Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia
There is no connection between science and religion. Science, unlike religion one put forward non-mystical ideas about the nature of the world that might offer. Conflict between science and religion is an inevitable product of their diametric approaches to discovering truth. Five examples illustrate this. Throughout history, science and religion have appeared as being in ideas about the relationship between secularization and science.".
Bitter rivals or teammates? The truth and the lie?
Intelligent Design Theory, and the Relationship between Science and Religion
The media would have you believe that there is an immense chasm between science and religion, with no possibility of overlap or complementarity. But this line of thinking comes from a basic misunderstanding of both God and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth contradict truth […] Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.
The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.
Both are equally valid forms of truth, as they stem from the same Source. Once this is fundamentally understood, fear about science overthrowing religion becomes obsolete, and science has a moral compass guiding discovery and innovation. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus says "Is a lamp brought in to be placed under a bushel basket or under a bed, and not to be placed on a lampstand?
For there is nothing hidden except to be made visible; nothing is secret except to come to light. Anyone who has ears to hear ought to hear. What does Jesus mean in this passage? For me, as a scientist, this passage has always had a special meaning.
Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, and the Conflict model: The net of science covers the empirical universe: The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty.
Religion and Science
We must start by understanding that we are not obliged to seek out religious meaning in the esoteric nooks and crannies of contemporary science, as if every fact about the natural world is like a fortune cookie with a little religious message inside. NOMA confronts the enduring but discredited myth that science and religion have forever been in conflict. Prior to the appearance of these books, science and religion, except for the occasional skirmish like the Galileo Affair, got along fine and were actually supportive of one another, as recent scholarship has clearly shown.
And even the infamous Galileo Affair was nothing like its urban legend would have us believe. There was indeed a tragic conflict, but not in the sense that polemicists like White and Draper portrayed. Given the current highly publicized controversy over evolution, the warfare metaphor can seem all too obvious, if we forget about all the activity taking place off the media radar.
In the big picture, warfare is but a minor facet of the interaction between science and religion. Unfortunately, this facet is the most interesting and, far and away, the one likely to appear in a newspaper.
When creation and evolution clash in a courtroom, to take the most familiar example, the daily news fills up with stories reminding us of the supposed conflict between science and religion. The NOMA aspect, of course, does not make the news for, alas, it is not news. Yale theologians report that this discovery has no relevance to religion.
There is no appeal to the supernatural, and no reliance upon faith or divine revelation including any religious text. However, it should be noted that many religions may teach that life was intelligently designed. While intelligent design theory makes claims about the natural world which are consistent with these religious claims, intelligent design theory is science not because of the claims it makes, but because of how it makes those claims.
Remember, science is a "way of knowing"--not a set of things which can be known. If a conclusion may be arrived at through the scientific method, even if some religious faith or divine revelation is coincidentally teaching that same conclusion, it is scientific. In determining if something is science or religion, what matters is not the claim you are making, but how and on what basis you are making the claim.
What you 'know,' or what your claims are about, do not determine whether those claims are religious or scientific. Rather, it is the 'way,' or means by which one makes those claims that makes them religious or scientific.
Intelligent design theory is a purely scientific way of arriving at the conclusion that life was designed, even if that conclusion may also be reached via religious means. Understanding the Identity of the Designer: The scientific theory of intelligent design cannot name the identity of the designer, but only detects the past occurrence of intelligent design in the natural world.
Intelligent design theory cannot name the designer because it works off the assumption that all designers in general create a certain type of information when they act. While we can detect that type of information in the natural world to infer intelligent design, finding that type of information does not give us any more information about the designer other than that the designer intelligently designed the object in question.
Consider the following diagram: In this diagram, many types of intelligent agents could produce identical objects with high levels of CSI. Intelligent design theory can only find the object containing high levels of CSI and works backwards. While it can detect that the object was designed, it cannot discriminate what kind of designer designed the object, nor determine any specific properties about the designer, other than that it was an intelligent agent.
All intelligent design theory can infer is that the object was designed. Intelligent design, as a scientific theory cannot identify the identity of the designer. Not identifying the designer is not a cop-out nor does it stem from an unwillingness to be honest about motivations. It results solely from the pure empirical limitations of scientific investigation: Thus, the scientific theory of intelligent design simply cannot identity the designer because it is not a question which can be addressed through the methods of science.
At this point, this question can only be answered via faith, or divine revelation, and other religious "ways of knowing. Thus, assessing the identity of the designer is essentially a religious question: Thus, scientifically, one only can state that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence. Many may believe that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible, however these are religious claims. Motivations and Religious Affiliations It has been argued by many critics of intelligent design theory that ID is religion because of the religious affiliations of many groups or individuals promoting intelligent design theory, or because of the nature of the subject.
Many have argued that because many theists promote intelligent design theory, it must be a religious concept. However, to attribute characteristics to something just because those affiliated with it have certain characteristics is to commit what is known as the genetic fallacy or to make what is called an ad hominem argument. Neither of these are valid lines of argumentation.
The "genetic fallacy" occurs when one judges an idea based on its past or its origin. In reality the origin or history of an idea is irrelevant to its present properties. It does not follow that because some proponents of intelligent design are religious, that therefore intelligent design theory must be a religious concept.
An ad hominem argument criticizes a person rather than an argument. To criticize a person because they are religious, or have religious motivations, does not therefore mean that their claims such as intelligent design are unscientific. Religious motivations are irrelevant to determining if an idea is scientific or scientifically true. Many famous scientists, such as Kepler and Newton, used their religious beliefs to justify their belief that God created an ordered and rationally comprehendible universe.
Their religiously motivated scientific claims were confirmed, leading to hundreds of years of fruitful scientific progress. Even if these fallacious arguments were true, there are still intelligent design organizations with no religious affiliation.
The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design ISCIDfounded by William Dembski inis a professional research society that investigates the purely empirical scientific methods for detecting intelligent design.
There are individuals with a wide variety of religious and metaphysical beliefs who see merit to intelligent design theory and are fellows of ISCID. ISCID has no religious requirements for membership. Since both science and religion speak about the subject of origins, science can often agree with some religious claims. In these instances a genuinely scientific theory--not built upon religious premises--may have religious implications.
A theory is scientific if it has scientific premises--and is not based upon religious premises. However, the fact that a theory has scientific premises does not mean it cannot have religious implications. Many have seen the scientific theory of evolution as having religious implications. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that evolution has very particular religious implications for humanity: Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us.
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. The famous biologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote in his book, The Meaning of Evolution, that if evolution is true, then "[m]an is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook.
We may yearn for a "higher" answer - but none exists.