Richard Dawkins is a professor of social sciences at Oxford University. He is also a strong voice for the atheist viewpoint in the world. Professor Dawkins’ books The God delusion and The Selfish Gene are international bestsellers. Dawkins is a big proponent of the Darwinian theory of evolution and has used it extensively as an argument against the existence of God and world religions. Some argue that Dawkins’ theories have done both science and atheism a disservice by pitching religion versus science as two completely polarised concepts that are at loggerheads with each other. In this article, I will argue that science and religion are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. I believe that science and religion deal with different realms of life and address various human emotions and needs. Both are faith-based modalities(science often requires faith in the yet unseen) and explore and test dimensions beyond current human comprehensions. Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientists, was also a theologian and monotheistic Christian. He wrote: “Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.” Newton saw God as a masterful creator. His wrote: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called ‘Lord God,’ ‘???????????’ [pantokrat?r], or ‘Universal Ruler’. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.” Newton’s monotheist beliefs were in line with many of the eminent scientists who ignited the scientific revolution through the European age of Renaissance and the following era of enlightenment. Great scientists like Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and Kepler heralded a new era in the sciences of mathematics, astronomy, chemistry and biology. According to Stephen Hawking, Galileo probably bears more of the responsibility for the birth of modern science than anybody else. Albert Einstein called him the “father of modern science.” Galileo was a Christian, and despite his dispute with the church over his concepts of heliocentrism never saw this as a controversy between religion and science. The debate between fulfilling moral obligations and looking after biological self-interest is the crux of the dispute between the naturalist and the evolutionist However, not all scientists agree. In the early 1800s,Draper and White promoted the “conflict theory” that suggested that religion and science had been in conflict. They used the Galileo affair as examples of that inherent conflict. Many scientists and philosophers hold the scripture literalism practised by the catholic church in the dark ages of Europe as the major factor prohibiting the expansion of science during that period. They believe that it was only after the religious shackles were broken that science flourished, leading to the European Renaissance and the subsequent Age of Enlightenment. This theory is, however, debunked by the Islamic golden age where sciences of geography, algebra, mathematics, medicine, economies, civil engineering, chemistry and physics were at their peak. That was the era when Muslims practised Islam as an official state religion with no restrictions on the study of scientific discoveries and inventions. The universities of Basra and Baghdad were equivalents of the modern-day Harvard and Oxford where students from all over the world would study various sciences and philosophies, with full sponsorship of the Islamic state. A modern view of science and religion, described by Stephen Jay Gould as “non overlapping magisterial (NOMA)” is that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully. Abdul Baha, the son of the founder of the religion of Bahaisam, stated that religion without science is superstition and that science without religion is materialism. A very good example is the concept of morality; development of human moral consciousness as a concept is quite difficult to explain on pure scientific grounds. The creationist argues that if morality is defined on human terms the definitions would vary depending on the era, culture and geography. Religion, however, clearly defines moral boundaries without any need for materialistic reasoning and scientific explanations. Incest has been quoted as an example. The famous physicist and atheist Lawrence Krauss discussed incest in one of his debates, stating that if contraception is used incest can be rationalised. If only looked upon purely by a scientific perspective, worsening genetic mutations is probably the only downside of incest. Religion, however, prohibits incest with the moral viewpoint of preserving a social and family structure within the primary fabric of a society, which would be fundamentally corrupted if incest is allowed. It is also argued that evidence and science cannot always explain, quantify and demystify all philosophical and aesthetic concepts, which often require a philosophical epistemology for decipherment of complex sociological issues. Science and religion overlap in multiple arenas but generally feed into two entirely different channels of human needs and emotions The modern-day atheist has used the Darwinian theory of evolution and natural selection as the scientific alternative to the origin of species including hominids. The origin of Neanderthals as our precursors, homosapiens, and eventually, the modern-day human is scientific evidence that man has been around more than 6,000 years, as depicted in many biblical scriptures. The Darwinian model is a sound scientific hypothesis that like all other hypothesis is tested and would continue to be probed in the times to come. Stephen Meyer in his book Darwin’s Doubt used the “Cambrian explosion” as an example of intelligent design (by God) as opposed to Darwin’s natural selection theory. The Cambrian explosion was the sudden appearance of a large group of animals about five hundred million years ago without any pre-existing fossil record, which contradicted Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Meyer’s theory of “intelligent design” is suggested as an alternative to the Darwinian evolution as the latter cannot explain the complex epigenetics and formation of various tissue planes merely because of random mutations. Other critics of the Darwinian model cite various flaws such as improbability of formation of complex organs by random mutations, continuation of cognitive traits with no apparent survival benefit, origin of variations (non-random retention of random variation), and evolutionary genetics as flaws in the Darwinian model. In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote: “There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, are being evolved.” Science and religion overlap in multiple arenas but generally feed into two entirely different channels of human needs and emotions. Religion seeks answers to questions such as the meaning and the purpose of life; it deals with the concepts of morality; and it proposes the remedy to ego consciousness and its persistent demands. Religion also introduces the concepts of gratitude and patience, it provides solace in times of grief because of its inherent implicit faith element. Kenneth Miller, an American biologist, has argued that when scientists make claims on science and theism or atheism, they are not arguing scientifically at all and are stepping beyond the scope of science into discourses of meaning and purpose. Some authors, like Rosenberg in 2014, hold the view that taking the results of science seriously entails negative answers to such persistent questions as free will or moral knowledge. Thomas Aquinas has talked about the conciliatory standpoint of “Imago Dei”, a concept shared by all monotheistic religions. Man is created in the image of God and is the central pillar of the Imago Dei. Human intellect, rationalisation and meta cognition along with a free will is what can make a human capable of intellectual analysis along with retention of aesthetic capabilities that require spiritual rather than analytical virtues. It is unclear whether religious and scientific thinking are cognitively incompatible. Some studies suggest that religion draws more upon an intuitive style of thinking, distinct from the analytic reasoning style that characterises science (Gervais and Norenzayan 2012). On the other hand, the acceptance of theological and scientific views both rely on a trust in testimony, and cognitive scientists have found similarities between the way children and adults understand testimony to invisible entities in religious and scientific domains (Harris et al 2006). Many modern-day scientists like Nidhal Guessoum, an Algerian astrophysicist, and Rana Dajani, a Jordanian molecular biologist from Harvard, have tried to instil scientific methodology in traditional religious Islamic studies, picking up common grounds of interest, for example, the theory of evolution. Two more areas where science and religion will be on a similar discourse in future are evolutionary ethics and implications of the cognitive science of religion. The debate between fulfilling moral obligations and looking after biological self-interestis the crux of the dispute between the naturalist and the evolutionist. Whilst the theory of evolution suggests development of morality based on biological self-interest, the sense of moral obligation is more explained by theism, as it is often not in one’s biological self-interest to fulfil moral obligations. Another area of interest is the rationality of religious belief and its explanation on the grounds of cognitive functions: the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR). There is an argument posed by the CSR that suggests that religious cognition is indeed a divinely implanted receptivity to the transcendent. In conclusion, I believe that the science versus religion argument has been hijacked by the secularist and the atheist to propose science as the ultimate explanation for the origin of universe and all species. The Big Bang and the Darwinian Theory are suggested as the a priori assumptions about the origin of the species. However, modern day science also proposes the “intelligent design” theory as a possible alternative to the Darwinian hypothesis regarding the role of a “designer” in explanation of the origin of complex life forms. Science and religion don’t have to be considered as opposite concepts that must be at loggerheads to answer complex questions. Science and religion are both important and complementary to seek answers to some of the most important questions that have perturbed us for centuries.