Analyzing his claim in the light of science, it seems to be true as science do not believe in non-physical things. Science has not provided any proof of the existence of the God and angels. This point is more attracting for atheists as they only believe in logical and ethical reasoning. Furthermore, he argues that the belief of hell and heaven is no more than “blandishments and threats”. This claim is verified by science as there is no physical existence of these things in the light of science.
Pre-modern cultures have not been thought of creating a sense of distinct individuality among people; people’s sense of self was defined through religion. Everything was explained, validated and formulized in terms of religious and supernatural ways of understanding. Modernity is different from pre-modern in many ways, as people became aware of modernity and they started to accept it then religion was not given much importance, but scientific methods were used to explain things. These scientific methods led to the believe that use of science would lead to all kinds of knowledge. Nothing was secular in the pre-modern age, everything was spiritual.
It was totally contrary to the Christian worldview. His theory states that species tend to change, plant and animal species evolved through natural selection. On the other hand, Darwin’s theory seemed controversial due to following reasons: contradiction with the law of physics; prominent scientists who supported creationism; movement of intelligent designers; new evidence found against Darwin’s theory of evolution. MAIN BODY Science and religion had strong ties in England in the 16th century. Revolution made in science field did not conflict with religion, on the contrary, scientific revolution only strengthened ties
Humanity 's complex consciousness is not seen elsewhere in nature. This is a major problem for evolutionists; as a result, they ignore it. In spite of evolution 's folly, it is the only hypothesis for the universe 's origin that can even hold a candle to creationism in terms of plausibility. Therefore, as Ham (1987) states, "If evolution is not true, the only alternative is creation. That is why they will cling to the evolutionary philosophy even if the evidence is totally contradictory."
Modern science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences, which study the material world, the social sciences which study people and societies, and the formal sciences like mathematics. The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations.  We have to keep in mind that science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad and individual people must make moral judgments.
This position suggests that the meaning of life can be found by the origin of life. However, as scientific fact show that there is no time and space before the Big Bang, life is determined as meaningless. Naturalism is a position with concrete scientific research and theory supporting this position. However, Baggini argued that there is no causal relationship between the meaning of life and the meaning of our origin. He has given an example, that Frankenstein’s monster has no meaning by its origin but could still find his own meaning, to support meaning can be determined not by the past.
The same can be said about God, no one can say that they saw him create the earth. So once again faith in the word of God is what creationists have to abide by. If the Bible is your truth then you must continue to study the word to get a better
The Scientific Revolution made people doubt things that were customs, thoughts and ideas that were passed on from generations to generations which is a reason why they caused conflicts with religion. However, it did not have a setback for what the Scientific Revolution and its impact on Europe in the following
Evolution Evolution is the single, unifying scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth, and the foundation upon which the biological sciences are built. Indeed, the scientific theory of evolution is accepted by an overwhelming majority of mainstream scientists around the world as the cornerstone of biology. To deny the reality of evolution is to deny the foundation upon which modern medicine and related biological sciences are built. Thus, if there is a controversy about evolution, it is not scientific. The controversy is not about science, but religion.
It is true that science works on finding ways to modify the quality of life. However, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Luke 4:4). One cannot deny that science has played a major role in improving our practical life and needs, and it also satisfied our curiosity and eagerness for truth. But without religion, our life is mechanical and has no