Compare and Contrast of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins´s Points of View on Science and Religion

There are various opinions on the question "what constitutes the universe". I think both science and religion will provide their own explanation on this subject, and they sometimes overlap, it causes inconsistency. Therefore, I do not agree with the non-overlapping authority of Stephen Jay Gould, which insists that there is a delicate boundary between science and religion. That said, I believe that conflict between science and religion is only in evolutionary research. If scientists do not study the theory of evolution, science is conducting a very wide variety of studies, so scientists can become religious believers.

Like the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, science and religion represent two separate research fields that pose different questions without replying to each other. Others such as biologist Richard Dawkins (probably the majority of citizens) regard these two as fundamentally opposite belief systems. Our beliefs are often influenced by series, although hidden. Since humans have developed the ability to think of science, science and religion are always considered to be in a fundamental confrontation. This position became famous only in the late nineteenth century when science was characterized by amateurism, patronage of nobility, low government support and limited employment opportunities. Part of "dispute debate" arises from the desire to create independent fields of specialized science, independent of the private elite that governs universities and schools.

The modern opinion described by Steven Jay Gould is "a non-overlapping Misteria" (NOMA), a fundamental separation between science and religion dealing with human experience. Although Gould talks about independence from a scientific point of view, W. T. Stace sees independence from the viewpoint of religious philosophy. When everyone observes in their field, Steve believes that science and religion are consistent and complete.