Science vs. Religion?

First of all, I'd just like to say that science is not necessarily the antithesis to religion, and vice versa. As Albert Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."   In other words, I believe, or rather, I know, that it is possible to embrace and recognize the values of both. I, for one, have done so.

That being said, science and religion seem to contradict each other on a variety of issues. Certainly, the media seems to enjoy setting the two up as equally valid systems of thought and pitting them against each other and based on the ratings of numerous talk-shows, the general populace seems to enjoy this clash as well. In these debates, there is no issue that is so contentious or so controversial as life itself.

Indeed, life, particularly the origins thereof, is a particularly touchy issue when it comes to the whole science vs. religion dispute. As strange as it sounds, I believe that there are valid points on both sides of the aisle. Based on my life experiences, I have come to believe in the existence of a Prime Mover of sorts in this universe. However, biology has also led me to hold that evolution is a viable scientific theory. As such, I have effectively taken eaten the entirety of the proverbial pie by reconciling my religious belief in the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent Judeo-Christian God with my recognization of the validity of the scientific evidence gathered and the conclusions drawn from said evidence. Since science, by definition, cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, I am inclined to hang on to my beliefs and should science provide new information that clearly contradict said beliefs, revise them accordingly.

In short, I do believe that one can, given an open mind and a reconciliatory attitude, see the life the same way through the lens of both science and religion.

P.S. Before I sign out, there is a somewhat disturbing trend among religious conservatives in this country that I feel like I must call out, which is to label any evidence-based belief a religion. Indeed, I have heard various individuals call the belief in the impact of man on climate change a religion; Darwinism, a religion; Atheism (which incidentally happens to be the total absence of a religion), a religion; and of course, science, which is defined as by the New Oxford American Dictionary as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the struture and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment", is somehow also dubbed a religion.  Now, the New Oxford American Dictionary defines religion as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power" and science is precisely... not that. You know, all I hear when I listen to these individuals dubbing science a religion is "Come on, we all believe in something..." No. No no no no no. I mean, it's a merely a variation of the grand old intellectual tradition of "I know what you are, but what am I?" (Props to Karl Rove) Just because one finds it difficult to defend one's own superstitious theories concerning the origins of life does not mean that every other plausible explanation is invalid, and it definitely doesn't mean that one should label these explanations as religions. Science is a religion in the same way that abstinence is a sex position, got it? Goodness gracious, that was a long post-script. In truth, I can only hope that my spiel was at least somewhat enjoyable to read. Until next time, then.