Columnists
Evolution & Sikhi:
A Tribute to Charles Darwin
by I.J. SINGH
The following article is reproduced as a tribute to Charles Darwin and his seminal work on the theory of evolution, to mark the 200th anniversary of his birth this month. In this essay, first written in 2006, we present evolution and related matters from a Sikh perspective.
Did man descend from apes? From the point of view of the ape, the idea might be a slippery slope downwards.
The theory of evolution posits a connection between apes and humans that humans might find demeaning to their sense of centrality in God's creation.
Therefore, both Charles Darwin the man and his theory of evolution have had a checkered history in the United States.
Historically, this country has assiduously sought separation of church and state. At the same time, conservative Christianity has tried to bend the law to define what is taught in American schools.
In 1860, Bishop Wilberforce led the first attack on Darwin's theory. In 1925 John Scopes, a teacher in Tennessee was convicted of teaching the "godless" theory of evolution. And now almost 80 years later, just as a legal challenge to the teaching of evolution came to a head in Dover, Pennsylvania, Pat Robertson, the well-known evangelist, warned the people of Dover that they faced divine wrath for siding with Darwin. One would think that even God would not be nursing his rage for so long.
These are not the only milestones in the war over evolution.
In 1968, the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Earl Warren, rejected an Arkansas law that prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools. Arkansas then passed a new law requiring equal time for Creationism; it was struck down the next year.
In 1996, Pope John Paul II conceded that evolution was more than a theory and that there was no conflict between the teaching of evolution and Roman Catholic belief. But then, President George W. Bush weighed in for creationism, wrapped as "Intelligent Design."
These were mere skirmishes; the war still goes on.
Interestingly, Darwin is honoured by Britain with his picture on the ten-pound currency bill, while in America he is reviled. Less than half of all Americans believe in evolution, while the federal judge, appointed by the same President, ruled in the Dover case at the end of 2005, dismissing the suit by creationists with a chuckle and a scolding.
Darwin's idea of evolution via natural selection was not entirely original; others were thinking along similar lines. But his was the most painstakingly detailed and coherent schema with convincing evidence.
His wife, a zealous Christian, worried that he might be destined for hell.
Why and how did a scientific hypothesis run into such opposition from organized religion, particularly Christianity? To understand this, keep in mind the fate of Galileo, who was forced to recant in the face of Papal edicts of condemnation and ex-communication.
Much of the controversy between science and religion stems from too literal a reading of the Genesis chapter in the Old Testament. To insist that God completed his creative mission in six days, from Monday to Saturday, lessens the mystery of creation. To believe that God created man in his own image is to reduce God to an anthropomorphic being.
This is neither science nor religion.
To disbelieve the geologic evidence, which posits that earth is at least 4.5 billion years old makes little sense, when any evidence to the contrary does not exist. If one reads literal truth into what should be interpreted metaphorically, such conflict is inevitable.
The very literal reading of Genesis would force us to abandon all paleontological evidence and interpret all fossils as the remnants of the Great Flood and Noah's Ark.
To a world that seeks a very human-like God's hand in every act in our lives, ranging from winning the lottery to an unfortunate tsunami, it is inconceivable that chance and natural selection could be the keys to evolution.
It is difficult for us to relate to a God that has a universal presence within each of us, does not have a fixed address and abode, and does not micromanage our lives.
The unfortunate divide between science and religion is a sad reflection on the sorry state of public education in this country. Science provides no answer on why I am here but it strives mightily and unendingly to find order in nature, and to discover how natural processes work.
What is the purpose of life, why do I exist and what should I do about it, are the domains of religion and philosophy, not science.
The concerns of science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but are complementary. Religion can lend meaning to life, whatever the facts that science discovers about the mechanics of life itself.
There are many scientists like Stephen Jay Gould, a prolific writer on science and evolution, and Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, who take this approach.
But what do the theorists of Intelligent Design say? What exactly are their working hypotheses? It seems they depend not on evidence, but on perceived holes in the evolutionary model.
The primary argument hangs on one conviction. Look at even the smallest, least complicated animal, a single cell, or an organelle within it. Its organization is so complex, the internal structure of the basic cell or organelle so complicated that it could not have evolved from molecules or a random collection of smaller, simpler units. Just as even the smallest functioning machine cannot be assembled by randomly throwing together all the necessary parts, similarly the functioning cell requires that an intelligent guide or director control the process.
This argument takes strength for the believers when they look at an extremely complicated structure, such as the eye.
Some scientists take the middle ground, concede to an extent the guiding hand of God, and then posit that God does not further manage the course of life forms but leaves them to evolve according to their needs and circumstances at a given geographical location.
