To Comfort The Afflicted
And Afflict The Comfortable

To Comfort The Afflicted And Afflict The Comfortable

Friday, August 12, 2022


Science And Religion Are Not Synonyms



I did not watch the recent Nye/Ham science v. religion “debate” nor am I likely to – though I have read several articles with varying POVs, both scientific and creationist magic.

Even a man with the intellect of Chris Hitchens was unable to persuade any flat-Earther to admit the impossibility of a god and miracles.

It was finally made clear to me how the flat-Earthers are not interested in science since they believe their god has made all things and therefore when a phenomenon can’t be explained by science it’s because their god has made a miracle, no exceptions, no explanations needed.

Science is an enemy to religion only so far as science will not accept myth as evidence when dealing with nature. Evidence is the lifeblood of science in the same way emotion is the lifeblood of religion. The two words are not synonyms even though the flat-Earthers would like to think so.

It’s pointless to give the flat-Earthers the opportunity, once again, to stand in public with a scientific opponent with the intent to attract undecided viewers as it is nothing but another pitch for their god.

All our energy should be directed at keeping these witch doctor dogmas from being manipulated into public law.

There really are religious people who want to live in a scientific world and keep their religion a private matter and don’t relish the publicity given to the extreme believers.

It’s the only legal thing we can do in a constitutional republic.

James Nimmo lives in Oklahoma City and is a frequent contributor to The Oklahoma Observer



  1. Some great points in your article; some of my comment follow:

    Even a man with the intellect of Chris Hitchens was unable to persuade any flat-Earther to admit the impossibility of a god and miracles – the atheist has a similar problem as the religious person, the existance/non-existance of God cannot be proven. This is why it is called “faith”. Bible literalists are the only ones threatened by science. I believe the Bible contains truths, not that it is literally true, certainly as fas as creation goes. In my experience, most atheists define themselves as not believing in God, when if fact (and true of Hitchens as well) they are rabidly anti-religion (not that some of that if a bad thing). I find it useful not to confuce the concepts of God and religion.

    Do you really see any conflicts between science and religion, except when one is used in the realm of the other? As I challenged a more literal collegue of mine recently – if you believe in a perfect, supreme being that created all matter, etc; are you really prepared to argue that your religion has the inside scoop on his/her hair color? I can see God slapping his forehead in frustration …

Arnold Hamilton
Arnold Hamilton
Arnold Hamilton became editor of The Observer in September 2006. Previously, he served nearly two decades as the Dallas Morning News’ Oklahoma Bureau chief. He also covered government and politics for the San Jose Mercury News, the Dallas Times Herald, the Tulsa Tribune and the Oklahoma Journal.