In this blog post, we will look at the reasons why religion still has influence in the long-standing conflict between evolution and creationism and the scientific validity of intelligent design theory.
The theory of evolution and the theory of creationism have been in conflict for a long time, since Darwin first advocated the theory of evolution 150 years ago. The emergence of the theory of evolution was a huge shock to both the scientific and religious communities at the time, and creationists, especially those centered on Christianity, strongly opposed it. Darwin’s theory was the first attempt to scientifically explain the origin of life, and it was essentially bound to conflict with faith-based creationism. As time passed, the theory of evolution developed into neo-Darwinism with the advancement of science, and it explained the principle of natural selection in a more sophisticated way. In this process of development, some scientists predicted that the influence of religion would decrease as science revealed more and more unknown areas. However, contrary to these predictions, people still believe in religion, and the trend is actually increasing rather than decreasing. In addition, there has recently been a movement to make creationism appear scientific under the name of intelligent design.
Scott Atran discusses whether religious beliefs are the result of adaptation in the process of evolution. Here, adaptation is the result of biological evolution, and refers to traits that are advantageous for survival and reproduction in a particular environment. Scott Atran, like most scientists, also sees religion as an adaptation. He argues that there is no gene that directly causes religious belief, but that cognitive and emotional mechanisms that humans have acquired through evolution create religion and make it easier to believe.
To elaborate on Scott Atran’s opinion, he sees religious belief as a byproduct of the convergence of various cognitive and emotional mechanisms that humans have evolved to perform everyday tasks. These mechanisms evolved humans to interpret accidental movements as actions with internal motivation and to instinctively seek protection in uncertain situations. This greatly helped survival and, as a result, contributed to the creation of religion and the ease of belief in it. Humans also face existential problems that cannot be solved in life, and in such situations, religious beliefs help humans solve these problems. This is one of the reasons why religion has not disappeared from all cultures and the majority of individuals around the world. In the end, religion emerged as a byproduct of cognitive and emotional mechanisms, and has continued to exist by bringing practical benefits to humanity.
My position on whether religion is adaptive is in favor. Like Scott Atran, I believe that there is no direct genetic basis for religion, but that the propensity of humanity to have religious beliefs has been determined through natural selection. In other words, it can be said that religion is an indirect product of evolution. I cannot explain in detail the cognitive mechanisms of humans because I am not an expert, but I agree with Scott Atran’s opinion. To add an example, even if you do not believe in a religion, you can see people who believe in the existence of something absolute for things that cannot be explained by science, and this is an example of the product of human cognitive mechanisms. Such people do not have the genes for believing in religion, but they form a belief in an absolute being based on human cognitive mechanisms.
Even if humans evolved to be more likely to believe in religion, if it had seriously harmed survival, the number of people who believe in religion would have gradually decreased, and religion would not have flourished as it does today. However, religion has often been helpful for survival. For example, let’s say there are two groups. One group easily believes in religion, and the other group does not. Which group is more adaptable to the environment? In order to survive in human society, not only the survival rate of the individual but also the survival rate of the entire group is important. In this respect, religion is very effective. Religion is favorable to those who believe in it, but not to those who do not. In some cases, it can be very hostile to those who do not believe in it. Therefore, it can be beneficial for an individual to believe in religion in order to survive in that group, even if it requires some sacrifice.
Even when viewed on a group-by-group basis, groups that believe in religion are more likely to survive than groups that do not. The strength of a group is determined by its size and cohesion. When a group forms around a single religion, it can create a much larger group while ensuring the same level of cohesion as a kin-based group. In addition, people who believe in religion form strong bonds through trust with each other, which is very effective in countering external threats. This is why religious groups are so strong in terms of survival.
Religion also brings mental stability, not just survival. As Scott Atran said, humans often face problems that they cannot solve, and belief in an absolute being helps them escape from these problems. While a family banding together or a group of trusted people banding together can help a group increase its survival rate, providing mental stability is a function that only religion can provide.
However, not all religious practices are viewed positively. Some religious practices sometimes appear irrational or even harmful from a survival perspective. For example, the practice of sacrificing children, asceticism that involves self-sacrifice, or the construction of huge religious buildings that are used only for religious purposes can be viewed as inefficient. However, on the surface, even these inefficient behaviors play an important role in forming a strong sense of solidarity and trust within religious groups. As Scott Atran points out, the greatest threat to humans is other humans, and in this situation, a strong sense of solidarity can ultimately guarantee a higher survival rate.
One of the groups that oppose the idea that religion is an adaptation is the intelligent design advocates. Intelligent design advocates believe that there is indeed a creator (an intelligent designer). However, they take slightly different stances, and they try to avoid scientific counterarguments by using intentionally vague expressions. However, despite these attempts, many scientists have presented logical and powerful counterarguments to intelligent design. Jerry A. Coyne’s essay “Why Isn’t Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?” is a prime example.
Intelligent design advocates argue for a “weak” form of intelligent design and a “strong” form of intelligent design. The “weak” form of intelligent design claims that some features of living organisms are too complex to be explained by natural processes and that the nature of the designer is unknown. However, these claims merely list adaptations that have not yet been proven by scientific methods and do not provide any evidence that intelligent designers exist. Furthermore, the claim that the nature of the designer is unknown is nothing more than an illogical claim that cannot be verified or disproved.