Darwin proposed natural selection as the method that gave advantage to certain variations that drove the process of evolution. It escapes me why the believers cannot accept that natural selection is the modus operandi of intelligent design.
I believe Darwin and his ideas are anathema to many for three reasons.
Firstly, Darwin did not endear himself to organized Christianity when he encountered slave-owning devout Christians who spouted scriptures to support their policies; his belief was severely shaken.
The second larger reason echoes the fate of Copernicus and Galileo. Like these two men before him, to the ordinary Christian, Darwin had removed mankind from its self-appointed central position in creation.
Thirdly, Darwin's theory was telling the people that invoking God was unnecessary to running mundane details of everyday life. Managing of the world was now mankind's own responsibility.
If we conceive of God as an anthropomorphic being, then it is inevitable that we would place mankind at the center of creation and that is what a literal reading of Genesis would do. It is difficult to reconcile this to our puny existence on a small, fragile planet in an immense universe that is one of many universes; perhaps just as many universes remain undiscovered.
Our sense of being the central focus of the universe is bound to suffer when we realize that there is 98 percent congruity between the human genome and that of the chimpanzee.
What we need to do is to accept this as hukam, live in grace, and celebrate the two percent that makes us human. Look at the existence of a human and that of a chimp and this two percent assumes dramatic proportion and meaning. This two percent enhances us; it does not demean or lessen mankind.
And that is the central essence of Sikh teaching on this matter.
The Gurus speak of 8,400,000 species of life, but it is not a fixed number they have in mind.
This number comes from Indian culture and Hindu mythology. The cultural context of language has to be comprehended, not its literal usage. The number is used in the same sense, as I would say "a gazillion species" in English. It merely points to an inconceivably large number.
The Gurus are saying, "There is a huge unknown number of species..."
Guru Granth does not ask us to look for our ancestors in the rats, mice and cockroaches that are all around us. Although this thought is found in some religions, Sikhism does not interpret karma in this manner.
Treat all creation with dignity and respect is what Sikhism would ask. At death we are returned to the Earth from which we all arise, to be incorporated in the universal biological cycle of which we are integral parts.
I know in our complicated existence it is easier and tempting to look for simple solutions. Guru Granth repeatedly speaks of God as an infinite presence, of unlimited power and possibilities.
A Sikh reading Guru Granth may be tempted to put God in the director's chair from where he manages even the most trivial happening in his universe. A simplistic interpretation of gurbani might then lead us to see congruence with conservative Christianity's restrictive views on evolution.
I submit that "vicchar" or reason and analytic thoughtfulness are integral and critical components of being or becoming a Sikh. We cannot embrace the teachings of Guru Granth and embark on the path of becoming a Sikh without our critical faculties.
Leave them not outside when you explore Guru Granth. When the Good Book asks us to walk in the shadow of the Lord, it enjoins us to recognize the infinite Ultimate Reality that is within each of us and of which we are all a part. Do not cast God in the role of an anthropomorphic father. It would create a conflict between reason and faith, between our head and heart, between science and religion, that does not really exist. A literal reading of gurbani would surely land us in trouble of our own making.
Guru Nanak spoke clearly of the void that preceded the creation of the universe. He asserted that no one knows the date, day and time when the universe was created, when it will end, or under what circumstances.
He also spoke of a multitude of universes, planets and stars. He rejected the idea of a giant - like Atlas in Greek mythology - or a bull - as in Hindu mythology - supporting the weight of the world.
Guru Nanak's words are amazingly modern and consonant with our scientific notions of creation. They suggest absolutely no conflict between science and religion.
Much as it would be pointless to demand that the theory of a flat Earth be included in school curricula, it would be foolish to bring Genesis into the classroom to teach science or evolution. Genesis is a compelling story with layered nuances and meanings that are best discussed as literature and abiding philosophy.
And that would by no means diminish the story or its inspiration.
Yes, there are gaps in the evidence for evolution that belong in a classroom and deserve airing, not by theologians but by scientists who are the best arbiters of the evidence. Science will continue to debate the mechanics of evolution, not the fact that it occurred or that it continues without abatement.
Man will continue to evolve, if ever so slowly and so slightly.
[Reproduced from: The World According to Sikhi, by I.J. Singh. The Centennial Foundation, Canada, 2006]
February 16, 2009
Conversation about this article
1: Harinder (Bangalore, India), February 16, 2009, 12:10 PM.
