Étienne Gilson, who is a French philosopher and historian of philosophy, states there is no common ground of truth on which science and religion can meet. [1] My question is: Why?
Part of the problem lies with religion. Religion tends to attribute anything they do not understand to God while science investigates what we do not understand to uncover facts that explain the phenomena so we can understand it. Religion needs to learn from science.
Part of the problem lies with science. Science has learned how biological systems work but while scientific rules can explain the functioning of biological systems they cannot explain its existence [2] Science says evolution which is random changes together with natural selection is the cause of our existence but “Chance is the pure absence of an explanation.“[3]
In speaking of teleology (the study of the evidences of design or purposes in nature), Gilson notes science does not like teleology because it is an untestable explanation [4] but has nothing to replace teleology which they no longer want. [5] The intelligent design movement, using the methods of science, has had great success in demonstrating that our existence is not random, that there is an intelligence behind our existence. [6] Why is science so opposed to the possibility that we are created beings and that there is a purpose for our existence? Science needs to learn from religion.
_________________________________
[1] Étienne Gilson. From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1971, p. 88.
[2] Ibid., p. 132.
[3] Ibid., p. 154.
[4] Ibid., p. 154.
[5] Ibid., p. 152
[6] See Signature in the Cell by Steven Meyer and Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe.
