According to My piont of View All Knowledge that are used for benefit of Human race is God's knowlge. there is not distinction between Islamic knowledge and Scientific knowledge.if You are preceving kowlege for the will of God and Use it for the Survival of Mankind.
The connection among religion and science is the subject of proceeded with banter in theory and religious philosophy. How much are religion and science viable? Are strict convictions now and again helpful for science, or do they definitely present impediments to logical request? The interdisciplinary field of "science and religion", likewise called "philosophy and science", intends to address these and different inquiries. It examines chronicled and contemporary associations between these fields, and gives philosophical examinations of how they interrelate.
Since the 1960s, researchers in philosophy, theory, history, and the sciences have examined the connection among science and religion. Science and religion is a perceived field of study with devoted diaries (e.g., Zygon: Diary of Religion and Science), scholastic seats (e.g., the Andreas Idreos Teacher of Science and Religion at Oxford College), insightful social orders (e.g., the Science and Religion Discussion), and repeating gatherings (e.g., the European Culture for the Investigation of Science and Religious philosophy holds gatherings like clockwork). The vast majority of its creators are either scholars (e.g., John Haught, Sarah Coakley), thinkers with an enthusiasm for science (e.g., Nancey Murphy), or (previous) researchers with long-standing interests in religion, some of whom are additionally appointed pastorate (e.g., the physicist John Polkinghorne, the organic chemist Arthur Peacocke, and the sub-atomic biophysicist Alister McGrath).
The precise investigation of science and religion began during the 1960s, with creators, for example, Ian Barbour (1966) and Thomas F. Torrance (1969) who tested the overall view that science and religion were either at war or not interested in one another. Barbour's Issues in Science and Religion (1966) set out a few suffering topics of the field, remembering a correlation of technique and hypothesis for the two fields. Zygon, the primary expert diary on science and religion, was additionally established in 1966. While the early investigation of science and religion zeroed in on methodological issues, creators from the last part of the 1980s to the 2000s created relevant methodologies, including definite verifiable assessments of the connection among science and religion (e.g., Brooke 1991). Subside Harrison (1998) tested the fighting model by contending that Protestant religious originations of nature and mankind assisted with offering ascend to science in the seventeenth century. Dwindle Bowler (2001, 2009) caused to notice a wide development of liberal Christians and evolutionists in the nineteenth and twentieth hundreds of years who meant to accommodate transformative hypothesis with strict conviction.
During the 1990s, the Vatican Observatory (Castel Gandolfo, Italy) and the Middle for Philosophy and the Characteristic Sciences (Berkeley, California) co-supported a progression of gatherings on divine activity. It had supporters from reasoning and philosophy (e.g., Nancey Murphy) and technical studies (e.g., Francisco Ayala). The point of these meetings was to comprehend divine activity in the light of contemporary sciences. Every one of the five meetings, and each altered volume that emerged from it, was given to a region of characteristic science and its communication with religion, including quantum cosmology (1992, Russell et al. 1993), confusion and unpredictability (1994, Russell et al. 1995), transformative and sub-atomic science (1996, Russell et al. 1998), neuroscience and the individual (1998, Russell et al. 2000), and quantum mechanics (2000, Russell et al. 2001). (See likewise Russell et al. 2008 for a book-length outline of the discoveries of this task.)
In the contemporary open arena, the most unmistakable communication among science and religion concerns developmental hypothesis and creationism/Keen Plan. The fights in court (e.g., the Kitzmiller versus Dover preliminary in 2005) and campaigning encompassing the instructing of development and creationism in American schools propose that religion and science struggle. Be that as it may, regardless of whether one were to zero in on the gathering of developmental hypothesis, the connection among religion and science is mind boggling. For example, in the Unified Realm, researchers, pastorate, and mainstream essayists, looked to accommodate science and religion during the nineteenth and mid 20th century, while the US saw the ascent of a fundamentalist restriction to developmental speculation, exemplified by the Degrees preliminary in 1925 (Bowler 2001, 2009).
In ongoing decades, Church pioneers have given mollifying public explanations on developmental hypothesis. Pope John Paul II (1996) attested transformative hypothesis in his message to the Ecclesiastical Institute of Sciences, yet dismissed it for the human spirit, which he saw as the aftereffect of a different, exceptional creation. The Congregation of Britain freely supported developmental hypothesis (e.g., M. Earthy colored 2008), including a statement of regret to Charles Darwin for its underlying dismissal of his hypothesis.
For as far back as fifty years, science and religion has been true Western science and Christianity—how much can Christian convictions be aligned with the aftereffects of Western science? The field of science and religion has as of late went to an assessment of non-Christian conventions, for example, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, giving a more extravagant image of association.science and religion coexist?
With the uproarious fights of few strict gatherings over encouraging logical ideas like advancement and the Huge explosion in state funded schools, and the similarly boisterous decrees of a couple of researchers with individual, hostile to strict methods of reasoning, it can some of the time appear like science and religion are at war. Media sources offer a lot of reports of educational committee gatherings, legislative meetings, and Sunday lessons in which researchers and strict pioneers dispatch assaults at each other. In any case, exactly how delegate are such clashes? Not very. The consideration given to such conflicts gleams over the undeniably more various cases in which science and religion agreeably, and even synergistically, coincide.
Indeed, individuals of a wide range of beliefs and levels of logical ability see no inconsistency at all among science and religion. Numerous essentially recognize that the two establishments manage various domains of human experience. Science researches the normal world, while religion manages the otherworldly and powerful — henceforth, the two can be corresponding. Numerous strict associations have given explanations proclaiming that there need not be any contention between strict confidence and the logical point of view on evolution.
Besides, in spite of generalization, one surely doesn't need to be a skeptic so as to turn into a researcher. A 2005 overview of researchers at top examination colleges found that over 48% had a strict connection and over 75% accept that religions pass on significant truths.2 A few researchers — like Francis Collins, previous overseer of the Public Human Genome Exploration Organization, and George Coyne, cosmologist and cleric — have been blunt about the fulfillment they find in review the world through both a logical focal point and one of individual confidence.
This isn't to recommend that science and religion never clash. Despite the fact that the two by and large arrangement with various domains (common versus profound), differences do emerge about where the limits between these domains lie when managing inquiries at their interface. What's more, once in a while, one side crosses a limit in its cases. For instance, when strict principles make solid cases about the characteristic world (e.g., guaranteeing that the world was made in six days, as some exacting understandings of the Book of scriptures may require), confidence and science can wind up in strife.
Despite the fact that such conflicts may accumulate print, wireless transmission, and transfer speed features, it's imperative to recollect that, in the background and out of the spotlight, numerous cases exist in which strict and logical viewpoints present no contention by any stretch of the imagination. A great many researchers hectically complete their exploration while keeping up close to home otherworldly convictions, and a considerably bigger number of regular people productively see the characteristic world through a proof based, logical focal point and the extraordinary world through a profound focal point. Tolerating a logical perspective needn't need surrendering strict confidence. Individuals of various beliefs and levels of logical mastery see no inconsistency among science and religion.
it is well said:
With out Science Religion is Lamb and With out Religion Science is blind.