Whatever might be the origin of science and religion, the main point is their area of activity and their method of working. Science makes a man rational and free-minded. Religion wants man to believe blindly in what he is told to be true and worthy of being practiced. Science asks questions and puts every thesis or proposal to test. Religion abhors such methods. Science believes in logical experiments and wants to declare something truthful and true if it comes out finally resultant of the experiment. Religion pre-supposes the result and wants to stick to it irrespective of the outcome of investigation, inquiry or experiment. So, religion and science both are complementary to each other. For mankind, both are required in equal measure and simultaneously. Thus intrinsically, both are essential for man. The role of education as an agent or instrument of social change and social development is widely recognised today. Social change may take place: (i) When human needs change. (ii) When the existing social system or network of social institutions fail to meet the existing human needs, and (iii) When new materials suggest better ways of meeting human needs. Social changes do not take place automatically or by themselves. As MacIver says, social change takes place as a response to many types of changes that take place in the social and non-social environment. Education can initiate social changes by bringing about a change in outlook and attitude of man. It can bring about: a change in the pattern of social relationships and thereby it may cause social changes. There was a time when educational institutions and teachers were engaged in transmitting a way of life to the students. During those days, education was more a means of social control than an instrument of social change. Modern schools, colleges and universities do not place much emphasis; upon transmitting a way of life to the students. The traditional education was meant for an unchanging, static society, not marked by rapid changes.