The article claims that by nature, it is impossible for science and religion to conflict primarily because their individual concerns are entirely distinct. This, however, brings about the debate of the role of both religion and science in our society. Religion I mainly faith based and is illogical, that does not require evidence. Science, on the other hand, is logical and is purely based on actual evidence. Many have criticized this idea on nonoverlapping magisteria claiming it holds no basis. For instance, given that both science and religion has different stories on how the earth came to exist, are they both teaching different domains? The debate lies on whether or not science and religion can co-exist without overlapping or
The article claims that by nature, it is impossible for science and religion to conflict primarily because their individual concerns are entirely distinct. This, however, brings about the debate of the role of both religion and science in our society. Religion I mainly faith based and is illogical, that does not require evidence. Science, on the other hand, is logical and is purely based on actual evidence. Many have criticized this idea on nonoverlapping magisteria claiming it holds no basis. For instance, given that both science and religion has different stories on how the earth came to exist, are they both teaching different domains? The debate lies on whether or not science and religion can co-exist without overlapping or