Clashes between science and religion abound. We’ve witnessed religious doctrine in opposition to the science of stem cell research and evolution. We’ve seen parents withhold medical care in favor of mystical “cures.” We’ve seen the Terri Schiavo case, where, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, religious concerns sought to keep this brain-dead woman in a perpetual vegetative state.

None of these cases involve the explicit rejection of science per se; rather they are attempts to combine science and religion. By giving religion a “voice” in scientific matters or making religion the final arbiter of science, the common idea is that science and religion can work together.

This view has been promulgated by UW physicist Marshall Onellion, who offers a physics class on the alleged compatibility of science and religion. He explains his view as follows: “I was aggravated by society talking about science and religion like a football game where you have to pick sides and stick to those sides. I wanted to address the way I saw things — religion and science as complimentary.”

So does one have to pick sides? Are religion and science complimentary or diametrically opposed? To answer this question we first have to understand the essential nature of both science and religion.

Science is a method of discovering truths by experimentation. The root of all science is observation of reality, whether by direct observations, instruments or inferences from previous observations. Isaac Newton, for example, meticulously designed experiments to isolate and observe the phenomena he was trying to study. Only by doing this over a period of time and a wide range of phenomena was he able to abstract from his observations and arrive at a general theory.

Darwin too laboriously collected and studied thousands of samples from around the world. He meticulously cataloged and related vast amounts of observational data. He looked for contradictions, exceptions and missing pieces. He dedicated his entire life to biological study and fact-finding. It is this tie to observable facts through rigorous methodology and experimental design that makes science what it is.

Religion, on the other hand, rests on faith. Faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence. Faith requires no tie to observed facts nor a method of proof. As such, religion is free to make claims detached from nature — i.e., supernatural claims.

Despite a clear distinction between science and religion, many still see science and religion as compatible. But this is impossible.

To uphold science means to uphold it all the time.

Either scientists are committed to the facts, come what may, or they’re not. To abandon facts or entertain ideas for which they have no evidence is to abandon science. Even if a scientist is true to the facts 99 percent of the time and only occasionally throws in a supernatural premise or “conclusion” from the Bible, he or she is thoroughly unscientific. When he or she uses science conditionally on faith or feelings, science no longer determines the outcome. There is simply no way to determine when and if he or she will go by science or go by faith.

The need to choose between science and religion is illustrated in a lecture given last week by T. O. Shanavas, author of “Creation AND/OR Evolution.” Shanavas argued that evolution and Islam could be reconciled and quoted certain passages in the Quran that seemed to support evolution. But such a connection is irrelevant to science. It is of no consequence to science whether the Quran supports or denies evolution. The only standard, according to science, is whether evolution is supported by the facts.

A student was quoted saying that while she agreed with most of the talk, she felt the underlying theme that humans came from apes was unacceptable and that Shanavas should have chosen a “middle ground.”

But again, science isn’t about what people find acceptable; it’s about discovering the truth. Whether or not humans came from apes is a scientific question irrespective of what anyone finds acceptable.

What would it mean to seek a “middle ground” between science and one’s faith or feelings? It would mean going by the facts only when one’s feelings and beliefs allowed it. But science is needed especially when one’s feelings and beliefs seem contrary to the facts. It is at these times when rigorous adherence to scientific method is paramount. To go by science only when one feels like it is to undermine the very essence of science.

Science is not whatever scientists happen to do; it is a specific method of ensuring knowledge adheres to reality. Whereas science holds that truth is gained by observation and methodological diligence, religion holds that truth is gained by faith, revelation and supernatural intervention. And with players like these it’s imperative not only to pick sides, but to pick the right side and stick with it.

Jim Allard ([email protected]) is a graduate student in the biological sciences.