Godly think-tank Theos
, in
light of Darwin’s bicentennial, fuelled yet another creationism survey in which they
revealed bewilderingly high figures of the number of creationists in the UK. With merely
25% of participants thinking evolution is true, esteemed evolutionary biologist Adam
Rutherford expeditiously observed the outstanding 75% to harbour varying degrees of
‘teleological idiocy’. Whilst Rutherford is quick to attribute this national stupidity to an
easy and blind obedience of creationism, Theos ascribes it to a cumulative negative
association between evolution and atheism. It is thus expected that the atheist biologist
would dismiss any such deliberation that this essay elicits. However, in the same way
that biologists frequently express a feeling of awe (bordering on religious reverence)
toward the sheer intricacies of nature; the cube-shaped stool of the wombat that
seamlessly marks its territory, the nigh perfect hunting success rate of the barn owl,
and the use of mastication for alcohol production, the organismic concept of groups,
developed by Darwin in his evolutionary theory makes possible a similar sense of awe
towards religion, even from a purely evolutionary perspective. Evolution, as a 10 th idea,
is therefore significant in rationalising the scientific thesis of religion.
The advent of the 21 st century brings with it a more expressive and critical thinking approach; it is now
relevant to provide a logical explanation of what has been, for so long, considered inexplicable. This
argument gains authority when we realise that it is inadequate to explain the development of human
nature in terms of genetic evolution; rather human evolution is a rapid and ongoing process made
possible by additional mechanisms that can loosely be described as cultural. Dr. David Sloan Wilson, in
his book, “Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion and the Nature of Society”, argues that religious
impulse evolved early in hominid history because it helped make groups of humans present an
intimidating front against bands of less organised adversaries, rendering them to be more cohesive
and cooperative. It is on the basis of this argument, that this renowned evolutionary biologist proposes
that religion, in light of all its institutional, emotional and prescriptive trappings, ranks as a kind of
mega-adaptation: it is a trait that evolved because it conferred advantages on those who bore it.
Darwin, similarly, in his publication of The Descent of Man , proposed that the three ingredients of
natural selection, namely, phenotypic variation, heritability and fitness consequences could just as well
exist in the level of groups. Contenders could find fault in this principle through the following analogy:
within a flock of birds with varying tendencies to scan the horizon for predators and to utter a
distress call when one is spotted, it is probable that even the most vigilant individuals will not
necessarily survive and reproduce better than the least vigilant. This consideration arises, as uttering
a cry would attract the attention of a predator. Surely the good Samaritans would put themselves at
risk by warning others. In other words, despite a higher level of social organisation, the biological
fitness of the bird flock might not improve. However, a Darwinian school of thought would employ an
alteration to this analogy: when there is a population of flocks that vary in their phenotypic properties,
group-level adaptations in the species will evolve on the basis that there will be differential rates of
survival and reproduction amongst the groups. Religion can be viewed through the same lens, as a
multi-level adaptation. Religion is the product of cultural evolution developed through multi-level
selection at work.