NP Rank:
Can Religion and Science Be Compatible?
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 In the spring of 2004, the district's textbook review committee recommended that a new commercial text replace the outdated biology book.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."
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."
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.
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."
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."
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.
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
Wikipedia
Bahá'í Faith and Science
Image Sources
The Third Culture
Jerry Coyne
Crowd Power
-
Swan
Hillsboro, Oregon, United States
Recommendations (46)
-
israeli.agent
India -
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States -
Jordan Yerman
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada -
mudricky
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom -
hussain
All Places, Pakistan



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (7)
at 10:51 on April 1st, 2009
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.
at 12:20 on April 1st, 2009
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
at 11:22 on April 1st, 2009
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
at 12:26 on April 1st, 2009
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.
at 12:36 on April 1st, 2009
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
at 12:43 on April 1st, 2009
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
at 13:54 on April 1st, 2009
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.