What do you think? Is Religion against science?

Question by chrisgaffrey: What do you think? Is Religion against science?
I just read this news story:
LONDON, APRIL 5, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Catholic bioethicists welcomed a recent breakthrough in the treatment of heart disease using adult stem cells taken from bone marrow.
Researches from a London-area hospital, led by Sir Magdi Yacoub, have grown part of a human heart from adult stem cells offering hope for millions of cardiac patients. The new tissue could be used in place of artificial valves currently used in heart disease treatment. …
Father Paul Murray, secretary of the committee, said: “Sir Magdi and his team generated the heart tissue from stem cells found in bone marrow. The technique is ethical because the stem cells were taken from the patient’s own bone marrow rather than from an embryo in the first few days of life.”
BBC News reported on Monday one of the medical advantages of the new treatment: “In theory, if the valve was grown from the patient’s own cells there would also be no need to take drugs to stop the body rejecting it.”
Father Murray asserted: “This development vindicates the consistently held position of the Church, of Catholic ethicists and many other experts in the field who have always maintained that the greatest potential for actual cures lay with adult rather than embryonic stem cells.
“Now that we have concrete results using adult stem cells and a time frame for their practical use in restoring health, let us leave behind once and for all the fruitless and destructive research on embryonic stem cells which is still years away from this exciting point.”

So is religion really against science?
Gastounet: Please name one scientist that was burned.
Autumn_zuber: Actually they are against fertility clinics that waste embryos. It just doesn’t get as much press as the abortion debate.
Dear DoH: Dan Brown’s book is fiction. It’s a great story because it’s fiction.
Thank you Melanie T: but you forgot to mention the other side of the argument also brought up in the article you copied and pasted from, namely, “Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.” Remember, the charges were “Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.
Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ’s divinity and Incarnation. Holding erroneous opinions about Christ. Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass. Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity. Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes. Dealing in magics and divination.”
Melanie T: Also “in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy.”

Also, the quote you said was his response to the church was actually to the secular authorities. They not the church, put him to death.

Best answer:

Answer by cynical
Science isn’t against religion. Both have coexisted since many years and the Catholic Church has never been against science or stem cells just embryonic stem cells.

Add your own answer in the comments!