When does science cross the line & become religion?

Question

I've always been brought up believing that a fundamental difference between science & religion was that you can question science but not religion. And to me, that was what made science fun!
Nowadays, that line has been blurred dramatically. Recent Supreme Court rulings on evolution (banning stupid book labels) & all the global warming radicals shouting down those who disagree with them.
Now I don't blame the actual scientists for this, but rather blame laymen who go into a defensive mode, much like a religious person will when their beliefs are challanged. This does appear to have the same effect as religion as debate & questioning is suppressed. Of course, no scientific theory has ever been successfully challenged so it's probably moot! -LOL
So where do you draw the line between when science crosses the line into religion?

Answer 1

The main problem is that most people who attack evolutionary theory don't even know what it is attempting to explain.

It doesn't claim to show how life began, only how it has adapted and evolved over millions of years.

Some people have too much faith in scientific theories - and they become blind to the truth. Fortunately science is self correcting due to the way all work is peer reviewed, and must be able to be reproduceable before it is accepted as 'fact'.

Religion requires that you accept certain things on faith - things that cannot be proven or disproven.

Answer 2

It's hard to respond to your question because it contains so many mistaken assumptions. Yes, you can question a scientific theory but you have to make your case. Not all hypotheses are equal. A scientist should always be willing to consider an alternative explanation but ONLY until fatal flaws are discovered. (Some don't take long.)

And plenty of scientific theories have been challenged and rendered obsolete. Take Newton's laws of gravity and planetary motion. They worked well enough for a few centuries but not perfectly. Einstein blew them away.

The success of a scientific theory rests on an inability to consistently disprove it. A challenge has to answer more questions than the established interpretation. So established theories tend to be accepted by a majority of scientists because they review each others' work and can verify the results independently.

Sometimes a scientific understanding has an effect on public policy. If a popular understanding of a scientific theory has been oversimplified, scientists must make sure the officials who act on it understand what they are considering. Any policy with scientific consequences is too important for a merely political decision. Obviously a theory that is not mature enough for general scientific agreement should not be considered for public policy, unless predicted consequences outweigh the cost of implementation.

In the case of evolution, the overwhelming majority of scientists accept it and realize the theory's importance in understanding genetics (despite creationist's distinction between "macro" and "micro"). In the case of climate change, the collection of data has accelerated within the last few years and nearly all scientists are convinced that taking action to control carbon emissions is more important than arguing about how bad or whose fault global warming might be.

Among academic disciplines, science is the most cautious. A scientist who loses the capacity to tolerate legitimate challenges to a pet theory is drifting into the realm of faith. Einstein had some heartburn over the "uncertainty" claims of quantum mechanics (although they have yet to definitively displace him). But a greater danger is the inability of some people to tell the difference between science and faith, particularly those religionists who attempt to dress faith up in the trappings of science with no basic understanding of the discipline. That attempt at "certainty" betrays a lack in their own faith.

Answer 3

The distinction between Science and Religion is not so much about questioning, as it is about proof. Science is proven and then understood, while religion is understood, and then believed. The difference is between knowledge and faith. One cannot disprove or support the other because they are completely independent variables.
There is no such thing as a scientific consensus. You don't vote on science, you prove it. Consensus is what religions do, specifically because they do not rely on proof.

Answer 4

Science never crosses that line, because it won't touch any concept that's not falsifiable, where a lack of falsifiability seems a prerequisite for religion.

Also, no rational scientist would ever claim that scientific facts are true dogmatically--we collectively accept our 'truths' as provisional; never, EVER ultimate.

Answer 5

i replaced into going to ask the comparable question. i'm no longer muslim yet my husband is and that i've got various that the ladies in his family have given me and a few that I picked up myself whilst i replaced into there. i do no longer understand why i might think of that wearing them in Jordan and not being muslim may be any distinctive than wearing them here. i assume simply by fact there it replaced into popular to be sure very nearly each and every of the ladies wearing hijab and that i only replaced into one in the gang. here i might stand out like a sore thumb. Oh the thrill of a small city! I ordinarily have what they call Princess Hijab (in Jordan) - the two piece stretchy bath like ones. I call them newbie hijab. i haven't gotten down the knack for tying the headscarf yet and that i'm a threat to myself with pins. I only love how i think once I positioned on them. From the 1st time my sister in regulation confirmed me the thank you to positioned on one it only felt comfortable and the only be conscious i can think of of is suited. I oftentimes positioned on them whilst i'm at domicile. I even have some attractive Jibabs that I positioned on each and every of the time. i'm getting some humorous seems yet maximum folk only think of i'm "in straight forward terms a sprint distinctive".

Answer 6

It becomes religion when they say that god had anything to do with anything. Period.
If you ever hear a scientist say that "god" did (fill in the blank), then you can be sure he is pushing religion and not science.
Hope that helps.

Answer 7

I am sorry to burst your bubble my friend,but,science IS fact-based and religion is merely folklore.
It is as simple as that,and if you cannot understand this then so be it.

Answer 8

They were originally one and the same. You see what happens when they are unnaturally separated? UGH!

Answer 9

When the scientists start having sex with their lab rats.