When Charles Darwin published his monumental book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection", he suggested that instead of being specially created by God, humans were the product of biological evolution. Many religious believers in the nineteenth century felt that Darwinian evolution had robbed humanity of its dignity, for how could humans be created in the image of God if we were the descendants of apes? Faced with this dilemma, they rebelled against Darwin's theory. Yet even in the nineteenth century there were many theologians and religious leaders who did not see a conflict between their faith and Darwin's science. These more liberal thinkers often went to great lengths to convince the public that evolution could be harmonised with traditional religious views and values.
On the other hand, scientists like Richard Dawkins regularly refute the way in which religion is taught in school. For there to be any hint that the world was created in the way the Bible describes is preposterous, he says and for teachers to be telling children otherwise is ludicrous.
The alternative school of thought is that so many people can’t be wrong. With Christianity and other faiths having worldwide followings of millions, there must be some truth in the Bible and its teachings. The majority of people who are religious will follow their faith because they believe, to a certain extent, in what the Bible is saying. Christians are taught to believe many things which may seem to be fairy tales suitable only for the minds of children. Countless millions of Christians have felt the burden of trying to believe things which they did not.
The Shroud of Turin is a prime example. If God really wanted people to make an independent decision about religion, the existence of such an artefact would lend a certain amount of physical evidence to the story of Jesus and would therefore actually negate faith— making it in some way "too easy" to believe.
Returning to the theory of evolution, there are, it seems, two definitions of science. One is to look at the facts, test the hypothesis, and see where it leads you—even if you don't like it. This, of course, is the traditional definition. But many are now questioning whether evolutionary dogma may have used a second definition—to start with a definition and look only at the pieces of evidence which fit that philosophy.
Increasingly, people are starting to question the veracity of Darwin’s theory. For example, there is no adequate explanation for the origin of life. The fact of the matter is that scientists don’t actually know how life began. This suggests that there is no reason in this argument and that in this situation faith can prevail.
The questioning doesn’t stop there. The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced many feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours. Radioactive measurements of these rocks show them to be millions of years old too, but we know they were formed in 1980 because scientists saw them formed. Therefore, the notion that the Earth is billions of years old is not consistent with a considerable amount of scientific observation. Once again, faith has the upper hand.
Other scientific theories have caused uproar in the church in the past. Challenging the common thought that the earth was at the centre of the universe, Galileo declared that it was, in fact, the sun. He was placed before the Inquisition and was put under house arrest for the last nine years of his life – a fairly lenient sentence in relation to what other heretics were given. It was only in the last twenty years that his name was cleared when Pope John Paul II intervened to the approval of many scientists.
The theory of evolution is not believed because of scientific evidence. It is believed despite scientific evidence. Science is, in fact, against the theory of evolution. The relationship between faith and reason is, in many cases, a strong one. They can quite happily sit alongside one another and it is quite possible for a scientist to be a theologian as well.