Darwin's Ghosts Final Thoughts

Darwin’s Ghosts by Rebecca Stott pushed me to examine the concepts of evolution, intelligent design and natural selection from many different perspectives that I had never considered before. Reading and analyzing this text allowed me to explore the works of several scientific, religious and crossover figures that I had never even heard of from various corners of the world. While trying to sort their research initiatives and final messages out, I came to the two discussion questions I shared during my presentation in class last week: Has anyone successfully brought the concepts of science and religion together to explain the origin of species? And, if not, is the quest to do so still productive? and Is the pursuit of “pure science” inherently atheistic? And, if not, why have the disciplines of science and religion been feuding for centuries?  I’ll share the conclusions I came to upon further reflection here.

It seems that for many centuries, marrying the concepts of science and religion was the goal of philosophers and scientists alike. While the church may not have directly approved of his work, Reverend Baden Powell proves in the first chapter of Darwin’s Ghosts that individuals have been exploring the relationship between the two for years. When Darwin received the reverend’s critique of the first edition of “On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection,” he was afraid it would accuse him of being impious. Counterintuitively, the reverend was writing to criticize Darwin’s lack of acknowledgements. You see, Powell had been dabbling in scientific affairs himself. Then there’s Jahiz and De Maillet who wrote works like The Book of Living Beings and Telliamed which combined religious texts like the Qu’ran with poetry, philosophy and primitive science to try to come to understanding of man’s place among creatures. While the work of some scientists, like Trembley and Leonardo challenged proclamations made by the church by asserting the existence of transmutation and asking how animals that could asexually reproduce could possibly have souls, I don’t believe these men were necessarily trying to lead people away from the church. If we are to successfully move forward in understanding the patterns of nature, I believe we must acknowledge everything we have learned from all perspectives and stop accusing people of heresy in the process. And for the record, no, I don’t believe anyone has successfully done this yet.

The being said, I don’t think the pursuit of “pure science” should be inherently atheistic. Scientists like Diderot, Whitehurst and Lamarck were accused of “challenging natural law” as understood by the church when they should’ve been praised for it! (although perhaps their later zealous atheist publications were counterproductive.) As Descartes said, “In order to determine whether we can know anything with certainty, we first have to doubt everything we know.” If researchers of all backgrounds adopted this philosophy, perhaps we could come to some concrete answers. Perhaps, faith leaders could have their beliefs strengthened if they were backed by evidence in the same way that scientists vet their research. To stop the feud between science and religion and move toward the pursuit of “pure knowledge” (which may even be more productive than the pursuit of “pure science”) I believe that we need to adopt the founding principle of Erasmus Darwin’s Lunar Society: No question is off limits. Attempting to share knowledge in the style of Robert Chambers, who published his magazine, Chamber’s Edinburgh Journal, at a penny a copy because he was devastated by the relationship between the knowledge gap and the class divide, is the only way to move forward. Chambers was, of course, accused of starting a “secular crusade” with this publication, but denied that claim tooth and nail. His most famous work, Vestiges, was an attempt at marrying religious and scientific concepts. Its main message was, “…God had created nature to do the work for him.” In the end each of the disciplines simply needs to acknowledge the works of the other and recognize that progress contributes to the fluidity of what we know to be true.