Religious Perspectives on Evolution (Part II of Series)

Photo Credit: Dan H. on Flickr

This post is Part II of a Two-Part Series of Posts on Evolution (See Part I)

From a scientific point of view, evolution just is. The evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution, as do most scientists. Evolution is the only major scientific theory of the origin of species.

Faith has to be not only a force that changes the world, but also a force that responds to the limitations of the world. Throughout human history, people have made new discoveries about the natural world, and the pace of these discoveries is now rapid. We need ways of understanding our faiths that allow us to acknowledge and respond to the growing body of scientific knowledge.

There are religious people who support the teaching of evolution, as well as those who do not.

The opponents of teaching evolution fall into two overlapping groups, the creationists and the “intelligent design” proponents. AnswersinGenesis.org is one of the major creationist websites.

Answers in Genesis offers the following explanation for its support of creationism:

AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account.

AnswersinGenesis is intended to prove the literal accuracy of the Bible, and it evaluates all other pieces of scientific data based on whether they are in accord with a literal reading of Genesis.

However, many Christians do not agree with this approach to science. In Unitarian Universalist Rev. Anne Felton Hines’s sermon “Can This Marriage Be Saved?”, she describes a letter that she and 10,000 other religious leaders signed in opposition to the teaching of “intelligent design.”

The letter states in part:

While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority (of Christians) do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information, but to transform hearts.

We…believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist.

Another concern that is sometimes voiced by creationists is that acceptance of evolution leads to the devaluing of human life.

Edward Humes notes this viewpoint in his book Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America’s Soul. He describes the historical reasons for concerns that acceptance of evolution leads to devaluation of human life, and eventually violence:

A philosophical bastardization of evolutionary theory known as “social Darwinism”–a dark view of human societies that Charles Darwin, a pacifist, neither considered nor accepted–was used in the nineteenth century as an argument in favor of social inequality, laissez-faire capitalism, totalitarianism and racism.

Acceptance of evolutionary science does not mean acceptance of “social Darwinism,” or the idea that life should be “survival of the fittest.” Different religious traditions look to different sources for their understanding of the value of human life, and it seems to me that there are plenty of other religious and ethical arguments that support valuing each person’s life. Just because we have evolved over time does not mean we are not sacred, deserving of love and respect.

I believe that although we should know about the natural world in order to live out our faiths in a way that is relevant, we should not make science our only source of religious truth. I was at a Unitarian Universalist conference last fall, and a woman raised her hand and said, “Why is it we are always referring to nature as a manifestation of the divine? Nature is beautiful, but it can also be brutal.”

Religious people can look to science to learn about the world, while also looking to God, one another, scriptures and traditions for guidance on how to act in that world.

Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic and the author of a famous textbook on biology (which includes evolution). He has said (as quoted in Humes’s book):

If I could solve the question of the meaning of my life by doing an experiment in a laboratory, I assure you I would rush off and do it right now. But these questions simply lie outside the purview of science.