by Charles Darwin’s famed theory of evolution is one of the most well-known scientific proposals of all time. His groundbreaking idea that the human race was descended from other animals sparked immense debate and further scientific curiosity. Most crucially, however, Darwinism introduced to the world yet another example of science being directly at odds with religious beliefs. Because the prevailing Christian beliefs of Darwin’s time taught that humans had been created as perfect beings in the image of God himself, the notion of evolution through natural selection brought science into conflict with the church, the Bible, and religious authority everywhere.
Darwin himself held a unique perspective regarding science and religion, which was influenced by those around him as well as major events throughout his life. Although he had previously held religious beliefs, and his wife was a devout Christian herself, it was said that the death of Darwin’s daughter Annie from scarlet fever “may have tipped Darwin into disbelief” (Browne). I personally found it fascinating that even the main proponent of evolutionary theory grappled with his faith, an observation which puts more recent religious opposition to evolution into better context. As recently as 2005, in cases such as Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, we see U.S. courts attempting to determine the proper relationship between science, religion, and education.
However, the tensions posed by Darwin’s evolutionary beliefs were far from the first time that science had found opposition in religion. When it was declared by the Catholic Church in 1616 that heliocentric theory was “formally heretical,” Galileo found himself pitted against a very powerful religious institution, to the point where he was required to give up his scientific findings and cease teaching heliocentrism. Between Darwin and Galileo, we see that even the most well-meaning scientific advancements can be easily perceived as a threat to religion – and thereby a threat to the very powerful figures who governed religious practice over the course of world history. And yet, it would be unfair to label religion as the only source of scientific opposition that we have seen in modern times.
One article explains that, in the case of Galileo, a young man named Johann Georg Locher made fascinating scientific arguments that confirmed certain aspects of heliocentric theory but vehemently opposed others. Locher, and those who thought like him, were far from anti-science; they simply raised valid criticisms about models (in this case regarding planetary orbit and behavior) that had not yet been fully tested or confirmed. While many only remember the religious side of Galileo’s struggle, the article says that “science has always functioned as a contest of ideas, and that science was present in both sides of the vigorous debate over Earth’s motion” (Dresser). Unfortunately, the fact that science bases itself on such ideological contest leaves even the most widely accepted views to come under attach by “those who insist that the Apollo missions were faked, that vaccines are harmful, or even that the world is flat” (Dresser). Will these instances of scientific resistance, religious and otherwise, ever stop? I do not believe so, especially given that science itself intentionally pushes the boundaries of comfort and acceptance.
Additional source: https://aeon.co/ideas/opposition-to-galileo-was-scientific-not-just-religious