize Newton’s law as an important scientific principle. This is a prime example of how science doesn’t seek absolute truth. It’s problematic to dismiss evolutionary theory as an unscientific hypothesis because it’s not perfect. Evolutionary theory can be accepted as a scientific theory with plenty of evidence and logical reasoning.
As for the second objection, it’s a stretch to claim that the same origin of humans and animals means that our current behavior is determined by animal instincts. Even if humans and chimpanzees have 98% of the same DNA, that 2% difference makes a huge difference in traits. Similarly, it’s an overgeneralization to attribute human misbehavior to animal instincts alone. Human unethical behavior is shaped and expressed by social factors and cannot be explained by animal instincts alone.
So far, I’ve presented my arguments against “variation in captivity” and against the theory of evolution itself. Darwin’s theory of evolution provides a rational explanation for the phenomenon of speciation and evolution, and it is scientific enough. The process by which living things change over time to adapt to their environment is evidence of evolution. Extremely religious people may argue that the principles of breeding and survival of the fittest are simply the handiwork of God, and that evolutionary theory doesn’t need to be studied further. However, this denies the process of scientific inquiry. Both creationism and evolution are theories about unobservable realms, so neither can be absolutely proven or disproved.
In conclusion, religion and evolution must compromise with each other. The scientific community should recognize that religion plays an important role in explaining the origin of the universe and life, and religion should recognize that Darwin’s theory of evolution is reasonable based on multiple lines of evidence. If the two fields are pitted against each other, there will be endless disputes and unnecessary criticism. Recognizing evolutionary theory does not undermine the value of the Bible, nor does it diminish the role of religion. Evolutionary theory should be respected as part of science, and in doing so, religion and science should be harmonized.