 So, what could be the conflict that religious groups and scientists have? What would be the conflict about human evolution, for example? Well, first would be conflict over a system of knowledge, about all knowledge about the natural world is generated. This is when people are talking about this thing, they'll say things like fundamental or conflicts and ways of knowing about the world. This would emphasize method. How do you know any fact claim about the world? How do we know about human origins? If religious people are in conflict over a system of knowledge like this, then there can be no agreement on human origins, people would say, because Christians, for example, would look to the Bible and scientists would look at the fossil record. More importantly, since this is about how you know anything about the world, from this perspective, people who do not believe Darwin, because they use the Bible as a method, should not believe any scientific claim about anything. For example, if you do not believe in human evolution for religious reasons, then from this perspective, you wouldn't believe in any scientific way of knowing about the world. You would then not believe in modern chemistry, because that requires a scientific way of knowing about the world. That's one perspective on what possible conflict there might be. A second, what I'll call propositional knowledge conflict. A proposition is an assertion without a justification. This would still be conflict over assertions that are not connected to broader ways of knowing. For example, a conservative Protestant could say that God created humans, as it says in the book of Genesis, and that scientists would say that humans evolved from primates, but these conflicting claims wouldn't be connected to a broader way of knowing about the world. So for example, a conservative Protestant could believe in that part of human origins, but might use the scientific method to generate a fact claim about how electrons move. This is a conflict that has much fewer consequences, because conflict over one claim about the physical world does not lead to other conflicts. So again, someone could be a fundamentalist Protestant who believes in a 6,000 year old earth, but could still be a scientist of the atmosphere. They probably couldn't be a biologist. A third type of possible conflict is moral conflict, which is fairly unrelated to the first two that I just mentioned. Religious people may perceive science or scientists to be teaching a moral stance to the public, and that moral stance may be an opposition to the stance that they hold. Religious people would then be in conflict over these moral teachings. So some might ask, how can science be in moral conflict when science is morally neutral just gathering facts about the world? And I'm going to question whether or not that's true in a few minutes, but I should just point out that a moral teaching from science does not have to be intentional. For an example, in much of the 1870s after Darwin published The Descent of Man, where he linked humans to this evolutionary scheme, there was great moral conflict, much of which was generated by religious people. The conflict was that Darwin had depicted sexual decision making of animals and humans in the same way, implying that humans were animalistic in their sexuality. Well, that didn't fit well with Victorian sensibilities. So Darwin was then implying that Victorian moral sensibilities were somehow unnatural. So you can see how there was moral conflict at the time over this scientific claim.