Saltar al contenido

Religion and Science



The view that “religious” theories should not intrude in science is guilty of at least three logical errors.

First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious.  Design models have some evidential support.  We see the blending, for example, in the existence of a Creator based on Big Bang cosmology a beginning of the universe.

Second, it commits the straw-man fallacy by assuming that creationists make no use of scientific methods.  This is not the case.  Creationists are happy to present an abundance of scientific evidence for their view, if they’re allowed.  This evidence needs to be addressed instead of disqualified.

Third, it assumes that the reigning scientific views do not have religious significance.  This is false.  All cosmological views have religious significance.  If evolutionary naturalism is true, the only place for God is in the imagination of the faithful.

A bright line between religion and science just isn’t possible.  Instead, they should work compatibly, drawing on the strength of each to give us a total picture of reality.

Greg Koukl in Stand to Reason

No comments yet


Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: