Science vs religion: how is it even an issue?

Ever since ever there's been the ongoing debate of science vs religion. Atheists and such like to bring up the point that religion is based solely on faith and religious texts such as the Bible, which they claim could just be pure baloney, while science has facts to back it up.

I've always thought, and it stands to reason, that it could very easily, and rather obviously, be both science AND religion. If God (or A god) created us and the Earth and everything, he obviously also invented science, and therefore, science would be a part of our and everything's creation.

Science would be the HOW, religion would be the WHY.

So why is it even an issue? People who disregard religion are just as stupid as people who disregard science. Religious nuts say there's no such thing as evolution when that's obviously wrong. Whether or not WE evolved from apes is a different story (and still has yet to be proven), but to simply disregard the plethora of religious crap that's been passed on and discovered over the years just because no one's ever quick to point out the actual facts that DO exist that back up the (at least partial) authenticity of recorded religious events in something such as the Bible is stupid.

Extremists suck. I seriously don't get how science vs religion is an issue. Is it just because people want something fight about? And are too stupid/lazy to do a little research on the topic and instead just decide to pick one or the other?

it's been an issue because not everyone has the same thought as you, and it seems like some of those people who are very religious don''t like to except the fact that everyone else has their own opinion and like to dispute that qoute 'God or A god' created it and evolution the simple process of life had anything to do with it

No heartburn here - all the answers can be found in the Bible.

you see what I mean yo

Yes. Amblessed is a rather annoying individual. But even still, our existence riding on the impossible odds that the 'all science, no god' concept proposes is ridiculous.

I agree with your view of a bilateral coexistence between science and religion...I especially like your 'science is the how, religion is the why' argument. The problem with this issue is that extremists refuse to see both sides of an argument; their view is obviously the only possible view. Scientists refuse to believe that there is a higher power that could have created science, and that science is fact. Well...many years ago, it was fact that the earth was flat. Science is always finding itself wrong, and just claims that 'now we understand it better.' Religious folk refuse to believe in evolution...who's to say that God (or a god) didn't choose for evolution to take place?

I being an Atheist myself am not sure I can answer your question without being biased. But here it goes...

Now, I need to correct you on one thing. We did NOT evolve from apes, we just share a common ancestor. I get where you are coming from though. Science does explain the how of things, but being the curious being we are, we want to know a why as well. The problem is, there is no proof of a why. Now I'm not saying that the bible is BS, but I'm not saying it's true either. For all I know, there could be a a God out there. But common knowledge tells me there is not. If a higher being did create us and the universe, it sure isn't the Christian God that did it.
I think the problem here is that people are too close-minded. The hardcore religous people won't open their mind to new ideas.

Everybody is confusing evolution with science- I am a Christian, and I happen to love physics and chemistry and biology and all that stuff. But one thing I cannot accept is evolution- yeah, God created science. but not evolution. science and evolution are two different things. evolution is not science, it is a (flawed) religion that sort of places us as God for lack or a real one. there are tons of examples of stuff happening that evolution can't explain but that creationism can. (I wont list them here because I hate it when people clutter posts up with heaps of stuff that is just more WORDS, and I never read it myself, so whats the point of posting something no-one will read?) therefore, how can it be science if the best 'theory' is not accepted as the right 'theory'?

horrormusic: yes, some religious people do, but not all. The Bible says we as Christians should love everyone- I dont know about you, but to me, love means letting other people be who they want to be, even if you think what they do or believe is wrong (agape love), and those people who DONT want to accept that others have their own opinions arent obeying the very God in which we believe. So I'm sorry about that.

I, personally, cannot see why people dont believe in God, but that is no reason for me to be intolerant. If I come across that way im sorry. I just get a little fervent sometimes, which, you know, can be a good thing to be, as long as I dont step on anyone's toes

unchosenlove:
the Bible is to say that evolution didnt take place. You can't really go to a higher authority than God's word, can you? it says in Genesis chapter 1 that God created the world in 6 days. Its got 'so God CREATED' (not evolved) EVERYwhere! the Hebrew word that was used for 'day' is the word 'yom'. in other parts of the Bible, this same word is also used for 'day', and every single time it means a 24 hour period- I can't see how the writer of Genesis would make that word mean millions of years.

therefore, the reason I simply can't believe in evolution because it is in direct contrast to my beliefs. and when I say beliefs, I mean the things I truly believe, not just ideas I have not thought through but simply accepted as mine because of my religion.

hated envy:
why not the Christian God?
and new ideas? Darwin's theory has been around for ages!

Science IS the how, religion IS the why.
its just that a lot of people's perceptions of science arent the perception that I and others hold. God science, not evolutionary 'science'.

hope this is clear.

