My argument runs like this. I'll construe "science" as the set of tools we use to find truth about the universe, ... The "war" between science and religion, then, ...

Several opinion pieces over the past year or so have recommended improving communication between scientists and the public through clarifying the fundamental difference between science and society ...

The “war” between science and religion, then, is a conflict about whether you have good reasons for believing what you do: ... The most common accommodationist argument is Stephen Jay Gould’s thesis ...

There is a new war between science and religion, rising from the ashes of the old one, which ended with the defeat of the anti-evolution forces in the 2005 “intelligent design” trial.

Consider the teapot-tempest over religion and science that has mysteriously broken out in 2014, ... no one on any side of the argument understands its philosophical and theological history, ...

Coyne dismisses this as a tu quoque dodge, a way of saying that “science is just as bad as religion,” which is in fact no argument in favor of the latter. Defenders of faith also cite the good ...

In my opinion, there is no conflict between science and religion. They deal with two different spheres of understanding. Science deals with man’s effort to understand how the world operates ...

Dr. Dean Nelson, founder of the journalism program at Nazarene University, speaks about his recent book on renowned theoretical physicist, John Polkinghorne.

The conflict between science and religion may have its origins in the structure of our brains, researchers at Case Western Reserve University and Babson College have found. Clashes between the use ...

An evolutionary biologist makes the case that there’s no reconciling science and religion. In the search for truth, one tests hypotheses while the other relies on faith.