This is a quote from wikpedia which is a good starting point.Should science play any role in political thinking and society.A variety of historical, philosophical, and scientific arguments have been put forth in favor of the idea that science and religion are in conflict. Historical examples of religious individuals or institutions promoting claims that contradict both contemporary and modern scientific consensus include creationism (see level of support for evolution), and more recently, Pope Benedict XVI's 2009 statements claiming that the use of condoms to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa was ineffective and counterproductive.In the Galileo affair, the acceptance, from 1616 to 1757, of the Greek geocentric model (Ptolemaic system) by the Roman Catholic Church, and its consequent opposition to heliocentrism, was first called into question by the Catholic cleric Copernicus, and subsequently disproved conclusively by Galileo, who was persecuted for his minority view.Additionally, long held religious claims have been challenged by scientific studies such as STEP, which examined the efficacy of prayer. A number of scientists including Jerry Coyne have made an argument for a philosophical incompatibility between religion and science. An argument for the conflict between religion and science that combines the historical and philosophical approaches has been presented by Neil Degrasse Tyson.Tyson argues that religious scientists, such as Isaac Newton, could have achieved more had they not accepted religious answers to unresolved scientific issues.
Yes if science was not around we would still have a flat earth,all the stars would revolve around us. In modern society I tend to think science is playing a more prominant role than ever eg Global warming,Whale killing.Human nature shows we follow whoever has the loudest voice eg communism.But eventually truth thru science will prevail.
