Religious thought is generally antithetical to science. The latter promotes investigation, the former promotes dogma. Those discoveries made by religious scientists do no credit to religion; rather, the credit belongs to the scientists, and their ability to compartmentalize their religious feelings from the hard-nosed discipline of science.
The fact of the matter is that science flourishes despite religion. You'll notice that no church has an observatory; no church has a particle accelerator; no church has a physics department; no church has a research department. No church has made any significant discovery about reality. Only those religious scientists who are able to keep their faith and their skepticism separate contribute anything to our knowledge -- du Chardin being my favorite example. The rest, like Herny Morris or Michael Behe, actively retard the growth of our knowledge by allowing their faith to infect their thinking and writing.
The two fields address different aspects of human experience.
The fact of the matter is that science flourishes despite religion. You'll notice that no church has an observatory; no church has a particle accelerator; no church has a physics department; no church has a research department. No church has made any significant discovery about reality. Only those religious scientists who are able to keep their faith and their skepticism separate contribute anything to our knowledge -- du Chardin being my favorite example. The rest, like Herny Morris or Michael Behe, actively retard the growth of our knowledge by allowing their faith to infect their thinking and writing.
The two fields address different aspects of human experience.
