In the world of science, for something to be held as necessarily true, there must be supporting evidence, observation, or a logical process of reason. In the world of religion, for something to be held as the truth, it must be derived from the corresponding religious text.
Religion Vs. Science is a perpetual argument because religion cannot provide evidence or logical reason for concepts based on observation. Likewise, "science" is not supported by religious text. They are incompatible.
Using religion in an argument about science (and vice-versa) is a fallacy in formal logic called "Appeal to Authority".
Consider these statements as an example (I will be using the words expert and authority interchangeably):
Steven Gerrard is a professional football/soccer player. Suppose one says "When riding his motorcycle to work, Gerrard uses brand Alpinestars motorcycle jacket, so Alpinestars is the best brand jacket out there." In fact, Gerrard knows little about motorcycle gear. Just because he uses a certain brand of jacket doesn't mean it is the best because he is not an expert, or an authority, on motorcycle gear. Now if one said that "Gerrard wears brand Adidas shin pads, that must mean brand Adidas is the best", this is most likely true because Gerrard plays football/soccer for a living and is most likely an expert with shin pads through experience, or observation. He is an expert, or authority, on the topic of shin pads.
The same can be said for religious arguments in science. Religion is not an authority on science, and therefore cannot be used as reasons to argue topics about science. Likewise, it goes the other way around. Scientific arguments have no place in religion, because science is not an authority on religion.
Based on this logic, science and religion have no correlation to each other and should not be integrated together in arguments.
Religion Vs. Science is a perpetual argument because religion cannot provide evidence or logical reason for concepts based on observation. Likewise, "science" is not supported by religious text. They are incompatible.
Using religion in an argument about science (and vice-versa) is a fallacy in formal logic called "Appeal to Authority".
Consider these statements as an example (I will be using the words expert and authority interchangeably):
Steven Gerrard is a professional football/soccer player. Suppose one says "When riding his motorcycle to work, Gerrard uses brand Alpinestars motorcycle jacket, so Alpinestars is the best brand jacket out there." In fact, Gerrard knows little about motorcycle gear. Just because he uses a certain brand of jacket doesn't mean it is the best because he is not an expert, or an authority, on motorcycle gear. Now if one said that "Gerrard wears brand Adidas shin pads, that must mean brand Adidas is the best", this is most likely true because Gerrard plays football/soccer for a living and is most likely an expert with shin pads through experience, or observation. He is an expert, or authority, on the topic of shin pads.
The same can be said for religious arguments in science. Religion is not an authority on science, and therefore cannot be used as reasons to argue topics about science. Likewise, it goes the other way around. Scientific arguments have no place in religion, because science is not an authority on religion.
Based on this logic, science and religion have no correlation to each other and should not be integrated together in arguments.