Evolution-Different Perspectives - Essay Example

? Evolution-Different Perspectives Your First Your Submitted Evolution-Different Perspectives There are few issues in history that have generated as much controversy as evolution. A scientist, Charles Darwin, who lived during the Victorian era, initiated the debate in a major way. The issue was (and is) controversial because it contradicts the classical understandings of creation that are held by most religions. In Victorian England, the research opened up the debate regarding religion and its role in the life of man. The aspects of life that were connected to religion too came under the shadow of doubt as a result of the discoveries that were made by Darwin. Darwin’s understanding of the universe shook the foundations on which the then understanding of human ethics and morals rested. This paper shall seek to analyze the main points of this debate and the different perspectives that have been employed to understand it. The paper shall also seek to analyze the problems that are posed by alternative theories regarding creation, especially that of divine creation. Darwin’s understanding of the universe and its creation was a very scientific one. It entailed a very rational view of the scientific world. He held the process of natural selection to be responsible for evolution. The phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ which has today been adopted by many corporate gurus for motivational speeches, is one that Darwin employed to explain the process by which certain traits are eliminated from the gene pool of a certain species. This, according to him, was also the reason behind the extinction of certain species from the face of the earth. Traits that would make members of a species able to survive the hardships that they had to face in life were the ones that would survive. This can be seen in the case of animals. If a certain animal has a certain favorable trait, it is more likely to find a mate that would lead to procreation. This would lead to this trait being transferred to the next generation. If favorable traits are weakened over generations, then the gene pool of the entire species would be weakened. This would increase the chances of the species to get extinct. Adaptation to a certain environment, according to Darwin was the only way in which species could survive. To take an example from the animal world, giraffes with long necks have survived. Earlier explanations to this theory included ones that attributed the length to straining of the necks to reach higher leaves. This, however, is not true and the elimination of genes that cause shorter necks from the gene pool is now considered to be the real cause. Amongst human beings, a person with a high intelligence is likely to find a mate with a high intelligence. This would increase the chances of the next generation being one that has a high intelligence. This process would continue and this would increase the chances of a certain gene surviving in the gene pool of the human species (Darwin, 1995). Many condemned Darwin’s theories and the condemnation continues to this day. The main reason for this was the opposition to his ideas by religious groups, especially Christian groups. According to Christianity, the world was created by God in six days, after which he rested for the seventh day. This theory of divine creation where humans appeared on the scene immediately, and not through a scientific process of evolution, stood refuted by the theory of Darwin. Moreover, the theory of natural selection and the adage ‘survival of the fittest’ made existence on the earth similar to a race. In the Victorian era, people were unable to adjust to these theories since their existences were based, overtly, on codes of morality that were Christian. Even oppressive and exploitative economic systems like colonialism needed to be justified according to Christian theories. In this context, Darwin’s interventions made people think of a world where the sinner would not be punished and the good would not be rewarded. This shook the foundations of an age-old society that believed in principles of justice that were more often than not, guided by divine authority. Evangelical groups condemned the theories of Darwin and termed them blasphemous. Not every group that believes in God is opposed to Darwin and the theories of evolution that have come up since then, though. Various evangelical groups believe that there is no need for them as believers to take a literal meaning of the bible and ascribe a great deal of significance to the manner of creation. As opposed to this, they believe that as long as the creation of the universe was done by a divine being, God, the manner of it was inconsequential. While this places god as the overarching figure in the universe, a person who created the world and the mechanisms that would decide the course of events that would shape its history, some may also argue that the position of God in this entire process is in the periphery. Undeterred by this, there are people who seek to find a point band, an area where science and religion can co-exist. Today, the position of both groups is ambiguous. Sections of both groups claim an absolute monopoly over an intellectual space that they feel is adequate only for one, either science or religion. This leads to the absence of a viable solution that can satisfy the needs of both the groups (Holding, 2012). The tenets of evolution, including natural selection, have been proved by science in today’s world. The challenge before politicians and the other people who manage social and economic institutions is to provide a space to the public where they can allow the co-existence of science and religion to the degree that they would want to. The American model of schooling where there is hardly any overlap between the religious, the academic and the scientific has been widely criticized by experts. The British system on the other hand, has been held up as a more desirable model that would enable a freer discussion of the way in which science in general and evolution in particular affects the life of people every day. Such a system would reduce the schism that has developed in people’s minds between science and religion. This schism did not always exist in everybody. During the initial days following the discoveries of Darwin, not every religious group attacked him and some even accepted his teachings and saw in it the workings of God and his greater design for humanity. While people who do not believe in this may do so, this attitude left the matter to the choice of the individual involved in the matter. Religion was left to the personal preferences of the individual. However, in so much that it is a social institution, religion had to be discussed in public, something that was avoided once the rift between science and religion became complete. When the whole question of evolution turned into a question of the atheists against the believers, with each group eyeing the other as the enemy with mistrust and hatred, the emergence of any solution became difficult and almost impossible. In a society where no view could be the only one that existed, it is only a co-existence of views that is an acceptable condition of being. This multiplicity of perspectives is something that would enable people to live peacefully in a society where people of different beliefs and values live. The values of tolerance and brotherhood are necessary for such a society to sustain itself and this is can be achieved through serious discussion on the topics that are controversial. This is true even in the case of evolution. It would be possible to find a space where both religion and science exist together. The coexistence of the two need not necessarily be in a position that is in opposition to the other. The future of science would be more promising if it could position itself in such a way that it does not conflict with the other institutions of the society, just for the sake of offering opposition. In a similar vein, one may also say that the future of religion would be more secure as a means of providing relief to millions of people, if it does not seek to be the sole provider of answers for every person in the world. As mentioned earlier in this paper, the values of tolerance and respect for the beliefs of another person or another community would be the only way in which one would be able to hold on to one’s own beliefs in a world where the very idea of organicity has broken down. In such a society, organicity has completely broken down and expecting the existence of a single worldview is naive. Science has a very practical role to play in the lives of people. To maintain the utility of that role in a society that has various voices, it is necessary that people understand the value of science and its relation to the other institutions that are important in their lives, religion being one of these. A good understanding of both and faith in both would enable a co-existence of beliefs, without either being against the other. References Darwin, Charles. (1995). The Origin of Species. New York: Penguin. Holding, Andrew. “Evolution and divine creation: where's the contradiction?” The Guardian. Retrieved 29th February, 2012, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/feb/29/evolution-divine-creation Read More