by David Guzman

Created on: September 19, 2011

Can God and Darwinism coexist? This is a very peculiar question. God and Darwinism are not related and rarely, if ever, appear in the same sentence. It is similar to Lewis Carroll's famous riddle, "Why is a raven like a writing desk?" from the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.[i] None of the attendees answers because the two have nothing riddle-worthy in common. 

God and Darwinism have less in common than ravens and writing desks. God is a theological entity, absolute and unchanging. Darwinism, on the other hand, is a scientific methodology involving observation, experiment and reasoning. It is not absolute - it changes when new hypotheses are developed and tested.  So God and Darwinism should normally pass as ships in the night, neither noticing the other.

The question’s actual meaning arises from its wording and context. God is not God, but the questioner's beliefs about God. The term "God" is therefore a proxy for "my personal religious beliefs." Similarly, Darwinism is not what we expect, because a fundamentalist is asking the question. Most religious fundamentalists regard Darwinism as atheistic, immoral, and contrary to scripture. As far as they are concerned, it is a direct attack on their beliefs and not science at all.

The actual meaning of the question is therefore, "Can my personal religious beliefs coexist with something that is atheistic, immoral and unbiblical?"  For the questioner, the answer is “No,” because fundamentalists cannot tolerate anything that conflicts with their religious dogma.

That is not true for the rest of the world: theology and science have always coexisted. There are many deeply religious scientists, of many different faiths.  Gregor Mendel, who founded the science of genetics, was a monk living in a monastery.  Charles Darwin trained for the clergy, and never gave up his religious faith.[ii]  There are many other examples, from many different faiths and scientific disciplines.  God (aka religion) has always coexisted with scientific endeavors, and will always continue to do so, despite efforts by religious fanatics to corrupt science with religious dogma.

It did not take much analysis to identify the theological subtext to this question with its pernicious hidden agenda.  The question is intended to separate fundamentalists from those who are not. We ignore this divisive ploy at our peril.  Fundamentalists have been attacking our religious freedoms since the Scopes trial of the 1920s, and it is clear from Dover[iii] and other cases, that they will stop at nothing to force their agenda on the rest of us.  

More immediately, as long as people phrase questions in terms of their own personal answers, there can be no answers, and no basis for reasonable conversation.

[i] See Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland.  The Mad Hatter’s Tea Party

[ii] http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041

[iii] Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688)

Learn more about this author, David Guzman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.