The Difference Between Science and Religion

Science has had a short life when compared to religion. Yet we've seen civilizations better themselves a thousandfold since hands unclasped, grabbed scientific instruments and started measuring the world. Is science some form of new religion? Or is science different from religion? Debates of this matter have been common since the dawn of science. Articles on their differences, similarities and clashings have crept up on society and affected everyone in the western civilization. Most recently, religious fanatics have resorted to new methods to reach out to potential followers, using scientific arguments in a seemingly desperate attempt to reestablish the stranglehold religion had in the pre-scientific era.

For the past few years there has been a growing fad in religious circles, dubbed "The Intelligent Design Theory" (I.D.), that uses a scientific style to claim that the universe was designed (by god), rather than having evolved. Statements such as these are not uncommon: I.D. provides evidence that life was created rather than evolved. That Darwin's Theory of Evolution must be religiously tainted simply because it concerns the origins of life – and that followers of I.D. seek neutrality that is currently amiss in modern scientific research.

Neutrality amiss in scientific research? God being a counterweight to the theory of Evolution? These statements are not only wrong, misleading and hypocritical – they are false scientific claims to recruit vulnerable young scientists, and by doing so undermine real science. It's fair and just to claim that science holds no evidence against there being a god – but to use that as an argument for there actually being one, and to claim scientific evidence for it is absurd and idiotic. It's beyond idiotic, it's completely religious.

Logically, any argument related to a supreme being as the designer of the universe is not a scientific one. To prove this, one merely has to explore the fundemental difference between science and