I find Darwin flawed on three accounts: 1) His theory uses circular logic and tries to beat the law of "Causality". Let me explain. If some one survives, then Darwin calls him fit. Then, he tries to find and attribute a cause for his fitness. True science requires that you first find properties which give survival advantage and then predict who will survive, not the other way round. That is why Darwin's is still a theory and not a Law. 2) As per Darwin's theory, we should have seen smarter humans surviving than the current ones. E.g., someone with 10 brains, like Ravana in Indian mythology should have had a survival advantage over single brain humans. This did not happen, unless we say that today one human brain is more powerful than all the 10 brains of Ravana. 3) With Darwin's theory, you cannot predict what future species will look like. To be honest, life is still a "mystery" ... something close to the quantum haze.
2: H, Singh ( U.S.A.), February 17, 2009, 2:28 PM.
As a biologist, I sometimes can't ignore addressing the misunderstanding people have developed about Evolution and Darwin. I am aware that many people feel uncomfortable about Evolution but in no way it should be justified to profess false beliefs about it. I would like to comment a little on one of the participant's response that says that the reasoning of Evolution is flawed. This is emphatically wrong. The primary approach to understanding Darwin's "fitness" theory of Evolution is based on the concept of Natural Selection. Natural Selection doesn't claim any predictions for the future, it is a study of the past, telling us how nature moulds and has molded everything in it. Re: "True science requires that you first find properties which give survival advantage and then predict who will survive, not the other way round." Yes, Darwin is showing how natural selection gives survival advantage to certain species and sometimes aids in their evolution to different species. It is therefore nature that causes us to become fit. I think you have the right conception but somehow you are not getting that Darwin is saying exactly what he is been accused of not saying. Re: "That is why Darwin's is still a theory and not a Law". It is not a Law because it is hard to experiment time that spans beyond human history. Secondly, laws are more subjects of Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy, not Biology. The study of Biology is not that concrete. Re: "As per Darwin's theory, we should have seen smarter humans surviving than the current ones." This is again a misunderstanding. There have been many human fossils that are found from where we humans are considered to be evolved from. The argument that we should have evolved into something super-human is not predicted by Evolution. The basic theme of Evolution is Natural Selection that nature continuously molds us. Has nature shaped our anatomy and physiology towards adaptation? Darwin said yes it has. Re: "To be honest, life is still a "mystery" ... something close to the quantum haze." You may be right and I have no problem with that but mystery doesn't form the principle of Biology, uncovering mystery does. In order to disprove Evolution, one has to present evidence that is contrary to what is considered by Biology today. Misunderstanding about Evolution doesn't address the evidence spanning 5 million years.
3: Harbans Lal (Arlington, Texas, U.S.A.), February 17, 2009, 10:01 PM.
Last week, I was invited to an interfaith panel of nine to share the Sikh view on the theory of evolution. I presented my understanding to state that we consider our world to be managed according to the divine hukam. From hukam, I meant a blue-print of natural and physical laws allowed to be formulated by an entity that we refer to as Waheguru. To me "Wahe" signifies the infinite and "Guru" means wisdom. I do believe that it is perhaps too simplistic a description of a very complex order but it has be so for our limited understanding as we are limited by the human language. The human language is limited in so many ways so that the divine cannot be fully realized through its use alone. Our religion provides spiritual language and practices to expand our faculty of 'surat' to experience Waheguru. Under the doctrine of Hukam, we find consistency with Darwin's findings. I am pleased to see Dr. I.J. Singh present the Sikh view in the light of current controversy on the theory of evolution.
4: Raj (Canada), February 20, 2009, 11:01 PM.
There're two shabads in Guru Granth about the gradual development of the Universe, as far as I know. One is in Raag Maru: "Arbad Narbad Dhundhukara...". It goes step by step through the development. Another one mentions the starting of life, in "mael", i.e., dust, dirt.
5: Rawl Singh (New York, U.S.A.), February 23, 2009, 2:10 PM.
Dr. I.J. Singh is one our learned scholars and analyzes every subject before he presents his views. He has done the same in this case but I submit that he has continued with the Western concept of religion, viz. Christianity in this case. The subject is Evolution and Sikhi but he has mentioned the anthropomorphic form of God while discussing the subject. Sikhi does not accept that and hence the arguments do not really apply. I agree with him totally that science and religion are complementary but Darwin does not accept that in relation to this subject. So how can Sikhi be paying a tribute to him? I do believe that evolution is a reality from what is created but my problem with Darwin's view is that he rejects the concept of creation which is by Hukam. He says in the final chapter of "On the Origin of Species": "As species are produced and exterminated by slowly acting and still existing causes, and not by miraculous acts of creation and by catastrophes ..." If we agree with this, then as a Sikh what do we do with Guru Nanak's "Keeta pasaau ayko kuvaao" - Japji, pauri 16? If the universe is not created, why does Gurbani ask us to acknowledge the Creator? He does not only create but also looks after "Ghari Ghari vaykhai sirjanhaar - Japji, pauri 31". I read in this that the Creator also guides evolution.
