Canute said:It is more accurate, I think, to say that science is similar to theology, from which it originated, utilising the same methods but altering the underlying asumptions. Religion is something a little different to either, although of course there are no clear boundaries between these three things.
Good point. In early civilizations the same individuals handled both religion and science. The religious leader was also the healer, literally. The "shaman" knew what plants, etc. could be used to treat various medical problems. If the society paid attention to the stars, it was the religious leader who was the astronomer. Even the Greeks had the same basic group dealing with religion/philosophy and what we call science(although some of them did tend to emphasize theoretical discussions over actually examing physical reality.)
Primitive societies didn't have the necessary economic strength to support two separate groups of intellectuals. Europe developed an economy that could support more intellectuals allowing development of two different groups to investigate religion/philosphy and examination of physical reality. The European economy even had the ability to support multiple religious groups with leaders who didn't have to have another means of support.
By the late 19th Century some of those who studied physical reality(i.e, scientists) decided they could determine religious truths simply by physical studies, which is in and of itself a religious belief. Some religious leaders also decided they could make definitive statements about physical reality.
Some scientists decided they could, just be examining physical artifacts, determine if God created the universe/life or it just somehow happened. Some religious leaders decided that they could explain how God created life just by reading Genesis, which merely says God did it without saying how.