请用英文回答一个小问题 英文高手帮忙拜托 请用英文给我你的意见 >我要你的意见 不是要资料!!!!!!!! (给我英文的意见看法)

请用英文回答一个小问题 英文高手帮忙拜托 请用英文给我你的意见 >我要你的意见 不是要资料!!!!!!!! (给我英文的意见看法)
请用英文回答一个小问题 英文高手帮忙
拜托 请用英文给我你的意见 >
我要你的意见 不是要资料!!!!!!!! (给我英文的意见看法)

请用英文回答一个小问题 英文高手帮忙拜托 请用英文给我你的意见 >我要你的意见 不是要资料!!!!!!!! (给我英文的意见看法)
参考资料1
God vs. Science
There are two great debates under the broad heading of Science vs. God. The more familiar over the past few years is the narrower of the two: Can Darwinian evolution withstand the criticisms of Christians who believe that it contradicts the creation account in the Book of Genesis? In recent years, creationism took on new currency as the spiritual progenitor of "intelligent design" (I.D.), a scientifically worded attempt to show that blanks in the evolutionary narrative are more meaningful than its very convincing totality. I.D. lost some of its journalistic heat last December when a federal judge dismissed it as pseudoscience unsuitable for teaching in Pennsylvania schools.
But in fact creationism and I.D. are intimately related to a larger unresolved question, in which the aggressor's role is reversed: Can religion stand up to the progress of science? This debate long predates Darwin, but the antireligion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design and excited, perhaps intoxicated, by their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience. Brain imaging illustrates--in color!--the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of glands and gristle. Brain chemists track imbalances that could account for the ecstatic states of visionary saints or, some suggest, of Jesus. Like Freudianism before it, the field of evolutionary psychology generates theories of altruism and even of religion that do not include God. Something called the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology speculates that ours may be but one in a cascade of universes, suddenly bettering the odds that life could have cropped up here accidentally, without divine intervention. (If the probabilities were 1 in a billion, and you've got 300 billion universes, why not?)
Roman Catholicism's Christoph Cardinal Schönborn has dubbed the most fervent of faith-challenging scientists followers of "scientism" or "evolutionism," since they hope science, beyond being a measure, can replace religion as a worldview and a touchstone. It is not an epithet that fits everyone wielding a test tube. But a growing proportion of the profession is experiencing what one major researcher calls "unprecedented outrage" at perceived insults to research and rationality, ranging from the alleged influence of the Christian right on Bush Administration science policy to the fanatic faith of the 9/11 terrorists to intelligent design's ongoing claims. Some are radicalized enough to publicly pick an ancient scab: the idea that science and religion, far from being complementary responses to the unknown, are at utter odds--or, as Yale psychologist Paul Bloom has written bluntly, "Religion and science will always clash." The market seems flooded with books by scientists describing a caged death match between science and God--with science winning, or at least chipping away at faith's underlying verities.
参考资料2
"Science vs. Religion" discovers what scientists really think about religion
SCIENCE VS. RELIGION
What Scientists Really Think
By Elaine Howard Ecklund
Oxford Univ. 228 pp. $27.95
Americans are almost evenly divided between those who feel science conflicts with religion and those who don't. Both sides have scientific backers. Biologist Richard Dawkins rallies atheists by arguing that science renders religious faith unnecessary and irrational. Geneticist Francis S. Collins (before becoming NIH director) organized evangelical scientists to offer a vision of science and faith reinforcing each other.
Rice University sociologist Elaine Ecklund offers a fresh perspective on this debate in "Science vs. Religion." Rather than offering another polemic, she builds on a detailed survey of almost 1,700 scientists at elite American research universities -- the most comprehensive such study to date. These surveys and 275 lengthy follow-up interviews reveal that scientists often practice a closeted faith. They worry how their peers would react to learning about their religious views.
Fully half of these top scientists are religious. Only five of the 275 interviewees actively oppose religion. Even among the third who are atheists, many consider themselves "spiritual." One describes this spiritual atheism as being rooted in "wonder about the complexity and the majesty of existence," a sentiment many nonscientists -- religious or not -- would recognize. By not engaging with religion more fully and publicly, "the academy is really doing itself a big disservice," worries one scientist. As shown by conflicts over everything from evolution to stem cells to climate policy, breakdowns in communication between scientists and religious communities cause real problems, especially for scientists trying to educate increasingly religious college students.
ad_icon
Click Here!
Religious groups -- creationist movements in particular -- are not without blame here. Creationist attacks on evolution "have polarized the public opinion such that you're either religious or you're a scientist!" a devout physicist complains. Indeed, the National Science Board recently spiked a report on American knowledge about evolution, claiming that it was too difficult to tell the difference between religious objections to evolution and questions raised about the state of the science.
Only through a genuine dialogue between scientists and the broader public can these divisions be bridged. To her credit, Ecklund avoids editorializing even while encouraging such dialogue. She gives voice to scientists, relaying and synthesizing their experience. Though "Science vs. Religion" is aimed at scientists, her myth-busting and her thoughtful advice can also benefit nonscientists. For Ecklund, the bottom line is recognizing and tolerating religious diversity, honestly discussing science's scope and limits, and openly exploring the disputed borders between scientific skepticism and religious faith.
-- Josh Rosenau
参考资料3
Conflicts between science and religion
A brief overview
Why do conflicts exist:
Disputes arise because science and religion are two very different disciplines. They are based on different foundations:
bullet Science is ultimately based on observation of nature. Scientists assume that things happen because of natural causes. Some scientists do not believe in the existence of one or more Gods or Goddesses. Others personally believe that one or more deities exist, but assume that he/it/they do not interfere with nature. In any given area, from astrophysics to medicine to zoology, a general consensus exists about most fundamental beliefs. Arguments among scientists exist at the frontiers of each area of science, where new discoveries are being interpreted and hotly debated. The debates are eventually settled by evidence, debates, dialogue, and consultation.

bullet Religion is largely based on faith. There are over one thousand religious organizations in the U.S. and Canada. By one account, there are 270 large religious groups in the world, and thousands of smaller ones. They hold diverse and often conflicting beliefs concerning deity, humanity and the rest of the universe. Many consider that their own faith is the only completely true one. Many believe that God revealed their faith to humanity, while other religions are all man-made. They believe that the consensus of scientists, and the beliefs of all other religions are at least partly false.
There is no simple way to resolve these conflicts:
bullet Religious beliefs are typically based on faith. Most religious folks believe that, through revelation, God has taught them absolute truth. Any compromise with the beliefs of scientists would require them to reject their own religious beliefs. Very few are willing to do that.

bullet Since different religions trace their beliefs back to different revelations from God, it is common for different faith groups to conflict with each other concerning humanity, deity and the rest of the universe.

bullet Scientific beliefs are generally based on observation. Any compromise would require a scientist to reject hard evidence.
Reaching a consensus is generally impossible. Sometimes, debates are settled by a conscious decision to tolerate each other's beliefs. This is difficult to achieve between two groups who are certain of the validity of their own beliefs.

Please give me your reflections about science vs religion (Bigbang and Darwin's Theory of Evolution )!!?
For the contrary between science and religion , everybody please give me your reflection about the Bigband and Darwin's Theory of Evolution !!!!!!!!!!
more detail please !