George+Week+Six

Scientific progress and religion do not necessarily need to be opposite sides of a spectrum, but over the past century both have begun to diverge. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a higher power, but it can disprove people's interpretations of religious texts or stories. Both sides are usually stubborn and believe that they hold the correct answer and will usually not change their interpretation so that it can exist in unison with the other side. The only problem is that science is usually based in facts and empirical evidence, whereas religion is based on faith and interpretation. Two excellent examples of this are on the theory of heliocentricity and evolution. The theory of heliocentricity, which was brought up by Copernicus and made stronger by Kepler and Galileo, opposed the interpretation of many exerts in the bible. The church was unable to accept the idea of a heliocentric solar system, despite it being true. Instead of revising the translation of the bible, they decided to create a schism between science and religion. Even thought the bible was written by man and translated by man through many languages and written many years after the events that were written in it had occurred. Another instance where religion and science oppose each other is the idea of evolution. Evolution directly disproves the literal translation in the bible where God created man out of nothing. Even the pseudo-scientific theory of intelligent design, which tries to create an opposing view of evolution that includes God opposes these passages. The reason that religious fundamentalists refuse to accept evolution, despite the insurmountable evidence proving it, is that they take the bible in the most literal way. If the bible isn't taking in the most literal way possible, some scientific findings correlate to some exerts in the bible. In one passage of the bible, it says that God made snakes slither on their stomachs and no longer walk on legs because they deceived Eve. Evolution backs up this statement because the ancestors of snakes are believed to have also walked on legs and at some point. One idea that should be given more though to, is that evolution is a creation of God and that he is more of a passive observer(after the creation of evolution) than a direct creator( that both Creationism and Intelligent Design argue), but this view cannot be accepted if people take the stories in the bible so literally as they do.