Why are tensions between science and religion so persistent? Why do rivalries between science and religion give rise to such strong emotional reactions?

        The Catholic Church supported a largely Aristotelian physical world view, which was articulated into Christian theology by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). In it, Man had a privileged position as lord of a fixed, motionless and spherical Earth at the center of the Universe.  Galileo in his advancement of astronomy challenged this belief “the unsuspected number of invisible stars made an absurdity of the notion that they were created for man’s pleasure, since he would only see them armed with a machine” (Koestler, 1968, p179).  However, the church leaders were convinced that the scriptures teach that the earth is the center of the universe.  When religious believers were forced to choose between God’s revelation which teaches a geocentric view of the universe and Galileo’s heliocentric hypothesis, the choice was obvious. Divine revelation must be given priority.  The Church feared Galileo’s discoveries would lead to a more secular, science-related world that depended less on faith and more on fact. Galileo showed that nature could be understood using reason, and was one of the first to do so. The advancements of scientific and philosophical knowledge, the Vatican thought, would result in a loss of their political power.  Like Copernicus, Galileo's books were included in the Index of Forbidden Books in 1611.  His work was a clear endorsement of the Copernican system. The Pope was called him before the Inquisition to stand trial for heresy.  Galileo was tried in Rome in February 1633 and on June 16 was sentenced. On June 21 Galileo was read his sentence - guilty! He was ordered to recant and was sentenced to life imprisonment which was commuted to house arrest by the Pope.  As a result of overwhelming scientific evidence, by the nineteenth century most Christians had come to accept the Copernican theory. However, a new crisis arose with the publication of Darwin's ‘The Origin of Species’ in 1859, which “departed from the view that causation is the will of God” (Cohen, 1985, p191).  

Darwin proposed that species of plants and animals evolved through a process of natural selection. Darwin observed that there were variations among individual plants and animals. He proposed that, in the struggle to survive, the better-adapted individuals would be more likely to survive and reproduce their characteristics in succeeding generations (Cohen, 1985).  Thus, over many generations, species would change by a process of evolution.  Further, the process was said to work automatically, leaving little room for divine guidance or design. Reaction to the publication of The Origin of Species was immediate: scientific and religious authorities alike mounted attacks on the validity of the theory, claiming that Darwin could neither explain how variations within a species occurred nor how they were passed on to succeeding generations.

As with Galileo the churches and theologians attacked the findings. It conflicted with their views of special creation placing humans along side the other animals.  Darwin's theory was widely seen by Christians as a direct attack on the story of creation from the Bible’s book of Genesis (Genesis 1:1-31).  Darwin’s theories contrasted greatly with the ideas of the Roman Catholic Church and the religions that branched from it.  According to the Bible, God created the world in seven days, that each species that He created was special in its own way, and that He created a world that would live in symbiotic harmony.  Darwin had made a point in The Origin of Species that contrasted with the ideas of Creationism.  He argued from evidence presented that species were not specially created in their present forms but had evolved from ancestral species (Mayr, 1971).  Furthermore, while most religious organizations believed in a spontaneous, fixed time span creation. Darwin suggested creation was not instant but gradual and went on to say that “the earth was very ancient rather than having been created only 6000 years ago” (Mayr, 1971, p224).  Darwin based this assessment on geology. Given the vast range of species that resulted from natural selection, he suspected the earth had to be several hundred millions years old.  The Church was outraged.  They proclaimed this information invalid, and thus began the conflict between evolution and creationism. 

        Most religious believers during the 19th century believed that humans were made in the image and likeness of God, and thus enjoyed a privileged status over lower form of species.  Natural Selection challenged this traditional view point.  Darwin argued that human beings were like any other species.  Therefore “making man part of the evolutionary stream” (Mayr, 1971, p225).   Darwin proposed that we evolved from apes through a series of gradual steps.  Even uniquely human attributes, he suggested, such as intelligence and emotion could come about through natural selection.  On the other hand creationists believed that care, attention and detail have been put into the world, and that there is a reason for everything.  Furthermore, “each new creation represented a further advance in the plan of the Creator” (Mayr, 1971, p224).    Darwin found no evidence for someone guiding creation; he goes on to say “changes through adaptation and specialization by no means necessitated continuous betterment” (Mayr, 1971, p224).   .

        Throughout history, there have been many conflicts between science and religion.  While scientists like Galileo and Darwin embraces new ideas and examines the evidence to formulate understanding, Creationists take the bible then look for evidence to back up their beliefs.  The outcome as we have seen results in  a conflict between a "heliocentric model" of Copernicus versus the "geocentric model" of the church, but none of these disputes have impacted the ideas of society as much as the ideas of evolution versus creationism.  Even today, the debate between evolution and creationism still lives on.