It looks like the fracas over Darwin's theory of evolution is back again even after 160 years of the publication of the theory in his Origin of Species. But this time the fracas is not on the main hypothesis of the book, that of evolution of species by natural selection.
It is an offshoot of his theory that became a corollary to this theory, on the evolution of humans. In his book, Darwin described how living organisms change over time, responding to changes in the environment from one form to another, and keep on evolving. According to this theory, species that are able to survive changes in environment pass on their traits to their offspring which later adapt to further changes in their environment. Darwin does not mention specifically humans, but all creatures, from micro to macro, in his theory.
Yet, the Darwinian theory, and its alleged inclusion in school textbooks in Bangladesh, have come under attack, because the theory led to one of the conclusions that humans have evolved from another species (apes) that preceded them.
This obviously contradicts the beliefs of many faiths that humans are descendants from Adam, who was created by God. So much so that a parliamentarian has asked for a total elimination of this aspect of science from school textbooks.
Is the demand being made to stop students from learning about one of the most solid science theories of modern times, or is it because it is a religiously disturbing concept?
In a recent scholarly discussion, John F Haught, a Roman Catholic theologian (Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, in Washington, DC), gave several reasons why this theory gave trouble to people of faith, and has put forward his thoughts on how the two seemingly antithetical concepts could coexist without threatening one another. His thoughts need pursuing.
According to Haught, the major reasons of the conflict arise from a new story of creation which is totally different from the ones narrated in the holy religious books, elimination of God's role from theory of natural selection, and human descent from non-human or sub-human forms of life.
These hypotheses are contradictory to the teachings and texts of religious books and traditional belief, heretical, and are to be condemned. The inflammatory ideas purveyed through the theory obviously led to the denouncement of Darwin and his books.
And although he was not punished and his book banned like Galileo for his heliocentric theory (that Earth revolves around the Sun), Darwin faced tremendous opposition from the Anglican church. They declared him a heretic and banned him. It did not bother Darwin because he was not a church goer, although not an atheist.
But the matter did not end there. Even after a hundred years after Darwin's death, his theory has not abated the debate that it had originally caused, while at the same time, his theory continues to be a guiding light for scientists on the research of genetics, and changes that can help humanity and other species in the future. His theory later helped scientists determine how genes encode biological differences and how these are passed down to offsprings.
The debate is primarily on how humans have evolved and whether humans or other species were uniquely created by the Supreme Being, by intelligent design, or they actually have evolved from one form to another adapting to changes. Which is right, the traditional belief or science? So, the conflict between faith and evolution continues unabated despite human willingness to adapt to other scientific theories that were considered heretical when they were first introduced.
What is the solution to this never-ending debate?
The main conflict in this debate is the clash between science and faith, and the solution lies in a reconciliation between the two. But that reconciliation requires an understanding that the conflict is caused by us, humans, and due to our inability to comprehend human ability to resolve differences.
According to John Haught, a solution lies in a convergence of the ideas, where truth lies both in faith and science, which does not necessarily negate one another.
Believing in heliocentric theory does not lead to disbelief in the role of the Sun or the Moon in determining which calendar one follows in religion. Science does not deter one from bowing to God or other religious practices while following instructions of a physician to cure an illness.
In the United States a substantial number of Christians raised objections over teaching theory of natural selection over biblical teaching of the origin of humans. Yet, Origin of Species has not been banned as a book, because it is a part of human history, it is an essential element of learning like all other theories that humans have discovered.
According to John Haught, “there is no necessary danger to religious faith in thinking bold new thoughts about God after Darwin. After all, even the idea of God, whether people are aware of it or not, has evolved over the course of time, and it will continue to do so.”
I hope our legislators and government leaders will reassess their positions on continuing to teach our learners that there is no conflict between faith and religion on matters related to learning and expanding one's horizon of knowledge.
We need to evolve with time and learn how to adapt to our environment. There is no religious injunction against learning.
Ziauddin Choudhury has worked in the higher civil service of Bangladesh early in his career, and later for the World Bank in the US.
