Science vs. Religion

It may appear that the relationship between science and religion is in the form of a never-ending battle. The scientific method relies on reason and empiricism, whereas religion acknowledges revelation, faith and sacredness. However, can they coincide and slot together harmoniously?

One of the strongest challenges to religious belief is Darwin's unveiling of twenty years of work in the 'origin of species' and his theory of evolution. It displays that different species evolved from one common ancestor: contradicting the Church's teachings. Darwin proposes that those with stronger characteristics survived as they lived for longer and therefore produced more offspring; many would suggest that this is certainly a more plausible explanation than God. Evolution shows that nature follows no set pattern: highlighting the question- is God required within the equation?

The Big Bang theory states that the current Universe came into existence approximately 13.7 billion years ago. Matter was tightly packed together in a zone of infinite density or singularity, which exploded. This theory is supported by empirical evidence such as the red shift: displaying that our Universe is expanding. This is called red shift. It is a change in frequency of the position of the lines. Astronomers have found that the further from us a star is the more its light is red shifted. From this, we can infer that distant galaxies are moving away from us, and that the further a galaxy is the faster it is moving away. Since we cannot assume that we have a special place in the universe this is evidence for a generally expanding universe: supporting the Big Bang theory's claims of expansion. Furthermore, Scientists claim that the possibility that matter is eternal is highly likely. The first rule of thermodynamics is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed: showing that there is no need for a higher deity's contribution for its existence.

On the contrary, we must acknowledge Science's distinctive flaws. American biochemist and author, Michael Behe, puts forward his idea of irreducible complexity: stating that modern biology casts doubt upon Darwinism. He uses the analogy of the mousetrap to communicate his essential concept. If we observe a mousetrap, it can be acknowledged that all of the parts are required for the mechanism to function and if one were to be taken away it cease to do so. In other words, it is either 'all or nothing'. Similarly, when a blood clot forms in the human body, it does not clot throughout the entire system; the proteins we own permit this. Behe asks: what is the evolutionary advantage of possessing just one protein which is required for this? If evolution is correct, why was a single protein passed down to younger generations if it had no survival enhancement? There are many variations of Creationism, mainly across America, including: flat earth creationists, young Earth and progressive. It is believed by many creationists that biblical accounts should be deemed as literal truth as they are the 'word of God'. A mainstream creationist would hold the belief that planet Earth is a mere 6000 years old; the Omphalos argument, proposed by Philip Gosse, argues that the appearance of age was put into the Universe by God. Fossil evidence is often perceived as supporting the idea that evolution in one abrupt moment, such as the biblical flood which begins in Genesis 6:6. However, progressive creationists accept that species have changed but it is due to God creating a new 'wave' of plants and animals in different time periods.

Piere Teilhard de Chardin was particularly in favour for Science and Religion to co-exist; he believed that Science permits us to see God and is similar to a mirror in which we see the creator. Chardin also argues that evolution is purposeful, species gradually become more complex: suggesting they are working towards a goal, known as the Omega point.