The recent media coverage of a book being sold at a Grand Canyon shop has got me thinking about the science vs. religion debate again (article). It was a subject of conversation at a party I went to last night and my sister has already written a bit about it.
There are a few things that upset me about this debate. First of all, scientists are often as stubborn and closed minded about new ideas that change their worldview as religious fundamentalists. It wasn't until the 1960's that plate tectonics began to be taken seriously. Geologists were staunchly defending contraction theory against this "heresy" for decades. I often wonder if we would have better earthquake and volcanic eruption prediction if scientists had begun looking at the scientific merits of plate tectonics in the 1910's and 1920's rather than defending their egos.
Another problem with the science vs. religion debate is more problematic. There are a number of people who take certain religious documents literally. This number actually appears to be growing within the Evangelical Christian community (at least when it suits them to interpret the Bible literally). When I think of the creation story, I don't literally believe that Adam was the first man on earth. I think of him as the earliest man on earth whose descendants remembered him long enough to write his story down. I don't really see it as the dawn of man biologically, but I do see it as the beginning of civilization. Many in the Christian community these days would call me a heretic and an unbeliever for holding these views. Many who hold my views think that those who interpret the Bible more literally are incapable of independent thought. (I personally do not agree with them).
The last problem with the science vs. religion debate is that people do not understand the difference between the two disciplines. Yes, science and religion have very different ideas about where the universe came from and what our place is in it. But one of the main reasons for the difference in their "answers to life's big questions" is that they have been asking completely different questions. Science asks, "By what mechanisms was the earth created?" Religion asks, "How was the earth created and why?" Of course there are going to be entirely different answers to these questions because they are different questions.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that religion should stop trying to apply its answers to science and science should stop trying to apply its answers to religion. There was a very clever episode of The Simpsons called "Lisa the Skeptic" in it Judge Snyder rules, "... as for science vs. religion I'm issuing a restraining order..." A wise ruling indeed.