Is there a conflict between science and religion?

Answer 1

yes. durrr. evolution vs creationism and whatnot.

Answer 2

Yes, there is a very large conflict there, much larger than the average person is lead to believe. I'm not talking about your basic creationism vs. evolutionary theory here, thats just nonsense and they know it. What I mean is your basic understanding of the world, of religion, and how each portray your life.

If evolution is true, as most people believe it is, there is very little left to religion. Evolution explains all life up until the moment at which life began, i.e. every creature on earth today is a product of evolution. Humans, amoeba, etc...theyre all evolved forms of life from that original moment of conception. Therefore religion is left to that beginning moment- which science itself is attempting to figure out. My personal conviction is that its silly to think the most powerful and all-knowing being in the universe could only create the primordial soup, or a few amino acids, on a planet.

Religion is designed to leave the mysterious filled with mysteries. Everyday science makes religion a little more faith-based and a little less reality-based. Science drives to explain those mysteries, even in the most difficult situations, while religion just labels them as God and moves on.

Most religious people believe science and religion do not conflict, mostly because they want to hold onto their fostered belief system while acknowledging the scientific truth. Science and religion are completely conflicting in reality, one of the reasons that there are terribly few top research scientists who still hold onto religion. Their natures are contradictory, their answers are contradictory, and really you must choose one if you are going to accept either side wholly as your personal truth.

Answer 3

the people who think that science and religion are in agreement shouldconsider how jesus is a "he"

if all his dna came from his mom, he wouldn't have a Y chromosome, unless she was a hermaphrodite.

was mary a shim?

without that Y chromosome, jesus would have breasts and a vagina.

this is seventh grade science. we've had this figured out for awhile.

if mary's pregnancy was asexual, then jesus would be the spitting image of her. he would be a woman.

or did the "spirit" carry some fleshly information including a Y chromosome?

just wondering how a christian can consolidate a 2000 year old story with seventh grade fact without sounding completely full of it.


the ways of God or science have nothing to do with the jesus myth.

they can be witnessed in the Laws of Nature.

since jesus would only get 23 chromosomes from mary's egg and no other information, he would have died before being born. he probably wouldn't have even developed skin or had the necessary information to grow legs.

assumptions about God are not relevant to the question. i am making an obvious point that the bible and science do not agree.

it's strange how so many are in the dark and are willing to say that the bible offers more information on human reproduction than countless observations and tests by scientists and doctors.

that's pretty foolish.

Answer 4

A lot of atheists and secularists like to think so, but no, there isn't. Science and religion have nothing to fear from each other.

Remember that it has been religion -- specifically the Roman Catholic religion -- that has been a prime patron of science and learning over the centuries.

Until relatively recently, most universities in the Western world were run by the Church. Without the Church and its emphasis on learning and education, there would be no science as we know it today.

..

Answer 5

There should not be any conflict. Religion should be about spiritual things such as the meaning of life and death. Science is about how things work including life. It is only when religious people try to get involved in science that we get conflict

Answer 6

I found some quotes on this I would share to answer your question (obviously a little cut and paste...):

Arthur H. Compton, Physicist
There can be no conflict between science and religion. Science is a reliable method of finding truth. Religion is the search for a satisfying way of life. Science is growing; yet a world that has science needs, as never before, the inspiration that religion offers.

Edwin Conklin, Biologist
The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from the explosion in a printing shop.

Wernher von Braun, Missile Scientist
I believe in an immortal soul. Science has proved that nothing disintegrates into nothingness. Life and soul, therefore, cannot disintegrate into nothingness, and so are immortal.

Albert Einstein, Theoretical Physicist
The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate, but almost disqualified for life.

Lise Meitner, Atomic Physicist
Only a higher power than man can control the powers of atomic energy.

George Davis, Physicist
If a universe could create itself, it would embody the powers of a creator, and we should be forced to conclude that the universe itself is a God.

Sir Isaac Newton, Mathematician
I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilest the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

Albert McC. Winchester, Biologist
A deeper and firmer belief in God can be the only result of a better insight into truth.

Johannes Kepler, Astronomer
I give myself over to my rapture. I tremble; my blood leaps. God has waited 6000 years for a looker-on to His work. His wisdom is infinite; that of which we are ignorant is contained in Him, as well as the little that we know.

Answer 7

No, In a way science is proving religion to be right and existance of God. In Holy Quran, there are many facts mentioned 1400 years ago which science now proves them right!Quran has exactly described the water cycle and human skin to have cells that produce the feeling of pain. it was considered that brain can only produce feelings of every sort but now science accepts that skin can produces the pain feeling. Quran also mention the universe is growing in size and science proves that too.. there r 1001 examples but my knowledge is limited so i can mention only few!

Answer 8

Hello?

A Tempest in a Dog Dish
Recent news about the St. Bernard dog has supposedly taken a bite out of creation science, reported an article on The University of Manchester’s website.

Zoologists at the university measured the skulls of 47 of these dogs, some dating back 120 years, around the time the St. Bernard breed was first described.

Sure enough, the team observed minor changes in the skull structure (e.g., broader skull and more pronounced ridge above the eyes). The findings were published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

Creation scientists ask why all the fanfare and celebration by the secular community for such minor variations? Minor change is no problem for the creation model, and this study on selection hardly casts doubt on creation science.

For example, Darwin discussed at length in his 1859 book the breeding of wild rock pigeons into sub varieties. This is artificial selection done by an intelligent agent—man—to a desired end and has nothing to do with real vertical change (macroevolution). It is not uncommon for breeders to breed dogs accordingly so that desirable breed standards are emphasized, which is an example of microevolution.

The article played on the false notion that creation scientists do not accept natural selection when it stated, “Creationism . . . rejects the scientific theories of natural selection and evolution.” Creationists do accept natural selection in principle, but maintain it has nothing to do with macroevolution. Science has shown repeatedly that this is true: natural selection, yes; macroevolution, no. Additionally, to say we reject the scientific theories of evolution is painting with too broad a brush. The word evolution simply means change—we reject major change (macroevolution) while accepting minor change or variation (e.g., gene segregation).

Creationists have said for decades that there are natural limits to biological change in the living world. Much of this minor change may be seen in artificial selection (“intelligent design”) by breeders and/or gene shuffling and segregation in populations. The result is simply variation within the basic kind.

Whether fruit flies, cattle, dogs or worms, they all remain within their basic created kinds, with breeding producing new variations but not new species. On the other hand, new constructive genetic information has never been seen to evolve in the living world. Secular convictions about macroevolution go beyond scientific observations of artificial or natural selection.

Dogs remain dogs.

Answer 9

No. Not all religious people are creationist. Only ignorant people believe that. The creationist argument only shows that there is a *possibility* for conflict between religion and science, but there doesn't have to be. People can create conflict between the most harmonious of ideas.

Answer 10

Yes. Because religion evolved from mankind misinterpreting the God Yahweh's scientific based laws and instructions. Which a new scientific discovery will force mankind to reinterpret The Bible as a science book. This will lead to eliminating religion as we know it today.

Answer 11

Absolutely not.

For those of you who think science is evil. Turn off your computer and move into the woods, because everything you have in your house is the product of science. It's like a PETA person complaining about animal research if they are using a drug based on animal testing to live.

Utterly pathetic and shortsighted