Have you ever heard this one? "Christianity is opposed to science." We know this is true, right? I mean look at the dispute between Creationism and Evolution. Christianity claims that we are moral agents responsible for our choices and science likes to claim that we are unwitting products of our genetics, environment, and circumstances. Christianity claims there are absolutes and science claims there are no absolutes (except, of course, for science). Oh, yeah, Christianity and science are at war. And we have been for a long time. We claimed that the world was flat; science proved us wrong. We claimed that the Sun revolved around the Earth; science proved us wrong. It has ever been thus. Right?
Welcome to the second lie. While it is true that Christianity and science are disputing things today, the implication that Christianity is naturally in opposition to science is false. Traditionally, Christianity and science were not opposed. Here, think about this. Why is it that the West is largely responsible for the furthering of scientific pursuits and not the older East? Why is it that Hinduism and Buddhism and such didn't produce well-known scientists before the West did? The reason is that modern science owes its existence to Christianity. You see, Christianity assumes a Creator. A Creator assumes intelligence. Intelligence assumes order and rationality. So science, based on a notion of a rational universe, was able to progress originally to "think God's thoughts after Him".
"No, no," others will assure you, "the Church has always been opposed to science. I mean, look, everyone knows that the Church always argued for a flat Earth." As it turns out, the real myth here is that anyone ever believed in a flat Earth. According to history, there were a few who argued for a flat Earth, but by the Middle Ages the notion was long dead. It was offered as true, however, by Andrew Dickson White in his book, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom published in 1896. It was a lie, accepted as true by those who were opposed during the Enlightenment period to the Church.
"But, what about the Church and Galileo? We all know that went badly!" There are actually a lot of myths around that whole thing. We know that Galileo came up with the concept of heliocentrism -- the Earth revolves around the Sun ... except it wasn't Galileo; it was Copernicus. We know that the Church was opposed to Galileo's ideas ... except that it's not true. The Church funded his work. They simply questioned his evidence. "Simply questioned his evidence?? What about the torture and abuse he received?" Actually, when he was summoned by the Inquisition, he was housed in the Villa Medici in Rome, a grand estate, and treated as a celebrity, attending receptions with the Pope and leading cardinals. His "torture and abuse" was "house arrest" which included visiting his daughters and publishing more papers. Of what was he convicted? He was convicted of not doing what he promised. The Church said, "If you don't have sufficient evidence to prove heliocentrism, stop teaching it." He agreed ... and then continued to teach it. He was convicted of not doing what he pledged to do. So none of this was about opposition to Galileo or heliocentrism.
Look, it's lies, all lies. Christianity started modern science. In return, moderns have lied about Christianity. Then they took up positions directly intended to eliminate Christianity. Today, science tries to supplant Christianity as the only reliable belief system in the universe. It's not true, and Christianity (and any other thinking person) disputes it. But please don't listen to all those lies about how Christianity and science are diametrically opposed, or that faith and reason have nothing to do with each other. They're confusing the issue with falsehoods that we simply need to identify as falsehoods and then move on ... to genuine issues.