God bless you all (whether you believe in Him or not )
Steph

Good question - where I was brought up there was no conflict between faith and science. There never has been in my mind. My husband and I are both evangelical Christians, and he's a biological scientist. No conflict. The more you know about how God has made things, the more impressive you realise He is, in our experience.

I think the problem occurs when you've got religious people believing their holy books literally (like the world was made in 6 days... it is 6 right? because the seventh was a day of rest?)
And then you've got scientists saying they won't believe anything without proof...

For those who believe that proof is unnecessary:

Do you believe in leprechauns? If not, why not? Would you be willing to accept instructions from a book written by a divinely inspired person about the Most Holy Leprechaun God? Why not? You can't prove He doesn't exist. What if you are wrong and the Leprechaun God sends you to the Fiery Green Depths for all eternity?

See how silly things get when there's no proof and people just make stuff up? The difference is that we atheists see theism as basically the same thing - made up stories about made up gods that are no more or less silly than a Leprechaun God.

This was not meant to offend but rather to help illustrate how some of us think.

Here are some interesting links concerning this topic:

Science & God

http://www.godandscience.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9feXeL-3XA (astrophysicist Bernard Haisch)
http://www.thegodtheory.com/ (astrophysicist Bernard Haisch)
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho24.htm (Professor Richard Swinburne)
http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/mathprfcosmos.html
http://www.evolution-facts.org/

a lot of athiest don't do there research. a lot of things in the bible have been proven with science! Why would God create an earth and have no proof that he created it?

Eventually anyone who has believed in evolution of have found 'missing links' have proven to be wrong or faulty.

stopandsmelltheroses: Evolution is a sound, well tested scientific theory. Just because you decide to ignore the evidence and to not accept it doesn't make it invalid. Nor does quoting the bible constitute evidence.

And just to balance silverwings' rather biased 'interesting links', here are a few more:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/index.html
http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page
http://www.talkreason.org/

katydid747: Really? If you're going to complain about research, please, provide links. What things from the bible have been 'proven'? And how would proof that small parts of a book are right prove the correctness of the whole, anyway?

I wasn't complaining about research... I will give you some things to look at tomorrow, but as for right now I don't have the time because I'm at work!

what has been proven about evolution?

'what has been proven about evolution?'

Check out this site

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Pay special attention to the part about the fossil remains of hominids and the other transitional species.

'there are tons of examples of stuff happening that evolution can't explain but that creationism can. '

When you say 'stuff happening' it sounds like you're talking about things going on right now. You should know that microevolution is not a matter of debate because it happens quickly enough to be observed during our lifespan (examples are bacteria evolving to resist vaccine, insects evolving to resist pesticide, etc.)

As for macroevolution, which talks about the evolution of one species from another over thousands or millions of years, fossil evidence continues to support, rather than disprove, the theory. I posted one link above which talks about this, and arachnid has many more.

There is nothing about creation that can be proven. It continues to rely on one main arguement, that being that the universe is so detailed and ordered that it's simply too intricate to have happened by random chance (even though there's nothing random about evolution) so the Christian God must have made it all.

Let me ask you something...don't get grossed out by the example, but it's a commonly used example of a flaw in the creation theory. If God's design was so perfect, why is the body of his 'best work' (humans) so vulnerable? The human male has a urthethra which passes waste in the form of urine right through the prostate. The prostate is very vulnerable to infection and when it gets infected, it swells and blocks the urethra, causing serious health problems. If I were to design a human male, I wouldn't put a tube that must pass liquid for survival right through a gland that is likely to swell and block it.

There are more examples. That panda's thumb he posted is a good one.

Then where would you put it?

Fossils don't prove anything at all.

But kingofpop, with that logic, you might as well ask why God, or a god, would create beings that can die at all.

One good reason I can come up with off the top of my head as to 'why He would make his 'best work' so vulnerable' is that if we all knew we would die of old age we'd take even MORE for granted. Our mortality gives us a reason to take care of ourselves, and not to take everything for granted (even though there are many many many people in this world that do none of the former, and all of the latter).

'Then where would you put it?' If you knew about the male anatomy, you would know that there is one tube that both urine and seamen pass through. Making a seperate passage for each would be convienant.
'Fossils don't prove anything at all.' Fossils prove that dinosaures and other extinct species existed.
What's so hard to understand about evolution? It's a blind mechanism that works with what is here and now, it's a simple process of life, it's purpose is to insure the survival of it's species.
Religion is intended to promote moral behavior and give purpose and hope of an afterlife, unfortunatly evolution doesn't fullfill our disires. God does not exist in the Christian since.
We die of old age, again, to insure the survival of the species kamex. If we continued on living eventually the population would get out of hand along with the food supply and we'd all starve to death.