The article published by Jerry Coyne, titled, Science and Religion Aren’t Friends, is one that demands that science and religion are incompatible, and he makes an attempt to destroy any possibility of compatibility between the two. He claims that religion is merely a fog of superstition that needs to get out of the way of scientific progress. “ And any progress- not just scientific progress- is easier when we’re not yoked to religious dogma.” Coyne argues for the value of science, a value that doesn’t have various religions arguing with one another about which one is right, there is simply one scientific truth. “In contrast, scientists don’t kill each other over matters such as continental drift. We have better ways to settle our differences. There 's is not Catholic science, no Hindu science, no Muslim science- just sciences, a multicultural search for truth.” He believes that science helps to point the flaws in religion, while religion does not offer any evidence of truth to science. He argues that people associated to religion must hold to the views that their personal beliefs are true and cannot be doubted.
…show more content…
However, the point I would like to make it that science too doesn’t have all the answers, no matter which scientist proves that their evidence is correct and cannot be doubted, there are still flaws in science today. I believe that Coyne argues from a more naturalistic and materialistic point of view. These points of view, however fog the way for Biblical and religious compatibility to science. As one of his points he discusses the topic of evolution, and the point he makes is evolution shows evidence of no soul or spirit. However, there are three points that I would like to make against evolution; the first being, that if humans are the products of evolution then humans are simply physical things. Humans posses thought which are non-physical things. Therefore, humans are not the products of evolution. Another argument, discusses moral values; if evolution is true then there could be no objective moral values, but there are objective moral values. Lastly, in regards to the purpose of life; if evolution is true then there is no meaning and purpose of life, however there is clear meaning and purpose of life, so therefore, evolution is false. This is where I believe the Bible and religion can come into the equation. In searching for the relation of Bible and science there are some questions to ask such as, whether or not science and religion are equally valid for discovering truth? Something that Coyne suggests is impossible. Another question that can be asked, can the Bible relate to science or will there always be gaps and flaws that hinder the way to compatibility between the two? However, in many of Langer’s lectures, he discusses the fact that even through scientific search and studies, there is a way for it to be drawn back to God. I believe that good theology makes science and good science helps to make theology. A statement that I know can create an argument, but there is a way for religion and science to be compatible with one another despite gaps or flaws. Langer quotes Fransisco Ayala who gives a whole new meaning to the relationship of faith and science, “Science and religion can not be in conflict because they are answering two different questions. Science is answering the
However, the point I would like to make it that science too doesn’t have all the answers, no matter which scientist proves that their evidence is correct and cannot be doubted, there are still flaws in science today. I believe that Coyne argues from a more naturalistic and materialistic point of view. These points of view, however fog the way for Biblical and religious compatibility to science. As one of his points he discusses the topic of evolution, and the point he makes is evolution shows evidence of no soul or spirit. However, there are three points that I would like to make against evolution; the first being, that if humans are the products of evolution then humans are simply physical things. Humans posses thought which are non-physical things. Therefore, humans are not the products of evolution. Another argument, discusses moral values; if evolution is true then there could be no objective moral values, but there are objective moral values. Lastly, in regards to the purpose of life; if evolution is true then there is no meaning and purpose of life, however there is clear meaning and purpose of life, so therefore, evolution is false. This is where I believe the Bible and religion can come into the equation. In searching for the relation of Bible and science there are some questions to ask such as, whether or not science and religion are equally valid for discovering truth? Something that Coyne suggests is impossible. Another question that can be asked, can the Bible relate to science or will there always be gaps and flaws that hinder the way to compatibility between the two? However, in many of Langer’s lectures, he discusses the fact that even through scientific search and studies, there is a way for it to be drawn back to God. I believe that good theology makes science and good science helps to make theology. A statement that I know can create an argument, but there is a way for religion and science to be compatible with one another despite gaps or flaws. Langer quotes Fransisco Ayala who gives a whole new meaning to the relationship of faith and science, “Science and religion can not be in conflict because they are answering two different questions. Science is answering the