For whatever fascinating reasons, there are a number of people who consider themselves devotees of Vedic ways and consider modern science to be their arch-enemy. I feel that the arguments these people engage in are, at least 99%, a waste of time.

A “Vedic science” person can…

…defend the flat-earth idea… but wouldn’t it be so much better to check the Bhāgavata Purāṇa more carefully and realize that it explicitly describes the earth as a globe? (see “It Actually Makes Sense!“).

…argue against cosmic evolution… but wouldn’t it be better to more carefully read Kapila’s teachings, and realize they describe a universe devoid of organic life for hundreds of trillions of years while elemental evolution very slowly unfolds without any direct intelligent intervention except the remote dormant karmas of the jīvas suspended within paramātmā? 

…argue against biological evolution… but maybe we should instead read the second and third divisions of Bhāgavatam much more carefully and realize that is says Brahmā’s designs were implemented chronologically from simplest to most complex over a long span of time?

…argue against neuro-psychology… but maybe if we actually grasped Bhāgavata’s extremely sophisticated model of the relativity and conditionality of personal identity, we would realize there is nothing in neuro-psychology we need to argue against?

…argue against astronomy… or actually learn how to use basic Sanskrit, math, and poetics to figure out (literally, mathematically “figure out”) that Bhāgavatam’s astronomy matches classical and modern conclusions with truly astonishing consistency and accuracy?

It seems to me that “Vedic-science” people, so far, are often less influenced by the Veda and more influenced by western/christian assumptions, and modern conspiracy-theories crazes.

Then, you may ask, why do I say “99%” of their arguments are wasted breath, why not 100%?

Because there is 1% of actual, valid conflict between real Vedic science and the most commonly held versions of real modern science. And there is a small group or small inkling of this among the Vedic-anti-science people.

What is that conflict?

The Veda asserts that consciousness is the basis of reality. The majority of modern science, however, tends to assert that consciousness is a phenomena produced by reality.

This is the real difference between the two.

It is relatively very easy to logically prove that the Vedic concept is far superior to the one held by most of modern science:

~ Reality is a perception (It is what we can really touch, see, smell, feel).
~ Perception is an act of consciousness.
* Therefore consciousness cannot be a product of reality, it must be the basis for reality.

To evade the crushing impact of this argument, a person skilled in logic could perhaps try to define reality (or perception) in some other way. But such an argument would lose the virtue of being simple and gain the flaw of being counter-intuitive.

Other than this point, I have found nothing in modern science that could not be seen mirrored in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, except by those who actually don’t want to see such compatibility.