A variety of approaches to the effect of the Origin of Species on the relationship between religion and science

I think no book has had more perceived influence on the relationship between religion and science than Darwin's Origin of Species. What follows is a brief outline of different approaches to the Origin of Species effect on the relationship between religion and science. There is a lot of historical analysis available on these effects, this being an introduction to a variety of historical actors who you can investigate more yourself if you are interested. 

Darwin’s Origin of Species (origin) was read by historians of science, scientists, philosophers and theologians with implications for the relationship between religion and science which these specialists have spoken on. I define the theory of evolution most widely accepted today. The theory of evolution in the origin this definition is inspired by was either neutral, enhancing or conflicting in the relationship between religion and science because of the implications it has on the argument for biological design, an aspect of natural theology important in the relationship between religion and science. The non-religious who read the origin can be put into two groups: those who saw the origin as causing a conflict between religion and science due to the nature of evolution as presented in the origin as incompatible with key theological ideas leading to rejection of religion, and those who thought that the science of the origin is compatible with theology but are not religious for other reasons. 

The religious who read the origin can be put into two groups: those who rejected the origins claims on theological, scientific and philosophical grounds having either accepted Paley’s argument on the ground of the biblical view of man or re-established Paley’s argument on philosophical and scientific grounds. These religious people saw the origin as creating a conflict in the relationship between religion and science, due to its disagreement with the Paleyean notion of design which was theologically attractive. Another group of religious people saw the origin as being compatible with religious ideas, enhancing the relationship between religion and science by giving a better understanding of God’s creation. These religious people saw the origin as having refuted Paley’s design argument and the arguments made by the other religious group and vice versa. These views therefore coexisted on acceptance or rejection of Paley’s argument in the light of the origin.

Darwin's work had a large impact on the

relationship between religion and science

The origin contains an argument for the theory of evolution via natural selection. Evolution is “the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth” (Hornby and Deuter, 2015), and natural selection is “the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring” (Hornby and Deuter, 2015). Darwin published the origin in 1859, and it is these ideas that influenced the relationship between religion and science. This come about as the view of an evolving biological world differed from the view at the time that God was the intervening creator of each species of life. The reason for this was that Darwin had collected scientific evidence for biological evolution, which disputed William Paley’s argument for the existence of a designer God.

An image of the change evolution causes overtime

In 1802 William Paley’s “Natural Theology” was published. Paley had a great education for his time in the fields of botany, zoology, and anatomy. In “Natural Theology” Paley produces an argument for design from living organisms which are complex, implying the action of a designer in nature, just as the construction of complex human objects reveal the hand of a human designer. Paley therefore thought that the appearance of design in nature, in its complexity, order and purpose can only be explained by a designer creating nature. Paley reasons this as complexity, order and purpose are identifiers of human design, so we can identify design in other areas in the same way. To demonstrate this Paley develops a watch maker analogy. The analogy is formulated in the following way: if one comes across a watch on a heath it is reasonable to assume that it had a designer and was not created by natural forces. We think this because a watch contains many intricacies which originate from design, and by analogy we can argue that living organisms are designed as they too contain intricacies to an even greater degree. An example of design in nature Paley gives is that “there is precisely the same proof that the eye was made for vision, as there is that the telescope was made for assisting it” (Gregory, 2009 pp 602-611).  Paley’s argument was developed to further make the relationship between religion and science complimentary, science producing evidence for the existence of God which fit with the Biblical view of creation. 

Paley's book laid out a Natural Theology which  was 

the most accepted approach to lives origin prior to Darwin

Charles Darwin read and praised Paley’s work however after his publication of the origin he wrote in his autobiography “the old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered" (Darwin and Darwin, 1893 p 87). Darwin therefore thought that the origin refuted Paley’s design argument. Richard Dawkins, a contemporary evolutionary biologist has written on this in “The Blind Watchmaker”. The title itself refers to Paley’s argument, however where Paley evidenced the need for a designer in nature Dawkins sees instead a blind process.  This is because Dawkins holds that evolution via natural selection is a blind process which creates the mere appearance of design in living organisms, rather than evidence for design itself. As Dawkins puts it “biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (Dawkins, 1996 p 1). To say that evolution is a blind process means that it is unguided, with no foresight or goal. This entails that there is no design in evolution via natural selection and that it is a wholly natural process, replacing the argument of Paley’s for a mindful, purposeful designer of natural organisms (Coyne, 2011). Dawkin’s developed this argument to demonstrate that the origin refuted the Paleyean notion of design which created a conflict in the relationship between religion and science as it removed the need for a creator of life, which allows one to reject religion and accept science. 

