Is science a religion?

“In what way is the bible proved false?”

How about the fact that the Human race evolved from earlier primates, and did not descend from one man and woman…

“To me it takes more faith to believe in a big bang/evolution theory than to believe in a saviour and designer, when considering the complexity/perfect design of this world. “

Then I would say you are not thinking very critically about the subject. Yes, nature is complex, but it is far from perfect. Look at a duck-billed platypus. And even if it were perfect, that still doesn’t explain how it was created, or whether their was an intelligent designer. Perfection, if it existed, does not mean it couldn’t have evolved that way.

Much of science is “theory”…also…not proven.

phrannie you seem to have a misconception about the way scientists use the word “theory”. Maybe to the lay person a theory means a guess or a hunch, something that lacks proof… In science a theory is a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for observations…

just because gravity is a theory, doesnt make it not real…

leellen - evolution does not disprove the existence of God… the two are not mutually exclusive… it may show that the bible was not completely accurate (but no one needed the theory of evolution in order to do that…)

When evolution is used as a theory in how the world was created, I disagree. When it is used to explain how animals are able to adapt to their surroundings in minimal changes with in their own species, I agree.

In what way is the bible proved false?, Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to think that anyone who believes in the bible thinks that every degree of evolution is false. To me it takes more faith to believe in a big bang/evolution theory than to believe in a saviour and designer, when considering the complexity/perfect design of this world.

Thanks for a good answer ty. And no, science has not become a religion.

Much of science is “theory”…also…not proven.

p

Well there is Scientology.. I’m not really sure what that is about though. On the other hand; I believe in a lot of what science has to say, because there are proven facts. Science is something that explains things with proof to back it up. Unlike many other religions with unknown gods and such. It isn’t my religion, but I believe in evolution and other such things.. I think this answered the question.

A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. (wiki)

uhm so no?

and also, science is based on something you can empiracally test on your own… so if someone makes a claim based on experimental evidence, you can always replicate it and do it on your own… religion has no basis… it cannot be proved empirically… it is simply a matter of faith… so just because someone has blind faith in something that is scientific, doesnt mean it’s religious… just that the person hasnt bothered to prove it to themselves (which, unlike in religion, is possible)

scientology (which has nothing to do with actual science) is a religion science itself however, is not a lot of people dont beleive everything scientists say, and they dont expect everyone to there making new discoveries, finding out how things work, ect there not always right, but no one is the point is there the people who dedicate there time to figuring out how everything works to keep record of and have for future generations but religion certainly doesnt have anything to do with finding out how the world exists, experimenting, discovering, ect religion is a completely different thing to science and in my opinion, nothing in religion has been proved …and I would much rather live in a future that explains how things reproduce, how they evolve, and how they survive than to live in a world based on a book with the only answer to everything being “god did it”

Evolution was a theory created, so man could put God “away” and wouldn’t have to “deal” with him. The human race naturally doesn’t want anything to do with God and will come up with any way to avoid him and not be convicted of any of his wrong doings. Science is important, we use it to learn more of the world around us and to save lives…ect. but when the credibility of science is twisted and used in a way that people believe without doubting it and a theory such as evolution, the big bang is produced and accepted, that’s when science has gone too far. But, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and before puting your trust in anything/anyone, I hope you would consider this seariously. As for myself I’ld rather place my faith in a God who loves me and I have hope in, rather than in a shallow idea concepted by man. Science may be considered as a religion in perspective of athiesem, but in reality is just a denial of God.

Actually all of science is theory. The highest level of certainty in science is what are called “laws” and even these are revised or changed from time to time.

Some of Newton’s laws worked for hundreds of years until mankind started to venture in previously unknown areas where they no longer applied.

Science doesn’t represent ultimate reality; science deals with models that explain observed phenomena. When new information is available old models often have to be abandoned or changed.

While both science and religion deal with our view of reality religion largely deals with things that can not be tested while science deals with what can be tested. The conflict between religion and science comes when someone in either field ventures outside his area and tries to use his discipline in the other.

If believers only made claims about metaphysics and scientists only made claims about the physical realm there would be no conflict. The Roman Catholic Church could not allow Galileo to say that the Earth revolved around the Sun since the RCC made the claim about the physical universe that everything revolved around the Earth. If The RCC stuck with maters of faith and left science to scientists they would ot have had to punish Galileo for heresy for simply reporting what he observed.

Today we have believers trying to promote creationism which is a religious theory of origins but they wish to present this in science classes.

“When evolution is used as a theory in how the world was created”

you seem to again be confusing things… that’s the big bang theory… not the theory of evolution…

I dont seem to think anything… your words were “Evolution was a theory created, so man could put God “away” and wouldn’t have to “deal” with him.” I’m not making an assumption here… you stated yourself that evolution was simply made up…

as for in what way was the bible proved false, uhm how about the contradictions? (here’s a long list http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#good_to_all) or the fact that the world is not 6000 years old?

“To me it takes more faith to believe in a big bang/evolution theory than to believe in a saviour and designer, when considering the complexity/perfect design of this world. “ yes, but evolution actually has proof… unlike a “savior” or a “designer”…