Science must come before religion debate topic?

Question

Hello, I'm doing a debate topic for school, the topic is: "Science must come before religion", and the counter team's topic is "Religion must come before science"

My question is that, how would i support this topic (of science must come before religion?)

examples and links would be very much appreciated.

also, how would i use examples from the book "Brave new world" to defend this topic?

thanks

Answer 1

Science does come before religion.

Period.

You can't build houses, make fire, grow crops, or create vaccines, with prayers. Without shelter, warmth, food and medicine, people die. Religion is then irrelevant.

Brave New World is fictitious work. It would not be responsible or fair to employ it in a debate about real world issues.

Answer 2

Your teacher/debate coach is fishing here.

The debate will undoubtedly get into such areas as Darwinian Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, embryonic stem cell research (the ethical debate), and maybe human cloning. (The two former being the hottest areas of debate. Based on they way your debate coach/teacher has worded the categories, I suspect he/she will be rooting secretly for the "Science" crowd. It is a misuse of the word "science" and the word "religion".) Suggest to him/her that the topic be narrowed to Darwin vs. I.D. or Embryonic vs. Adult stem cell research: The Ethical Aspects. I can almost guarantee, if I am right in my presumption about your coach (and I acknowledge I may be WAY off base in my assertion and entirely wrong), he/she merely wants to see one of these topics debated...) Pay attention to how much assistance is given to BOTH sides by your coach. Does the scale balance?

The two are not counter to each other (it is usually the "scientist" that would argue they have to be.)

As a public school teacher, I absolutely love science. I love teaching it, I love seeing the kids discover.... I love God more though. Science, we must remember, is a tool...

"...it is not to be deified at the expense of human truth." (Palmer Joss)

There are now 2 definitions for the term "science":

1. (The original) )...that which is verified as true based on empirical research, observable evidence, and a strict adherence to the laws of physics.

2. (Today's)...that which is verified as true based on empirical research, observable evidence, and a strict adherence to the laws of physics unless such research leads one to include the possibility of the existence of God. (In which case, this idea is not even welcome at the table of discussion.)

I would encourage you to research this feverishly.

Ask yourself if those scientists who maintain an athiestic point-of-view do so because they actually believe their evidence (for macro-evolution) to be irrefutable and unquestionable, or do they reject the idea of God's existence because if indeed God did exist, they could not explain Him?
And even worse, actually be accountable to Him?

I suspect the idea that we all might be accountable in some way to a real God doesn't sit well with some of them. (One esteemed scientist confessed to rejecting the idea of a Higher Moral Authority - God - not because the evidence failed to suggest the possiblity of His existence, but simply because he did not want to be accountable for his promiscuous - and somewhat deviant - sexual appetite. He stated this after acknowledging to his colleagues that the theory of macro-evolution had no real scientific basis.) Many in the scientific community realize that as far as the esteemed in society go, they are often deified by the social masses. I suspect they'd hate to lose that "status" if they suddenly found there to be a "bigger brain" than there own.

Answer 3

I don't get what you mean by "come before"??? Science and religion are two entirely different subjects. That is like saying Geology must come before English. I wouldn't take part in either debate because the entire premise is stupid.

Answer 4

First let us establish that science is the study, observation and explanation of the physical laws of the universe.
And since God established all of these physical laws, science and religion should and must agree with and compliment each other.
Check out my new sweb site the Forgotten Truth at http://theforgottentruth.webs.com/
I hope that this may be of some help.

Answer 5

Religion is culturally influenced, based on personal experience, and subject to interpretation.

Science is universal, not bound to culture, region, opinion, or preference. Universal knowledge must always come before personal customs.

Answer 6

You need to start by stating what the objectives are; a happier life, a more peaceful world, etc., and then start showing why your position achieves those objectives better using as many studies as you can to back up your case.

Answer 7

I think that people can either put their faith in science or religion, both require faith.

If you doubt this is true examine the following links. The scientific method is not the key to all knowledge.

Answer 8

Pure usefulness of technology. But there is more than one science.

Answer 9

DARWIN'S BOOK ON THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES.(MOVIE THE MONKEY TRIALS)

ST THOMAS AQUINAS BOOK "SUMMA THEOLOGICA" LOGICAL POSTULATIONS AS TO WHY THE WORLD WAS MADE BY GOD

THE BIBLE AND HOW THE WORLD AND MAN AND WOMEN WERE MADE BY GOD.
(OLD TESTAMENT)


SHOULD DO IT.