Why does religion remain influential in the evolution vs. creationism debate, and is intelligent design scientifically valid?

Religion still plays an important role in the long-standing debate between evolution and creationism, and some try to claim scientific legitimacy through intelligent design. However, intelligent design is controversial due to a lack of scientific evidence.

 

Evolution and creationism have been at odds for a long time, dating back to 150 years ago when Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution. The emergence of evolutionary theory shocked both the scientific and religious worlds at the time, and was strongly opposed by creationists, especially in Christianity. Darwin’s theory was the first attempt to scientifically explain the origin of life and was inherently at odds with faith-based creationism. Over time, evolutionary theory has evolved into neo-Darwinism as science has advanced, and the principles of natural selection have become more sophisticated. During this development, some scientists predicted that religion would become less influential as science uncovered more and more unknowns. However, contrary to this prediction, people still believe in religion, and the number of people who do so is actually increasing, not decreasing. More recently, there has even been a movement to make creationism seem more scientific in the name of intelligent design.
Scott Atran discusses the question of whether religious beliefs are the result of adaptations in the evolutionary process. Adaptations are the result of biological evolution and are traits that favor survival and reproduction in a particular environment. Scott Atran, like most scientists, sees religion as an adaptation. He argues that while there is no direct gene for religious belief, the cognitive and emotional mechanisms that humans have acquired through evolution create religion and make it easier to believe.
To elaborate on Scott Atran’s idea, he sees religious belief as a byproduct of a collection of cognitive and emotional mechanisms that humans have evolved to accomplish everyday tasks. These mechanisms evolved us to interpret random movements as intrinsically motivated actors and to instinctively seek out protectors in uncertain situations. This helped us survive and, in turn, made it easier for humans to create and believe in religion. In addition, humans face existential problems that cannot be solved in life, and religious beliefs help humans solve them. This is one of the reasons why religion is not going away in all cultures and for the majority of individuals around the world. After all, religion arose as a byproduct of cognitive and emotional mechanisms, and it continues to exist because it brings tangible benefits to humanity.
My position on whether religion is an adaptation is in the affirmative. Like Scott Atran, I do not believe that there is a direct gene for religious belief, but that natural selection has determined that humans are predisposed to religious beliefs, i.e., weak Darwinism (religion is an indirect product of evolution). I’m not an expert on human cognitive mechanisms, so I can’t elaborate on this, but I agree with Scott Atran. To add an additional example, even if you don’t believe in a mega-religion, you can find people who believe in the existence of something absolute about things that science can’t explain, which is an example of a product of human cognitive mechanisms. These people don’t have the genes to believe in religion, but their cognitive mechanisms lead them to form beliefs about absolutes.
Even if humans evolved to be prone to religion, if it were seriously detrimental to survival, the number of religious people would gradually decrease, and religion would not thrive as it does today. But in many cases, religion has actually helped us survive. For example, suppose there are two kinds of groups. One is easily religious and the other is not. Which one is more adapted to its environment? Survival in human society is not only about the survival of the individual, but also the survival of the group as a whole. In this respect, religion is very effective. Religion favors those who believe in it, but not those who do not. In some cases, it can even be very hostile to those who don’t believe in it. Therefore, it can be beneficial for an individual to believe in a religion in order to survive in that group. Even if it requires some sacrifice.
Even on a group-to-group basis, religious groups are more likely to survive than non-religious groups. The strength of a group is its size and cohesion, and organizing around a religion allows for a group to be as cohesive as a kin-based group, but on a much larger scale. Religious people also form strong bonds of trust with each other, which can be very effective against external threats. This is why religious groups are so powerful for survival.
And religion doesn’t just help with survival, it also brings mental stability. As Scott Atran says, humans are often faced with problems that they cannot solve, and the belief in an absolute being helps them escape from them. In the same way that a family or a group of trusted people can help 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, sacrificing children, living a celibate life of self-sacrifice, or erecting huge structures that serve only religious purposes may seem inefficient. However, even these seemingly inefficient behaviors play an important role in creating strong bonds and trust within religious groups. As Scott Atran points out, humans’ greatest threat is other humans, and strong bonds in this situation can ultimately ensure higher survival rates.
One of the most prominent groups that oppose the idea that religion is an adaptation is intelligent designers. Intelligent designers actually believe that there is a creator (intelligent designer). However, they take slightly different positions, and they try to avoid scientific objections by using intentionally vague language. Despite these attempts, however, many scientists have provided logical and compelling refutations of intelligent design. Jerry A. Coyne’s essay “Why Is Intelligent Design Not a Scientific Theory?” is a prime example.
Intelligent design advocates argue back and forth between a “weak” form of intelligent design and a “strong” form of intelligent design. Weak forms of intelligent design argue that certain features of living things are irreducibly complex, and that the nature of the designer is unknowable. However, these arguments are merely a list of adaptations that have yet to be proven by the scientific method and do not provide any evidence to prove the existence of an intelligent designer. Furthermore, the claim that the nature of the designer is unknowable is an illogical assertion that cannot be verified or disproved.