Religion V. Science: Can Religion Compete with the Progression of Science?

This photo is from Flickr.com by user avrene. The "e" is symbolic of science and the other symbols each represent a different religion.

This past year I took a religion course at school in which the Creation-Evolution debate, along with the idea of Intelligent Design, was referenced multiple times.  As science progresses, it becomes increasingly difficult to have a literal interpretation of one’s religion.  It also becomes more difficult to keep science and religion separate, which creates conflict in many areas, particularly in education.

For those of you who don’t know… Creationism and Intelligent Design are the religious concepts of intentional divine creation of all life forms.  Darwinism is the scientific concept that the universe evolves through processes such as genetic mutations and random combinations of elements.

This can prove to be an interesting debate for students who are very religious, yet have learned about evolution in school and have always been taught to look at things through facts and deductive reasoning.  I think that it is important for students to have knowledge (knowledge that they gain from being taught different theories in an unbiased manner) that supports both sides, and then have the setting to discuss their thoughts.  We did this in my religion class, and I learned a great deal.  It is an intense topic to discuss and debate in class, but it certainly gets everyone thinking (whether they are brave enough to share their thoughts with the group or not).  I think that the internal dialogue the topic brings about is actually more important than the class discussion because it really forces you to find an answer to the conflict for yourself individually.  How much or how little you believe in science or religion is just that, a belief, and therefore, really cannot be taught.

There are many different ways of looking at the two arguments.  Some believe that the two are incompatible and totally contradict each other.  Others believe that they should be treated as two separate realms.  Many believe that each concept has something to offer to the other, and one can fill in blanks where the other isn’t specific enough.  Others look at the two fields as unified.  The spectrum of ideas is ever increasing as well as the combinations of beliefs.

It seems to me that because it is difficult to go against both one’s faith as well as scientific facts, the best way to handle this controversy is to look at it in a way that works with the truths that we know and believe in our hearts while not defying the truths supported through science.

The National Academy of Sciences’ website states, “Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history.  Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible.  Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution.  Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts”.

Many people believe that perfections in our universe suggest purpose.  Properties that our planet has, such as the strength of the gravitational force, are exactly right to make it inhabitable for humans.  If the force was a little stronger or a little weaker we wouldn’t be able to live here.  To some, this sort of thing seems too perfect to be a total coincidence. The scientific laws governing our universe could, in fact, be determined by a higher power.  There is certainly more to reality than what our physical senses can portray to us, and while we cannot prove that there is a God, we also cannot prove that there isn’t.

In 1981,  Stephen J. Gould, a prominent American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, stated on the debate, “…Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered” .