The idea of evolution as a means of discovering a scientific thesis for religion has become significant
because we have now observed the shortcomings of the common definition of religion. Religion is
sometimes defined as a belief in supernatural agents; however, some people regard this definition as
shallow and incomplete. This can be highlighted through the Buddha’s refusal to be associated with any
gods, claiming to be awake and to have found the path to enlightenment by his own merit. An alternative
definition is that religion is something that handles the concepts of an afterlife; however, this concept
likewise excludes a number of faiths. Beyond these superficial definitions, it is extremely difficult to
distinguish anything fundamental about religion that is, in turn, not fundamental to other social
organisations. The possession of a finely calibrated morality gauge for example, is true to all social
organisations, and this determines humankind’s very concept of right and wrong. The concept of
sacredness, or the existence of a symbolic system that distinguishes the sacred from the profane, is
arguably prevalent in many other social organisations. A recurrent theme in religion and Western
Philosophy alike has been the relationship between the social macrocosm and the individual macrocosm.
The Republic demonstrates Plato to compare harmoniously interacting social classes to the organs of a
healthy person. Similarly, religions frequently employ the ‘superorganism’ metaphor, as seen in the
following quotation from the Hutterites (Ehrenpreis 1650, p.11):
“True love means growth for the whole organism; whose members are all interdependent and serve
each other. That is the outward form of the inner working of the Spirit, the organism of the Body
governed by Christ. We see the same thing among bees, who all work with equal zeal gathering honey.”
It is thus evident that in everyday life, people invoke the goodness of society in addition to their own
self-interest to explain their actions; moral behaviour and social policy are usually defined in terms of
this idea of common good. It is for this same reason that religious believers often compare their
communities to a single organism or even a single insect colony. The National Park lover will not miss
the beehives that are pictured on the road signs of the Mormon-influenced state of Utah. Religious
scholar Elaine Pagels, in her take on the evolution of early Christianity claims that when a comparison is
conducted between the gospels that eventually made it into the New Testament with the many competing
gospels that were rejected, it becomes evident that those that made it in were the ones that were the
best as blueprints for various early Christian communities. The narrative differences in the four
Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John echoes the ideas of different Christian communities in
different social environments: they are otherwise referred to as being fossils of local adaptations.
In conclusion, there are far-reaching religious implications for the truth of
evolution. However, with more people refusing to comprehend these far-reaching
truths, and some people being indeed driven away from understanding it by an
association with the personalities of atheism, the means of discovering the
scientific thesis of religion through evolution, a central pillar of the biological
sciences, will be sadly unsuccessful. Therefore, the advent of Darwin’s
bicentennial has called for a promotion in the understanding of the science of
evolution and applying this fundamental standpoint to the way we view religion:
this will also undoubtedly aid us in rearranging the nonreligious furniture of our
mind into a coherent whole.