Charles Darwin Buried In a Church. Hasn't Objected Yet.

Last week I was pleased to see that evolution and religion were the focus of one of the Inquirer's most interesting new blogs – The Public's Health. One of the authors, Michael Yudell of the Drexel School of Public Health, visited Westminster Abbey, which is the site of Darwin's grave.

Just a few feet from Newton's gravesite rests who I think it is safe to say is the most controversial figure in modern science: Charles Darwin, author of The Origin of Species and the father of the theory of evolution. That Darwin, a self-proclaimed agnostic, rests in such a prominent church not only honors his legacy but shows that science and faith are not necessarily mutually exclusive; they can coexist!

Just a week after Darwin's funeral, the Bishop of Carlisle, Henry Goodwin, delivered a memorial sermon in the Abbey during which he said:

I think that the interment of the remains of Mr. Darwin in Westminster Abbey is in accordance with the judgment of the wisest of his countrymen… It would have been unfortunate if anything had occurred to give weight and currency to the foolish notion which some have diligently propagated, but for which Mr. Darwin was not responsible, that there is a necessary conflict between a knowledge of Nature and a belief in God. 

This does not represent a desire on the part of Darwin to compromise or recant or accept religion at the end of his life. That's clear from the wonderful little book, Charles Darwin, The Concise Story of an Extraordinary Man, by Tim Berra.

"Ever the scientist, he gave up Christianity because 'it is not supported by evidence'. Nor could he accept the notion that unbelievers such as his father, his brother and most of his close friends would be condemned to suffer forever in hell."

Darwin was careful not to offend his wife, Emma, who was religious. But his burial in Westminster Abbey was, according to Berra, not Darwin's choice or Emma's. It was the request of twenty members of Parliament.

Berra's book also explains that the term "agnostic" was invented by Darwin's  friend and advocate Thomas Huxley.

How does this relate to public health? Yudell explains that science and religion conflicts extend beyond the teaching of evolution into such important public health measures such as sex education, contraception, and use of the HPV vaccine. Perhaps, he suggests, there's a lesson we Americans can learn from the British:

One thing is clear from my visit to Westminster: those who in 1882 welcomed Darwin into the Abbey, despite the way his work challenged a religious worldview, were far more sophisticated in understanding the relationship between scientific thought and faith than we are here today.

That may be the case, but I don't think this has anything to do with scientists. There's no evidence that British scientists are or ever were more accommodating toward religion that American ones. They have Richard Dawkins, after all. If there's less conflict over there, it's because the general public is less religious, or because religion has less influence on politics and public policy, or because their religious views are, on average, less literal-minded and dogmatic.