In Islam it is about science. In the quran it talks about how there are icebergs. What person 1400 years ago could have told you that. In the quran it tells us the human body is made up of water and talks about the 2 barriesrs between the oceans (different salinities and densitys). What person could have told you that. It talks about the orbit of the earth and the moon phases from the old date stalk. Who could have told u this over 1400 years ago. It tells about the mountains and refers to them as anchors what poerson living 1400 years could have told you that. Dont tou think that this is the word of God? This is just a skim. The problem is people think science is absolute so therefore it is right. That is not the case science is always advancing so think deeply and research for yourselves on both sides . What people tell you is mostly a lie about islam because they dont understand. Science goes with religion. If it is a word of god dont u think otherwise?
Science has already been a great factor in proving a superior being. Look at prokaryotic cells, their flagella, tail, has been made in such a fashion that it requires to be put together almost instantly, not slowly over time like Darwin said. That proves a superior being exists. Now, we just need to prove it to all those people out there who believe otherwise.
The official definition for science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Assuming this definition is accurate, God would be important to know about because if he exists, then he would be able to effect the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world which is the purpose of science. Now does that mean science can support God's existence? If he exists, then the science should point directly towards his existence. We can look at many scientific facts such as cosmological constants, the second law of thermodynamics, radiation afterglow, and even Einstein's general theory of relativity to argue his existence. But the evidence is still up to debate and it's interpretations are varied.
As Stephen Hawkings says, http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/stephen-hawking-confirms-non-existence-god-by-offering-scientific-proof-1467528, god is not possible to exist. This is because god is just something made up by humans to appease their thoughts of an afterlife, the concept that someone is watching over them somewhat satisfies them. God should be judged by science because that is something that will actually determine whether god is real or not
The point of science is to gain systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. God can neither be observed or experimented on so there would be no point at all to try to find evidence to determine God's existence. It would be better to keep God and other non-falsifiable beliefs as far away from science as possible.
All science does is prove that God exists, one bit of information at a time. I don't see why people can't see that they go hand in hand. Everyone always wants to separate the two; if "the point of science is to gain systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation," then gain the knowledge scientifically the way it always has been done, but do not discount that God created everything you are discovering. Shoot, evolution is part of God's design, even if many religious fanatics, atheists, and agnostics want to think they are somehow separate.
Science and religion would need to cooperate and work together in order to be productive and yeild definitive results. But religion, generally speaking, only seems interested in science when it offers evidence supporting their cause. Any evidence that suggests the contrary is fought, dismissed, or ignored.
I'm not really optimistic about what can be done with this sort of arrangement.