"Science and religion are two different things" Why?

Science in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. It can however be misused.

Science by itself is a type of empiricism. Empiricism gains knowledge only through what we can observe through our senses so it is limited to the realm of the natural. Because of this it cannot prove nor disprove the anything about God because God is supernatural.

This doesn't mean that all scientists are strong empiricists. Strong empiricism says the only knowledge one can have is from nature, and they reject and type of knowledge that might be obtainable from outside nature. They are thus limited to science, and many will claim that God doesn't exist because the kind of evidence neccessary to prove God is unobtainable. Theists are left to work in the frame work of empiricism then, which is not a fair, because strong empiricism is front loaded with the notion one cannot prove or disprove anything that is supernatural. There are other realms of knowledge that rationalists would say exists that are not natural. Such things are transcendental knowledge, or things we know from intuition. Kant describes these things as the "Noumenon" which is transcendental and the "Phenomenon".which is natural.

When one uses scientific observation to bolster claims about or against God, it steps outside the realm of Phenomenon into Noumenon. People often call this science, but is really an ontological leap. Science doesn't delve in the Noumenon, but it can have implications in it.

This is really a modern phenomenon. Many priests in the middle ages were also scientist (i.e. Copernicus). And many theologians embraced scientific advances and knowledge, (i.e. Thomas Aquinas). However in modern times, religious conservatives feel that science represents atheism, which is the product of debates between religion and science over evolution in the 19th century. Ever since, it has been a continuing spiral. In reality, it is an unfortunate event, as there is no reason that faith and science cannot complement each other. However, unless relentless atheistic scientists, and avid conservative literalists find a way to move toward the middle, I think we can expect the controversy to continue.

Look in the first chapter of most collegiate science books and you'll see that "science seeks natural causes for natural phenomena" and that "verifiable observations and measurments are the data of science." This limits science to things we can observe and measure, directly or indirectly, using the tools of science. If you depend on "measurable" observations, this distinguishes science from all things supernatural--ghosts, angels, dieties, spirits, etc, which cannot be "measured" reliably.

Therefore, theories like "creationism" and "intelligent design" don't make it into our science books. Evolution is the best "scientific" theory for why things are the way they are. Does that mean it's the BEST theory? You have to decide for yourself. I don't think so. But in the "realm of science" those theories don't register because there is no "data" to verify the existence of a Creator or Designer.

Thus, religion and science are separated. The things that convince us that God is real (our intuitions, our FAITH) does not hold up as scientific evidence.

Simple.

Science is based on observed phenomema which can be measured and repeated. For example, water boils at 100 degrees celcius at sea level, it will do so everywhere in the world.

Religion is based on faith. No two ideas of God are the same.

Now, if you want to say that certain people follow scientific thought as if it were some sort of religion, I would agree with you.

But science and religion are not even remotely the same in any real sense.

Science and religion co-mingle. Each one explains the other.

For example: Scientists have been unable to understand why the atom doesn't fly apart. It should, but it doesn't.

In the Bible, Jesus said I am what holds things together.

Another, Evolution: Time has no meaning to God. Our days and God's are completely different. In Genesis, it says there was darkness upon the face of the deep. No way to judge what a day was as we do today. To God a day is like a thousand years according to the Bible. It doesn't say it is a thousand years. But like a thousand years. Why not a billion years? Making evolution possible. However it was still done by God.

There are many more examples. These are just a couple.

Science is differentiated from philosophy by experiment. Philosophy seeks 'logical' proof. Scientists create hypotheses, then devise experiments to test them. Scientists know that their results are approximations, that their 'laws' are not immutable... not absolute. They do NOT (as creationists would have us believe) view their theories as absolute 'truth', in the same sense as creationists regard the Genesis story of creation as 'truth'.

What differentiates religion from both philosophy and science is that neither 'logical proof' nor experimental confirmation is required. Religion can be summed up very succinctly: Where an obvious answer cannot be found in nature, make up an explanation based on the supernatural and accept it as a matter of 'faith'... faith in a 'truth' written in scripture as (claimed to have been) 'revealed' to someone by a transcendental, supernatural being.

Simple!

Religion's cornerstone is faith. Faith in the belief in a God, faith that Jesus will take you to heaven, and faith that everything in the Bible is true.

Science is a whole different story. Science takes observable facts--facts that can be quantified, tested in the lab with repeatable results--and forms a falsifiable theory. The cornerstone of Science is evidence.

Ever here of Nyaya, the logic subtradition of the Vedic tradition? It's central text, the Nyaya Sutras, presents a standard for evaluaing perception and a method for drawing conclusions which is virtually identical (with some formal differences) with scientific method.

Science deals with facts and theories. You do controlled experiments to either prove or disprove your theory and you start all over again with a new set of data built upon by the old. Sciences is dynamic.

Religion deals with faith and worship. It bases itself off a book that is outdated for modern society and it stagnates because growth of new, out of the box ideas is not encouraged. Religion is static.

Because religion is mostly fiction! Where Science is based on evidence and fact.