I was struck by
the similarities in Genesis and On the Origin of Species in the way that
both texts discuss the interconnectedness of all life. Darwin discusses the,
“dependency of one organic being on another” many times throughout his
abstract, an idea that is not uncommon in Genesis
(Darwin 75). This idea of the incumbency of nature on all other aspects of
nature is one that seems to play an integral role, regardless of the nature of
the texts. While one is clearly a work of scientific discovery and the other is
a religious explanation of life’s beginnings, both accept that all species are
related to all others. In Genesis, this
is explained through the creation of the earth itself
On the day the Lord God made earth
and heavens, no shrub of the
field being yet on the earth and no
plant of the field yet sprouted, for
the Lord God had not caused rain to
fall on the earth and there was
no human till the soil(Gen 2:5-7,
8-9).
No creation can
happen without the creation of its predecessor, just as “there is no clear line
of demarcation” between the species as suggested by Darwin’s research of the
tree-like structure of origin (Darwin 51). In two texts that would seem to be
in opposition with one another, the roots of both are in fact similar. I found
that these similarities help to bridge the ideological gaps between science and
religion. Also, in Genesis humans do
not exhibit the ability to speak until they have someone to speak to, which
suggests that there is a connection between one’s existence and the existence
of everything else (Gen 2:23). The necessity to speak and interact does not exist until
the first human has a counterpart, which relates to the interconnectedness of
the various species on earth.
While there is
clearly a divide between science and religion, the differences between the two
are actually smaller than one may think. The nature of origin is a widely disputed
argument within both realms, however it seems that at their source, they are
similar. In this sense the nature of one of the greatest disputes in the
scientific and religious worlds is not actually based on any fact.
Lauren's comparisons are really interesting. We have idea that Religion and Science are so far apart and that they are completely opposite from each other. Like Lauren states, there are some very small similarities. Life on this earth is all connected. Every process and every interaction is needed for life to exist though there needs to be a balance. God says that human is created to "hold sway" or in other words described in the footnotes to provide "dominion" (Genesis 1:26). Something has to maintain this delicate balance, whether the dominion was God-given or its all due to natural selection and the struggle for existence. Everything is interconnected, and I think that was a great point to bring up between the two different readings.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree that science and religion both emphasize the interconnectedness of life, I see a great distinction in the lens through which this is viewed. As the quote from Genesis that Lauren cited suggests, life depends on humans as they are necessary to "till the soil". This anthropocentric view parallels many other assertions made is Genesis, such as the idea humans were modeled after God's divine form. The religious point of view emphasizes humans. From the scientific perspective, humans are merely a product of natural selection and actually have no more inherent value than any other creature. While all life depends on each other, it doesn't depend on humans in particular. In fact, humans seem to be the rare exception to this rule because of the way we've isolated ourselves.
ReplyDelete