Skip over navigation

Religion and Science

Sparkler Post
Religion and Science

So just as a heads up, this is one of those posts concerning religion.

Okay, so if you've been reading any of the past discussions on evolution, you may have noticed the recurring argument that "we don't have to separate religion and science". This mainly appreared when someone was discrediting evolution based on the Bible.

Now, I have serious issues with this statement. Because it makes Christianis sound like we're all anti-science. Which isn't even close to true. It is true that in the past leading christian institutions (aka the pope mostly) have opposed scientifically proved facts, like the idea that the earth in fact is not the center of the universe. Yes, that was ridiculous. But please, people, that was 300 years ago.

Now, first of all, take a closer look at the Bible. There are many verses throughout that make scientific claims that weren't even known at that time but are now proven true. Examples:


Assertion that the earth is round.


Idenficiation of the wind and water cycles.

He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.  (Job 26:7)

Claim that the earth is in space, an idea that wasn't even thought about at that point.

More? Look here. Now, can we agree that the Bible has science?

Moving on. Christians opposing modern science. Is this true? No. Not even close. Christianity opposes only two things: what we believe to be the incorrect application of science, and the idea of evolution.

Opposing appliaction. Is this opposing science itself? No. It's just saying that doing whatever it is would be morally wrong. Transgenics could be an example. But we're not saying it's not true. We're just saying that just because it's true doesn't mean we should do this.

Evolution. (For the record, I'm talking macroevolution.) The big discussion. First off, is evolution all science? No. So claiming that we separate science because we discredit evolution is a gross overstatement. Secondly, evolution isn't even at the defined level of a scientific theory, much less fact. Before you kill me, let me explain why. For something to become a theory/fact/law of science it needs to be observed to be the same over and over and over again.

Now, we can't reproduce macroevolution. We haven't even observed it. Forget the over and over part. All we have is some fossilized remains. Which doesn't count as observing something happen. By this definition, evolution will never even be a scientific theory.

To be fair, neither will creationism. They are both something that we assumed to have happened, but we can't observe or reproduce it. Which is why the arguing will probably never end.

Summary: Does Christianity oppose science? No. Christianity actually had scientific claims long before they were proven. Christianity also supports science, it only opposes one facet, a facet that isn't even completely proved yet, and never will be.

Do you have to like this? No. I'm pretty sure that some people will keep on claiming that Christians oppose science, but I hope that I've at least cleared the issue up for some people.

Final note, I don't know how much this applies to other religions, but as far as I've noticed, both Judaism and Islam are similar in this aspect, maybe somebody_else's_problem can explain Islam's stance.

All clear? Any questions?

Tags: religion, Science, Christianity, debate, Debunking

This post is user-contributed. Learn more.

Write your own comment!