Richard Dawkins has argued acceptance of

evolution should lead to atheism

Samuel Wilberforce was an English bishop in the Church of England in the nineteenth Century, who agreed with the view of Dawkins that evolution as presented in the origin was incompatible with religion. The reason for this was because Darwin applied natural selection to man as well as the animals around him. This caused issue with Wilberforce as he saw such a notion as incompatible with the Bibles view of mans moral and spiritual condition. Mans ruling of the earth, mans power of speech, reason, free-will and responsibility, mans fall and redemption, the incarnation, the indwelling spirit are all seen as incompatible with man not being distinct from the animals, being an animal himself.  Furthermore, Wilberforce took the origin to be incompatible with Gods providence to intervene in nature, for creation is a result of the mind of God, a view which the origin dishonours (Wilberforce, 1860). Such a critique was done to demonstrate that the origin was incompatible with the Biblical view of man and creation which means that the origins scientific argument cannot be incorporated into natural theology creating a  conflict between religion and science as there will be those who take the origin to be science and reject religion on its basis and those who do not take the origin to be science or don’t engage with science on the grounds of the Bible and potentially refuted natural theology. 

Asa Gray a nineteenth century Botanist disagreed with Wilberforce’s views of the origin.  Gray started his natural theology with a belief in God, seeing design in nature because of the belief in a designer, design in nature being evidence from God (Miles, 2012). Contemporary historian of science T. Russel Hunter has claimed Gray gave examples such as the human eye as clearly giving evidence of design due to the way they adapt to the condition of existence, it not mattering if it come from an act of design or a natural process. It is in this point that Gray disagrees with Paley’s design argument, as inference to design is solely in the existence and observation of intricacies in nature regardless of how it comes about. As such Darwin’s theory did not do away with the existence of the all-powerful creator, rather natural laws such as natural selection which govern the production of nature add to the conclusion that God exists. For Gray the creator who bought into existence designed natural laws which bought about nature was a new level of creation, not destroying the design hypothesis, rather enhancing it (Hunter 2012 p966-969). In doing so Gray sought to utilise an acceptance of the origin to inform how God created life, a notion leading to rejection of the Paleyean view of biological design, the science of the origin taking its place, creating enhancement between religion and science in the process.

Asa Gray corresponded with Darwin 

on the implications of evolution for Natural Theology

A God that designed natural laws which gave rise to the natural world has been used by contemporary cell and molecular biologist Kenneth Miller. Miller has engaged extensively in contemporary debate on the notion of biological design as a way of helping preserve what he took to be good science and theology. Miller drew on Thomas Aquinas who claimed that when it is demonstrated that something in the natural world has a natural cause it does not take God out of the picture because God is the author of the natural world. The natural world is therefore a part of God’s providential plan. For Miller evolution is a natural process which is part of this providential plan, and furthermore demonstrates God’s grandeur in creating. This is because God does not have to constantly violate the created natural laws, by supernaturally intervening in the natural world to create (Miller, 2009).It is because of this Miller rejects Paleyean notion of biological design, promoting scientific investigation as a way of informing the religious view of creation in its place, the science of the origin enhancing the relationship between religion and science by this means. 

Kenneth Miller has been a public advocate of

evolution, claiming it is compatible with and 

can enhance religion

Peter Bowler a contemporary historian of biology has proposed an idealist concept of design somewhat like Miller’s seeking to make the relationship between the science of the origin and the natural theology of religion compatible by having a design argument which fits with the argument for evolution in the origin.   This is because argument draws from the overall pattern of creation, rather than the adaptation of individual species to their environment. Bowler sees Paley’s argument as utilitarian as it emphasised the utility of each characteristic as it helped species adapt to their environment. Each creature therefore reflects the creators purpose for that creature the purpose a reflection of its design. This differs from the idealist concept of design as there is an overall plan, rather than dealing with individual species an example to demonstrate this being the fossil record. Where the Paleyean would see the design of certain species with certain characteristics in the fossil record the idealist would see a progressive unfolding of a structured plan of creation. Pre-Darwinian nineteenth century biologist Lois Agassiz argued the history of vertebrate life contains a pattern of development which led to the human form. Furthermore, Agassiz held to recapitulation theory, which claimed that embryological development and the progression of life have the same plan (Bowler 1977 pp 29-43). Bowler engages with this argument to demonstrate that the science of the origin can be accepted alongside a Christian view of creation which draws on natural theology. In doing so the relationship between the science of the origin and religion is neutral, there not being a conflict as God could use evolution to create. This leads to a rejection of the Paleyean notion of biological design, an idealist notion proposed in its place. Bowler holds that the origin is compatible with religion but is not religious. 

