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.
…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
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