Can Religion and Science Be Compatible?

by Swan | April 1, 2009 at 10:35 am
509 views | 46 Recommendations | 7 comments

Videos

Loading videos...

Photos

Jerry Cohen - Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Genetics

Jerry Cohen - Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Genetics

see larger image

uploaded by Swan

There has been a veritable tsunami of contradictions regarding religion -v- science for the lifetimes of many people who have considered this question. . It is an old argument, but one that still prevails today.

So I thought I'd research the topic in the hopes of seeing and feeling a story emerge that I could write and I was not disappointed.

Jerry Coyne works on several areas of evolutionary genetics, specifically the origin of our species. He is also a professor at the University of Chicago in ecology and evolution and the co-author of the book, Speciation.

Mr. Coyne has also written an article named "The Case Against Intelligent Design - The Faith that Dare Not Speak it's Name." This article is lengthy but well worth the read if the topic is in your interest.

He examines, an all too familiar argument of scientists and creationists arguing over whether or not high schools in Dover, Pennsylvania should learn about biological evolution.

The Scopes trial of our day — Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover Area School District et al  — began innocuously. In the spring of 2004, the district's textbook review committee recommended that a new commercial text replace the outdated biology book.


At a school board meeting in June, William Buckingham, the chair of the board's curriculum committee, complained that the proposed replacement book was "laced with Darwinism." After challenging the audience to trace its roots back to a monkey, he suggested that a more suitable textbook would include biblical theories of creation.

When asked whether this might offend those of other faiths, Buckingham replied, "This country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution. This country was founded on Christianity and our students should be taught as such"

Defending his views a week later, Buckingham reportedly pleaded: "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?" And he added: "Nowhere in the Constitution does it call for a separation of church and state."

He emphasizes that Darwin's Theory is just that, a theory that still today cannot be proved. Intelligent design of course argues against the latter.

There was a bitter discourse that eventually was taken to court:

"Intelligent design," as I will show, is merely the latest incarnation of the biblical creationism espoused by William Jennings Bryan in Dayton.

Far from a respectable scientific alternative to evolution, it is a clever attempt to sneak religion, cloaked in the guise of science, into the public schools."

Moving on ....

The PBS website, Evolution has also tackled the subjects of science and faith. The claim is that many people of various faiths are able to reconcile the theory of evolution, while still being faithful to their religious beliefs.

While that may be true, there is a flip side.  Fundamentalists and evangelicals still vehemently stick to their literal interpretations of the Bible.

Several people have written that they have thoroughly studied both creation and evolution and find that both are forms of faith in that they assume events that occurred before the time of man. They both have an element of trust needed to believe that either are correct or incorrect.
Indeed - and trust is hard earned. I'm still a little unsure of where I stand on this topic - though I'm inclined to think that I sit on the fence at this point in time. I was born into one religion and converted to another when I was 24.

It was a huge step for me and something that I had struggled with for many years.  However, I still believe that science has many undiscovered secrets yet to be revealed and I look forward to any scientific revelations to come.

Arthur Peacocke is a physical biochemist and Anglican priest. He was noted for his pioneering research into the physical chemistry of DNA. He writes:

"I would like to point out that I don't think there is, first of all, a real contrast between religion and science in the sense of one being faith and the other being reason.

I think both can be reasonable. And it's interesting that in science, one often refers to the best explanation, and the best explanation then often involves postulating the existence of something you would never observe or ever could observe."

Mr. Peacocke's stance is certainly a very interesting one - and one that I believe can be adopted quite easily - at least by me. I feel quite comfortable with such an explanation.

The Science and Religion web site has a paragraph that I read twice. It seemed to me, that if everyone thought that way - there would be no deadly religious conflicts, such as jihads and 'holy wars' between religions and the exhaustive question of science -v- religion.

"I cannot think of a better task than to unite religions with science and with each other; to bring religion into the sphere of modern thought; to demonstrate that Nature is slowly trying to reshape the human brain for a multi-dimensional future consciousness, and that we should co-operate with this process, not damage our brains by defying it."
Extremely interesting are the beliefs of the Bahá'í Faith who actually do believe that science and religion are not at odds with one another. In fact, it may be the only religious faith that thinks this way.
A fundamental principle of the Bahá'í Faith is the harmony of religion and science. Bahá'í scripture asserts that true science and true religion can never be in conflict.

`Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, stated that religion without science is superstition and that science without religion is materialism. He also admonished that true religion must conform to the conclusions of science. [...]

The teachings state that whenever conflict arises between religion and science it is due to human error; either through misinterpretation of religious scriptures or the lack of a more complete understanding of science.

`Abdu'l-Bahá explained that religious teachings which are at variance with science should not be accepted; he explained that religion has to be reasonable since God endowed humankind with reason so that they can discover truth.

I commend the Bahá'í Faith for their open mindedness. Their doctrine should be a lesson to everyone who has ever entered into debate between religion and science.

How do others stand on this question?

Sources

Edge - The Third Culture
by Jerry Coyne
Editor's Note: First published in The New Republic on August 22nd

Evolution
Science and Faith

Science and Religion

Wikipedia
Bahá'í Faith and Science

Image Sources

The Third Culture
Jerry Coyne

recommend This comment thread is now closed
3
Roy C

Intelligent Design is what Pythagoras and Isaac Newton believed. All the pagan greats and all the Christian ones as well.

He doesn't know what Intelligent Design means. It is completely compatible with Darwinian mechanism and is about what structure of the universe can be inferred from that mechanism, not what the mechanism is.

A biology class should teach what biologists believe to be the case, but they are not equipped to understand the greater questions of science and philosophy.That should come in another course on the nature of science itself.

All shamans believe that the universe is a phenomenon of great fortuitous circumstance in which underlying consciousness can make itself manifest in signs, omens and dreams.

I know that to be the case.


1
Amaad

wow what a masterpiece.. congrats to all contributors.

To me religion and science are mutually exclusive.. we are not comparing like with like
There is a level in religion which is faith or belief which supersedes logic or reason.  I am saying this  because normally  atheists start challenging the existence of God and demand believers to prove it from material means. To me anything which our 5 senses cant detect doesnt mean that its not there and we deny its existence. E.g the radio waves around you now are undetectable by your senses alone you need a radio or a TV (a medium for correct reception) if the science is not advanced yet then it doesn’t mean that such phenomenon is not there.

Maybe science or human logic and reasoning has to evolve as well in order to fully understand and reach the level of faith or religious philosophy.
Please accept my apology is I am talking out of turn or off topic.
Kind regards

0
Swan

Hello Roy,

You obviously know more on this topic than I could ever hope to know.  I hope to learn more as the discussion progresses.

Perhaps biology teachers should learn more about such things in college, before actually becoming teachers.

I would like to see biology teachers present the information and see what the bright minds of year 12 students have to offer.  It would also make a great topic for a thesis.

Thank you for your wisdom on a difficult topic.
        ~ Swan


0
Amy Judd

In terms of what is taught in schools, I think that all views should be taught so that students can make up their own minds; worked for me anyway.

0
Swan

Hello Amaad,

You have nothing to apologize for in the least!  In fact your comments have added yet another dimension, which is wonderful for debate.  Thank you!

Your logic is just as sound as anyone else's that I've read to date.  The building blocks of religion include faith and that is just as important as a scientist who can prove a case.

I am happy that you dropped by to read and comment!
         ~ Swan


0
Swan

Hello Amy,

You've managed to simplify a response, however it says so much - at least to me.  When I was in boarding school in London, we had one period per week of religious instruction.

The school would have a priest, a rabbi and an imam conduct separate classes but all at the same time of the week.  The students were allowed to pick anyone they wanted, or pick all three over the course of a year.

It sounds as if it would confuse students, but it honestly didn't do that.  I remember being thrilled at the opportunity and eventually chose one to stay with for the rest of they year.

Letting children decide for themselves is a wondrous concept, however I can also see it causing hell for them at home, if their parents were stoic in their own religions.

In such cases, a note to the school from the parents, and the student would have to stay with the same religion all year.

Thank you for your comment Amy!
      ~ Swan


0
Amy Judd

It was in the UK that I was referring to as well, we had all kinds of religious and science classes and I loved it!

However, my parents are not very religious so they had no problem letting me choose what I wanted.

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Esta
First Flagged at 10:50 AM, Apr 1, 2009 by Esta
These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

Recommendations (46)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from