Paley and Darwin had different views of natural theology to these, which are reflected in Darwin’s own opinions of the effects of the origin on the relationship between religion and science. Darwin aligned with the Paleyean view of design, going from design in nature to a belief in God, design therefore being evidence for the existence of God (Miles, 2012). Because Darwin held that Paley’s argument had been refuted by the origin, he saw conflict between the science of the origin and the natural theology of the religious. This is disputed by contemporary thinkers who claim the origin has been refuted by post Darwin developments in biology, which have allowed for the re-establishment of Paley’s design argument. This group have come to be known as advocates of Intelligent Design (ID). 

ID theorists re-established Paley’s argument via complex biochemical machines. Biochemist Michael Behe was behind this in his arguments for ID, in the form of appearance of design and ‘irreducible complexity’ (ICY) in systems. Behe says that “design is simply the purposeful arrangement of parts” (Behe 1996 p 193). He claimed a biochemical system which demonstrated this is the bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is an outboard motor that bacteria use to swim. To achieve this function, it has several parts which are ordered to that effect, a motor, a rotor, a stator, a bearing, a u-joint, and a propeller, the parts ordered for a purpose, so design can be inferred (Luskin, 2008). Like Paley Behe goes from the appearance of design in nature to the claim that there is design, however he also challenges Darwinian evolution by adding an extra argument for the inference of ID which he coined ICY. In the origin Darwin claims “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (Darwin 1860 p 189). This allowed for Darwin’s theory to be falsified and it is in Behe’s argument for the existence of ‘irreducibly complex’ (IC) systems that this challenge is met.  

To demonstrate ICY Behe used an analogy of a mousetrap. A mousetrap consists of five interacting pieces: the base, the catch, the spring, the hammer, and the hold-down bar. For the mousetrap to work all the parts need to be in place for it to function, as the removal of any one part destroys the function of the mousetrap. Behe claims that the bacterial flagellum is the same, that if one was to remove a part of the motor or u-joint of the flagellum as examples it would no longer be able to swim and would die. This poses a problem to Darwin’s theory as it entails that the entirety of the bacterial flagellum must be in place before it can function, and evolution needs function for there to be modification. From the appearance of design and IC systems Behe claimed to have demonstrated that design can be inferred, and the origin refuted, creating complimentary reconciliation between religion and science as he provided scientific evidence for the existence of God, at the same time as removing potential conflict (Behe 1996).

Michael Behe is a leading advocate of intelligent design

who has claimed Darwin's ideas have been refuted by

a need for a designer

The Bacterial Flagellum is one of

several complex biochemical systems

which poses a challenge to the theory of evolution

These are just some of the responses that have arisen on the relationship between religion and science within the origin, if you enjoyed reading this YouTube is as a great resource to listen to people like Kenneth Miller, Richard Dawkins and Michael Behe on these questions and suggest as reading Peter Bowler's  "Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design". 

Bibliography

Behe MJ. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box: the Biochemical challenge to evolution. New York: The Free Press, Chapter 9 “Intelligent Design”. pg 193. (And generalization of core argument).  

Bowler P. (1977). Darwinism and the Argument from Design: Suggestions for a Reevaluation. Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1977), pp. 29-43. Springer

Coyne, J. (2011). Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless. [online] Why Evolution Is True. Available at: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/natural-selection-and-evolution-material-blind-mindless-and-purposeless/ 

Darwin, C. (1860). Online Variorum of Darwin's Origin of Species: second British edition. p 189.

Darwin, C. and Darwin, F. (1893). Charles Darwin. New York: D. Appleton and Co., p.87.

Dawkins, R. (1996). The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. 1st ed. New York: Norton & Company. p 1.

Gregory, T. (2009). The Argument from Design: A Guided Tour of William Paley’s Natural Theology (1802). Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(4), pp.602-611.

Hornby, A. and Deuter, M. (2015). Oxford advanced learner's dictionary of current English. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. (online definitions)

Luskin, C. (2008). More Similarities between Flagellum and Human-Designed Machines | Evolution News. [online] Evolution News. Available at: https://evolutionnews.org/2008/06/more_similarities_between_flag/ 

Miles, S. (2012). Asa Gray and Charles Darwin, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. [online] BioLogos. Available at: https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/asa-gray-and-charles-darwin-part-2 

Miller, K. (2009). Ken Miller calls intelligent design ‘a negation of everything science stands for’. [online] God of Evolution. Available at: http://www.godofevolution.com/interview-with-biologist-ken-miller-part-2/ 

Russell Hunter, T. Sci & Educ (2012) 21: 959. Pgs 966-969.

Wilberforce, S. (1860). Wilberforce's review of The Origin of Species. [online] Victorianweb.org. Available at: http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/wilberforce.htm