1

Patrick Fitzgerald
David Spanagel
HI 1331
September 13, 2015
Science, the Hydra
From the point of view of someone studying science, religion is regularly portrayed as
having continually hindered and limited the progress and growth of science. Beit by persecution
of non-believers or complete denial of plausibility, religion has had quite an effect on the
evolution of science. However, through examination of a large scheme of how religion affected
science, and in some cases imagining the course of events without religion having played the role
it did, we can arrive at some rather intriguing and unconventional conclusions: religion played an
important role in the steering of scientific development, by trying to rein in sciences growing
defiance of tradition and authority of the church while simultaneously pushing science to
improve in response.
One of the first conflicts between the church and science started occurred when the
understanding of the universe around earth began to shift. At this time, the prevailing belief of
the heavens was one of geocentrism.1 God had made the universe for man, and earth was the
home of man, so it seemed perfectly reasonable that earth was situated at the center of the
universe. Any new models to more accurately describe motion of the celestial objects was only
made to save the appearances. These mathematical devices were no more than good models,

Peter J. Bowler, Iwan Rhys Morus, Making Modern Science: A Historical Survey (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2005): 26-27.

Fitzgerald 2
having no implications on the reality of the subject. The Copernican model of heliocentrism was
not exempt from this interpretation when it was first released. Later scientists of astronomy, such
as Galileo and Kepler, publicly claimed their models demanded not only a different
understanding of the appearances but a new understanding of what and where the heavens
actually were. These claims were not only opposed by a society heavily influenced by the
church, but directly by the church itself too.2 The hyped actions of banning the works of these
scientists on simply their claims alone likely played a large role in increasing their influence, by
attracting the attention of those interested. Their concepts also were likely to have travelled with
rumors of the topic, slowly sewing its seed in the general populace, which would soon begin
growing into a more influential part of society. One reason for why the churchs dissent didnt
crush the theories with all its influence could be due to the merit of the theories in their own
right: while they were defiant, they were highly accurate and the appearances of the cosmos lined
up with their models very, very wellit is one thing to shun something that is wrong on all
accounts, but to be shunned while being very right begins to raise the eyebrows of those that can
see it is right. From this point of view, it also makes sense that this jolt in popular understanding
of universal position did not occur immediately after Copernicus published the same theories
that occasion lacked the backlash of the church entirely. The entire situation exposed some
problems with depending on authority alone which would later grow into the heart of science:
experience over authority.3 In the churchs attempt to push the theorists down, they only
validated their claims further.

2
3

Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science: 29-31.

Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science: 39.

Fitzgerald 3
Following this kickoff of church defiance, the next large confrontation of new science
with religion-based truths was one pertaining to something seeming closer to home: the earth and
life on it, particularly the age thereof. The prevailing belief was of a young earth on the order of
thousands of years, defined by the biblical account of the history of everything. New scientific
theories were coming up with numbers based on physical relationships that suggested timescales
from hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of years. In effect, the prevailing belief
served as a rather formidable wall against these immensely larger ages, which spelled out both
positive and negative consequences.4 To overcome this well-established belief, it was much more
necessary for scientists at the time to gather as much information in support of their claims, in
order to build their argument up as much as possible to more successfully fend off the looming
criticism. Not only did they need more information in support of their claim, they needed less
and less against it. This raised the bar of how much double checking was needed and the degree
of thoroughness for theories devised in this argument. These scientists needed to be critical of
their own work to find flaws and improve upon their own conceptsa trait even today we hold
as a characteristic of quality science. When these theories were released, they inevitably still
received criticism; no model is perfect. However, even the criticism from proponents of young
earth theory was beneficial to the theorists of an old earth. It promoted discussion and argument,
and exposed even more flaws in models on both sides, directly leading to a process of revision,
to improve models further, even if the argument didnt close in on a conclusion between the two
sides. Every part of this debate yielded progress for the side of science, through its fluidity and
willingness to improve on past models. Similar to determining the scale of earths time, the
discussion of progression of life thereon was also heavily influenced by religious points of view.

Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science: 108.

