Science is a broad term describing a number of fields of study or knowledge. While it can be colloquially used to refer to a number of skills, its usage in this wiki generally refers to the system of discovery and invention based on empirical evidence and experimentation rooted in methodological naturalism. The means by which science is executed is known as the scientific method.
Relationship with religion
Science has had a long and at times adversarial relationship with religion.
- Galileo affair
- Evolution and climate change denialism is often associated with certain religious beliefs
- Claims that science should limit its inquiries
- Religiously motivated subversion of science education e.g. Scopes Monkey Trial and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
- Opposition to medical treatments, STD vaccines, blood transfusion (Jehovah's Witnesses).
- Opposition to certain types of research, such as stem cell research.
- Some scientists pledging to more frequently comment on religious debates. 
- Many admired scientists were religious
Early origins of science
Many early scientists believed that the natural world was a "book of nature" which, along side scripture, was part of God's revelation to humans. However, as natural philosophers began using experimentation and systematic investigation, serious omission and errors in both scripture and classical philosophy began to emerge.
"Philosophy is written in that great book which ever lies before our eyes — I mean the universe — but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols, in which it is written."
"Some people, in order to discover God, read a book. But there is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above and below, note, read. God whom you want to discover, did not make the letters with ink; he put in front of your eyes the very things that he made. Can you ask for a louder voice than that?"
However, to claim that "Christianity invented science" is an over simplification. In a sense, science grew out of religion.
Some commentators believe that science and religion could never be in disagreement, so there is no problem. Francis Collins, a leading geneticist, is one apologist that argues that science and religion are complimentary. Others consider religion and science to address entirely separate issues (i.e. they are nonoverlapping magisteria). However, if a religion claims that miracles occur in an observable manner, we should expect to have reliable evidence of their occurrence.
"For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts."
Only 36.6% of US scientists believe that scientific and religious knowledge is in conflict. 
Some literalist fundamentalists claim that science and religion are not compatible because it contradicts their interpretation of scripture. One of the most vocal groups that hold this view are young earth creationists.
The primary anti-science claim of apologists is that science cannot provide sufficiently accurate knowledge about reality as it relies on naturalistic methodologies which exclude supernatural explanations.
Another common anti-science claim is that since there are so many things that science doesn't have the answers for, it is incomplete and thus unworthy of belief.
Many people dismiss the findings of science because science "keeps changing", because that supposedly makes it unreliable.
Science has proven to be the only consistently reliable method of defining reality. Science, by definition, cannot consider supernatural explanations as they are simply unverifiable assertions. Supernatural explanations have yet to provide any reliable, verifiable information about reality, and hence remain a matter of faith. If a supernatural claim does contain scientifically testable assertions, then those assertions may be tested to see if they hold up in nature. However, even if the tests verify the assertions, the supernatural claim itself will remain unverified until the remaining parts of it that previously had no way of being tested do.
The fact that science doesn't currently have all the answers to every question about life, the universe, and everything certainly doesn't mean that science as a whole is unreliable. Two centuries ago science had very little information (and in many cases none at all) about things like quantum mechanics, dark matter, the age of the universe, etc. However, nowadays we know much more simply because science is constantly progressing. Indeed, the rate of scientific progression seems to increase the more we learn. It's not illogical to expect that we will soon have answers for those questions that Creationists (for example) tout as holes in scientific knowledge.
By contrast, religion does not appear to advance human knowledge in any consistent or reliable way. Most knowledge contained in religions is not unique to the religion and could be considered to be "folk wisdom".
Assumption of no first cause
- "There is a kind of religion in science . . . every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause.. . . "
This is a straw man because scientists don't worry about a first cause because it is not something they can investigate. Science needs to be reproducible and one off events are not.
Reproducibility crisis in science
Commercial pressures on academic scientists are at the point of significantly undermining certain areas of research. Often, published results cannot be reproduced by other scientists and this implies their published conclusions were false. Making unsubstantiated claims is too often rewarded while activities that keep scientists honest are not incentivized. The degree of the problem seems to vary between disciplines, with medical research, cognitive neuroscience and psychology being of particular concern. 
- "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, 'poor methods get results'. "
While some scientists agree there is a problem, there is little agreement on how it should be addressed. On major tool for avoid biases is to conduct meta analysis studies that considers the overall picture based on many separate studies that examine the same thing. While the reproducibility problem is significant, various theories like evolution or the Big Bang are unlikely to be overturned.
Apologists like Norman Geisler argue that scientists are not motivated to question theories such as evolution because their funding and reputation depends on its continuity. This is an misunderstanding of how individual scientists actually make discoveries and publish their work.
"One of the most cherished hopes of a scientist is to make an observation that shakes up a field of research. [...] any assumption that a conspiracy could exist among scientists to keep a widely current theory alive when it actually contains serious flaws is completely antithetical to the restless mind-set of the profession."
- ↑ 
- ↑ Sermones, 68, 6
- ↑ 
- ↑ Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists
- ↑ I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist
- ↑ 
- ↑ Richard Horton, Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?, The Lancet, Volume 385, No. 9976, p1380, 11 April 2015
- Science can't touch god
- Science is a faith
- Christianity invented science
- Science can answer moral questions