6: Jasdeep (New Delhi, India), February 24, 2009, 8:40 AM.
Felt good that sikhchic.com has acknowledged Darwin on his 200th anniversary. I have always wondered how Sikhism would have been impacted had the "theory of evolution" been known prior to its birth? Would the Gurus have professed the Darwinian school of thought instead of monotheism? I am thinking from the perspective of Sikhism as a social movement rather than an organized religion. Hope my questions are not offensive to some readers as it is not my intention. [Editor: Briefly, the Theory of Evolution is not at all inconsistent with Gurbani's view of Creation or with Sikhi. More importantly, the Gurus tell us quite emphatically that all of these questions are irrelevant to living a life true to Sikhi ... they represent no more than "chaturtaa" - clevernesses!]
7: Rawel Singh (New York, U.S.A.), February 26, 2009, 4:46 PM.
The Editor has expressed the view that Darwins's Theory of Evolution is not inconsistent with Gurbani's view of creation. He has also averred that those who question this are being chatur or clever. I wonder what is the basis of the Editor's view. In my post above, I had quoted Darwin saying that species are not a result of creation. On the other hand the Creator creating the universe is fundamental to Gurbani teaching. Kartapurakh is the attribute of God included in the Mool Mantar. I request the Editor to clarify the issue so that no doubts are left. Incidentally, when Gurbani talks of cleverness, it is with respect to God and His being unfathomable e.g. "Chaturaaee na chaturbhuj paaeeai" (Kabir, SGGS, p 324). We cannot recive God in our mind by cleverness. Even with respect to the time when creation came into being Guru Nanak says in Japji Pauri 21 "Ja Karta sirthee kau saajai aapay jaanai soee; kiv kari aakhaa kiv saalaahee kio varni kiv jaana, Nanak aakhan sabh kau aakhai jaanai ik doo ik siaana". The Creator alone knows when the universe was created; how can I know or say about this? There will be people who will show their knowledge one trying to outdo the other. Let us please not leave things in doubt. [Editor: There will ALWAYS be doubt - these are things not within human comprehension, and we as Sikhs are discouraged from pre-occupying ourselves with such mind-games; we aretold to simply get on with living life: Naam Japna, Kirt Karni, Wand Chhakna. Guru Nanak's wonderful example in the Ganges at Hardwar, and Gurbani itself, tells us that such mind-games and/or superstitions - about how the world began, what happened before birth, where we'll end up after death, etc. - are mere clevernesses and take us no where meaningful and fruitful. There is nothing wrong with seeking answers and knowledge, but to think that anything we come up in these areas are definitive or have any relevance whatsoever to living a life in Sikhi, is missing the point of Gurbani by a mile.]
8: Rawel Singh (New York, U.S.A.), February 26, 2009, 9:40 PM.
I submit this is what Gurbani is about - sheddding of doubt, Bharam. Often, when we are in a state of mind when we think this is how far we can go and no further, we are rightly acknowledging human limitations. Gurbani does not suffer from this handicap. Those who study Gurbani and contemplate it realize that it is a bottomless ocean of knowledge - Agaadh Bodh - and the more we contemplate, the more it tells us. Guru Nanak tells us "Sikhi sikhiaa gur veechaar"; Sikhi is contemplation on Guru's teachings.
9: I.J. Singh (New York, U.S.A.), February 27, 2009, 7:54 AM.
Some interesting questions have emerged. The line cited by my friend Rawel Singh - "keetaa pasau eko kavaoâ" - when taken in context speaks to me of the richness and creativity of nature. Our problem arises when we take a further step into the unknown and 'invent' or adopt the Judeo-Christian view of an anthropomorphic Creator, micromanaging creation, somewhat akin to a potter or a sculptor in his workshop, spending his day fashioning ashtrays and cups. Such a micromanager of a God is not what Sikhism talks about. Stephen Jay Gould and Frances Collins, eminent scientists both that I cite in the essay, take the middle ground. The main thrust of evolution is its mechanism - Natural Selection - and that remains a matter of continuing scientific exploration. Ultimately, our problem lies in mixing of religion and science. The two remain complementary but different from each other. Science speaks of the rules of nature - of Chemistry, Biology, Physics and Mathematics. The technology of science tells me how to build a house or a nuclear bomb, but does not tell me why I should build one or what use I should put it to. For these and other questions like why I am here, who am I, and how to fashion a life, I need to probe religious values and ethics. Mapping the human genome is a scientific achievement, what use we put that information to requires ethical exploration. Scientific findings are free of ethical implications. (The operative word here is "findings"; how we arrive at such findings can have ethical implications.) This is how both religion and science serve us.