Fitzgerald 4
Darwins theory of natural selection was ridiculed for proposing that animals were changing,
which was unthinkable for the religious because things god created should not change. Besides
these obvious flaws, the critics pointed out a lack of measurable change inside windows of time
that were actually observable, and lack of mechanism for how this change could occur.5 This
called for the large gaps (largely due to conjecture to cover a lack of information) in the theory to
be filled in for the theory to have weight in the growing science, and required the search for more
tangible or believable mechanism to cause these changes. No matter how completely a model
was ripped apart by its opponents, it was either amended and returned for more criticism or a
new, better theory stepped in to take its place. Scientific development in understanding the age of
the earth was relentless, and it was in part due to its opponents, often religious, continually
feeding it.
Even closer to home than the timescale of the earth was the science of life and of the
interaction of individual organisms, where the religion took on yet another different role. Due
largely to exploration and research in the inner-workings of living tissue, more and more
information became present on how they appeared to function, growing further and further from
that of a spiritual or mystical being. It was becoming more necessary to not only refute new
science with an argument based in god, but to take part in the science in the hopes of proving it
wrong by its own means.6 Most of the time that participation still revolved around the idea of the
soul. According to the church, the largest feature that distinguished man from animals was that
he had a soul that was given to him by god. Holism and organicism reflected these beliefs, in that
the human body could not be described purely through mechanism and materialism alone,

5
6

Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science: 150-154.

Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science: 165.

Fitzgerald 5
because the organism as a whole was on an entirely different level, resembling the spiritual or
the supernatural.7 Holism and organicism were often the trends followed by these scientists
trying to undermine the materialist flow of science at the time. These efforts were contributing to
the general research of life and its workings, but with a different goal than was mainstream: They
wanted to find something mystical or unexplainable at the heart of humanity or life in general,
and use it to thrust science off its current path in order to protect the holiness of life they believed
in. In relation to the slightly bigger picture, these same ideologies were applied to how species
grow and develop on their own and how their environment affects it. The theory of evolution
was a large portion of this field to which these religiously directed scientists were opposed. Man
had been touted as the dominant species on earth, and to claim that humans achieved this
position by more or less random chance was a difficult thing to stomach. Not only did it deny
humanitys divine appointment to its position, but it devalued humanity as a whole. In
conjunction with the growing claims that all life is just a complex machine, the new science
became a harder pill to swallow.8 The religious scientists continued to criticize these defilements
of a divine life force, while still trying harder to find that degree of magic they were certain
existed deep down. As they continued, the implications of evolution were explored more,
yielding even more defiant claims: specifically a claim that all of that life is dynamic and
generally improving. Since all life on earth was carefully designed by god and placed here for
humans, this would be to claim that god had not created everything perfectly, making him an
imperfect creator. While many outright denied this possibility, many others considered its
plausibility and adapted to the mindset that god may work through laws of nature, rather than

7
8

Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science: 181.

Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science: 167.

Fitzgerald 6
directly.9 This shift spurred greater efforts to cooperate with the mainstream of science to unlock
the divinity in natures patterns, and to improve models to get closer to gods rules of nature.
This was a very direct assistance for science, where the results may be appreciated a different
way, but their effect on the systems they described would be well agreed upon, which was
sciences focus. Even in this field of sometimes staunch disagreement on the part of the
religious, there was a large degree of cooperation; the attempt to subvert the scientific system
from inside largely produced less resistance and more fresh minds to gather and analyze
information.
On all different scales of science, religion has played a vital role in promoting,
expediting, and aiding sciences development, despite religions frequent efforts to thwart or
reverse it. In this respect, science acts as the Hydra of Greek mythology, where harming it
increased its might and threat by the time it grew back. Furthermore, an interesting correlation
can be drawn between the science/religion battle and a premise discovered in the timeframe
previously covered: it had been recognized through investigating the evolution (and indirectly
the improvement) of species that struggle was often the driving force of progress.10 Through the
previous discussion this seems to hold true even for the effect of religion on science: the frequent
disagreement between science and religion constantly challenged the models as they grew,
honing the skills of scientists and serving as a board of critics to guide future improvement.
Religion likely has served as a significantly more positive influence on science than is commonly
believed.

Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science: 142.

Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science: 146.

10

Fitzgerald 7
Works Cited:
Peter J. Bowler, Iwan Rhys Morus, Making Modern Science: A Historical Survey
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005)