Why the "Science vs Religion" debate is a contemporary phenomenon.

Why the "Science vs Religion" debate is a contemporary phenomenon.
Explained by a Redditor cupnoodlefreak.

Firstly, the roots of the belief that Religion (or, more specifically in most cases, christianity) has opposed science, the conflict thesis, isn't old--it was devised in the 1870s. Part of it was that, during the formation of Cornell University(one of the Ivies, traditionally religious) in 1896 , Ezra Cornell wanted to form a university that wasn't religiously related (a perfectly valid wish), and so the author of the thesis came up with The History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom to set Cornell apart. I'm quoting from Wikipedia here, but

In the introduction, White emphasized he arrived at his position after the difficulties of assisting Ezra Cornell in establishing a university without any official religious affiliation.

Basically the conflict thesis was devised so that Cornell could be different. I agree not associating yourself with religion is a perfectly good cause, but to introduce the notion that the church has been hostile to science...well, it was criticized within 5 years of the book's publishing.
Today, that view is completely rejected by contemporary historians. The main reason it's so common is because we have idiots like the scientific creationists and religious fundamentalists going around under the belief that the world was created in 6,000 years (even Williams Jennings Bryant, who argued against Scopes at the scopes trial, agreed that the earth was not necessarily 6,000 years old. Quoted from a transcript of the Scopes trial:

"No. But I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in 6,000,000 years or in 600,000,000 years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other. "

Also guys this is a side point but Inherit the wind is not a historically accurate film. Scopes was a substitute teacher who decided to do it because the school wished to test the limits of the law (the school actually brought in its own students for the prosecution to prove scopes taught evolution). The trial was an irrelevant affair (it was clear that scopes was guilty of breaking the law, but the judge allowed Darrow and Bryant to have at it for hours), and after the trial was done Bryant and the ACLU both offered to pay the $100 fine, the minimum under the law. They all went out to lunch afterwards. It's not the epic battle between science and religion inherit the wind makes it out to be.
Anyway, moving on to the historical aspect...well, firstly the idea that religion rejects science is wrong. There are people within religion who think that, but that can be said of people outside of religion too. For most of the middle ages, learning and science was preserved by monks in monasteries in Europe and further developed by muslim scholars in Baghdad and Umayyad Spain (I should point out that most of it was also wiped out by the Mongols, who weren't exactly religious anyhow with the sacking of Baghdad). Neither has the Roman Catholic Church been an enemy of science either. In fact, most great scientists up into the modern era (including Newton, who wrote more books on theology than he did on calculus) were religious men. Quoting once again from Wikipedia, but

Historian Lawrence M. Principe writes that "it is clear from the historical record that the Catholic church has been probably the largest single and longest-term patron of science in history, that many contributors to the Scientific Revolution were themselves Catholic, and that several Catholic institutions and perspectives were key influences upon the rise of modern science."

A lot of the things we associate with the church's rejection of science (i.e. the church thought the world was flat, Copernicus waited until near death to publish his heliocentric views because he feared the church, Galileo was tortured by the Inquisition, Bruno was burned by his scientific views) are also incorrect.
Firstly, Copernicus never feared the church, he feared his contemporaries. The problem with the heliocentric model copernicus had was that he had circular orbits. The Ptolemaic system was full of stupid things like epicycles, but it worked. It accurately predicted the movement of the stars and planets better than Copernicus' model until Kepler realized they were elliptical orbits. Copernicus was scared not because the church would be annoyed, but because his contemporaries would be, as his model didn't accurately track the stars. In fact, Copernicus decided to publish it at the end because several bishops and theologians begged him to publish it.
Secondly, Giodarno Bruno was a visionary because he went beyond the copernican model and even predicted that the sun itself was a star, but he wasn't killed because of that. He was killed because of his religious views, which were deemed as heresy. Keep in mind this was during the religious wars of the 16th century in Italy, when protestantism and catholicism were busy fighting each other (though there were political concerns too--protestant princes wanted to seize church lands and the like).
Thirdly, as for Galileo, Galileo is an interesting case, because (I'm reposting from an old post I made in the past here) while the church under the Congregation of the Index condemned Galileo's ideas were false, he was in fact supported--and in fact encouraged--by Pope Urban VIII. The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems was sanctioned by both the papacy and the Inquisition. The reason Galileo was imprisoned was partly because of papal politics, and because Galileo represented the Pope's position under the name of "Simplicius" - that is, simpleton (the Pope had ordered Galileo to represent his--the geocentric--theory within his book as well, given it was called a "dialogue").

Fourth, the church isn't necessarily anti-evolution, and for most of its history it was not fundamentalist. Early church fathers such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas of Aquinas are clear that they do not expect people to take the creation story literally. Augustine stated that he believed it was blatantly untrue the world was made in 7 days.
The Inquisition wasn't nearly as bad as people say it was--The spanish part is quite literally blown out of proportion because England hated Spain when Phillip V and Elizabeth were monarchs. The actual amount of people killed was very, very small in comparison, and many of the deaths associated were the result of wars that were as much political as they were religious. In a previous post somebody pointed out that thousands died in the Albigensian Crusade, where thousands of people of a variant of christianity (Catharism) deemed heretical were killed. However, that was as much political as it was religious, as the French lords simply wanted the lands of their enemies. The inquisition part was relatively small:,

"Contrary to popular legend, the Inquisition proceeded largely by means of legal investigation, persuasion and reconciliation. Judicial procedures were used and although the accused were not allowed to know the names of their accusers, they were permitted to mount a defence. The vast majority found guilty of heresy were given light penalties. 11 percent of offenders faced prison. Only around 1 percent, the most steadfast and relapsed Cathars were sentenced for treason, and faced burning at the stake."

So the question is, why do a lot of people, both atheist and christian, believe that Religion and Science is at war? The reason is fundamentalism--and fundamentalism isn't very old either. It's only been around for the last 100 years. It first really started because of World War I. There were rumors going around that (quoting from Wikipedia)

German aggression resulted from a Darwinian doctrine of "survival of the fittest"

Before Watson and Crick unveiled the genetic code and proved evolution correct, there was a lot of people that felt that the almost malthusian views of Darwin were dangerous to humanity, so this was not unusual. In the 1950s, even evangelical scientists were gradually turning from the creation by flood to theistic evolution. "Scientific" Creationism is the result of one person, though: Henry M. Morris. In his book The Genesis Flood, he associates Evolution with Satan. This is in 1960. But in the cold war era, where religion was slowly slipping and where we were faced with those Godless Commies in the Warsaw Pact and Red China, this was like a rallying call for many evangelicals. In a way, creationism and religious fundamentalism are measures as reactionary as the addition of the words "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The problem is that, even after the Berlin wall has fell, both "under god" in the pledge and creationism have remained. Many Christians, seeing a decrease in christianity and what they see as a decline in moral values starting with the beatles, see fundamentalism as the best way to hold onto their faith when, in fact, it is polarizing them against the rest of the US. It gives Atheists reason to think that evangelical christians are mindless idiots who believe that the world is 6,000 years old when everything else proves them false. But I am digressing in a kind of preachy direction, so my point is that, up until the 1950s, the church has overall been extremely supportive to science, and the same can be said of the muslims scholars who first helped devise the period table or brought many aspects of architecture into Europe, or the Chinese taoist folk doctors who discovered things such as Gunpowder (keep in mind that the world for Gunpowder in Chinese, 火藥, literally means Fire Medicine). Religion may not always have been supportive of science, but for the most part it has walked hand in hand with scientific progress

Source: Reddit