10: Rawel Singh (New York, U.S.A.), February 27, 2009, 4:20 PM.
I appreciate Dr. I.J. Singh's post. Guru Nanak says "Keetgva pasaao eko kuvaau; tis tay hoay lakh dariaao" meaning the universe was created with a single command of God and from it evolved millions of streams. Darwin, on the other hand, says "As species are produced and exterminated by slowly acting and still existing causes, and not by miraculous acts of creation and by catastrophes ...". That means that Darwin does not accept the concept of creation which is fundamental to Sikh belief. How can then Sikhi pay tribute to Darwin for his theory? In response to this it has been mentioned that "Our problem arises when we take a further step into the unknown and 'invent' or adopt the Judeo-Christian view of an anthropomorphic Creator that micromanaging creation". May I submit that Sikhi does not accept incarnation of God and hence that question should not arise. The problem really lies in that those of us who have read how discerning Christians question the Bible - this has resulted in some of them believing in Deism and atheism, also look at Gurbani the same way i.e. question God micromanaging us. I respectfully submit that there is no concept of Divine experience in Judeo-Christian thinking. The Old Testament shows God talking to only a few selected people at fixed places. The New Testament only wants people to believe in Jesus being the savior. That is enough. On the other hand, according to Gurbani, God is present in every body continuously - "ghat ghat antar sarab nirantar". We take note of this through Naam Jaap. He talks to every individual in the mind where He abides. A Sikh therefore always acts, or should act, in God-consciousness. If this is to be called micromangement, so be it. I have given the latter answer only in response to the issue raised by I.J. Singh. The issue on which we need to be clear is whether Darwin endorses the belief of creation by God. If so, how? If not, then how are we to endorse and pay tribute to Him for his Theory of Evolution.
11: I.J. Singh (New York, U.S.A.), March 01, 2009, 6:26 AM.
As I pointed out in my earlier response, religion and science remain complementary, like two sides of the same 'true' coin. In the Sikh view the two are not contradictory but address qualitatively different questions in our understanding of reality. History tells us that humankind has explored both kinds of questions and will continue to do so to our collective benefit. Darwin's achievements are in the realm of science and highly significant.
12: Rawel Singh (New York, U.S.A.), March 04, 2009, 9:05 AM.
Dr. I.J. Singh has said: "In the Sikh view, the two are not contradictory but address qualitatively different questions in our understanding of reality". I submit this is the view expressed about the Judeo-Christian beliefs. Sikhi gives both sides, the spiritual and the scientific. There are numerous Shabads in Gurbani that bear this out. For example, Guru Nanak refers to the Hindu belief of the earth being supported by a bull and says, No, a bull cannot take such weight. All planets are held in space according to cosmic laws - "Santokh thaap rakhiaa jin soot" (Japji, pauri 16). He refers to the need for irrigation of land and asks why is rain necessary when water is there in the earth? He then answers that, to reach everywhere, it evaporates from the seas and travels overhead to drop as rain - "jaisi dharti oopar meghula barsat hai kia dharti madhay paani nahi" (GGS, p162). Guru Nanak's fascination on seeing changing seasons, the moon drawing light from the sun, multiplicity of universes, galaxies within each universe, life existing only on the earth and its sky, creation first of air and from it water (which science says is by chemical action involving oxygen and Hydrogen, creation of the earth by a process that is now called the 'Big Bang' by science, are some of the other examples. There are more. Gurbani thus covers both sides. We may look at Gurbani as the confluence, in fact the fountain-head, of spirituality and science.
13: Jaskooner Singh (United Kingdom), August 06, 2014, 2:57 AM.
We know the age of the universe to be 13.82 billion years old and it started with the Big Bang.
14: C Mackenzie Brown (United States), July 22, 2015, 7:28 PM.
I am a Professor of Religion at Trinity University working on an edited volume of Asian Religious Responses to Darwinism. I am trying to find a scholar who can address Sikh responses. Simran Singh, former student and just completing his Ph.D. at Columbia, gave me the link to this article of Dr. Singh. I am interested in contacting Dr. I.J. Singh to see if he would be willing to contribute an article to the book.