Comparing Darwin's Theory Of Science And Religion

It is 1864 and the Royal Society has just awarded Charles Darwin the prestigious Copley Medal. I am currently serving as the secretary for the Royal Council, which is a great honor that I am grateful for. During the meetings we have held, I listened to every person and considered their stance and argument. Sometimes I even voted against my fellow A-MEN. My own beliefs go along with those of the Natural Theology, but I do not consider myself a theologian. I am a man of science and I believe that science and religion can be used together for research and not to be used as separate entities. I am in favor of good strong scientific evidence. When using the inductive method, for scientific research, gives the best science. Darwin uses the speculative method, which gives poor science. Darwin’s work was pure

In his theory Darwin states, “We cannot suppose that all the breeds were suddenly produced as perfect and as useful as we now see them; indeed, in several cases, we know that this has not been their history. The key is man's power of accumulative selection: nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him. In this sense he may be said to make for himself useful breeds” (Darwin 7). Here Darwin is saying that God did not create every species and that man and nature is the reasoning for variation of in this case animals. This just cannot be. He is taking God out of the situation entirely. I agree with one of the critics of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, John Herschel. According to Herschel’s estimation, “God manipulates the universe through secondary causes that we know as the laws of nature” (Driscoll 42). Believing that variation among animals is due to man or nature is an example of Darwin’s naturalistic view of things over the traditional theological one. With this reasoning, I decided to not vote for Darwin to win the Copley