The fundamental incompatibility between science and religion

The concept of two cultures is very much alive, in spite of the best efforts of contemporary science writers to explain new advances to the public. This cannot be better illustrated than by the current discussions of organic evolution.

Decades ago C.P. Snow wrote about "the two cultures" drawn from his own experience as a scientist in the 1930s and his later career as a novelist and writer. Discussion about the two cultures has gone out of fashion, but there is no disputing the fact the divide between modern science, and particularly modern biology, and the general public remains immense.

Today's molecular and cellular biology is of enormous sophistication and complexity, and well beyond the comprehension of an intelligent layman. A glance at a modern scientific journal shows even the titles of research papers (which normally document a further advance in knowledge) are for the most part completely incomprehensible to anyone not actually working in the field. The concept of two cultures is very much alive, in spite of the best efforts of contemporary science writers to explain new advances to the public.

This cannot be better illustrated than by the current discussions of organic evolution. On the one hand there is a mass of information documenting the reality of Darwinian natural selection acting on mutations that are most commonly single changes in DNA sequence. On the other hand there are those who are totally ignorant of this evidence, and who can simply assert there are "gaps" in evolution (most commonly gaps in the fossil record), and that biological structures are too complex to be explained by mutation and natural selection. The argument can be turned on its head, and I have argued elsewhere that a creator could easily include wheels or propellers in animal design. Yet no wheels or propellers exist in the animal kingdom. The Darwinian explanation for this is perfect: it is impossible to evolve a wheel by stages, because only a whole wheel has function.

There is a huge difference between those who may believe in an omniscient deity who was responsible for the initial creation of the universe, and those who also believe that this deity is in direct contact with human beings, and may influence their behaviour or respond to their prayers. Atheists believe there is no god who has any contact, influence or interaction with man, whatever the true origin of the universe may be. For religion they substitute humanism, and a belief that the problems of mankind can only be solved by the inhabitants of this planet.

It is said to be politically correct to be tolerant of all religions, but why should we be tolerant of the sets of untruths on which all religions are based? It is therefore not good enough for scientists to accept this political correctness. They should believe in the reality of what science has demonstrated over several centuries. To act or believe otherwise is not intellectually rigorous, and is indeed a betrayal of the achievements of their own discipline.

Experimental science has established itself as rational and reproducible, and there is no place for the contravention of natural laws, such as miracles, superstition and the occult. Finally, it is often pointed out that religious scientists exist. It seems that these are individuals who can in some way compartmentalise contradictory viewpoints, but this is an ability that I for one find extremely hard to understand.