Christianity and Science
It is a mistake of historical perspective to think that the Church and
Christianity in general have been obstacles to the development of science. We
must consider that until the 1600s, science, in the sense that we give to this
term, did not exist. Aristotelian theories (or Arabic, Indian, or Chinese) were
simple rationalizations of common experience. If an object fell downwards or a
plant bore fruit, it was said to be its nature or form. It was only from Galileo
onwards, and only in the West, that we began to understand the causes of
phenomena and realized with astonishment that what appears often is the opposite
of what happens. It is the earth that moves and not the sun, objects do not fall
downwards, air has weight, and so on. I would say that the essential
contribution of Christianity to science has been the non-animalistic,
non-anthropomorphized view of nature, which is instead common to Eastern
civilizations. For us, there is the world of spirits (God, souls, spiritual
substances) and the material world dominated by chance. Without this clear
distinction, science could not have emerged. However, it is also true that some
scientific results, precisely because they are in contrast with common
experience, are also in contrast with some biblical accounts that were based on
it. The world is not as God created it at a given moment, but it changes
incessantly, and in particular life evolves, and stories like the flood or the
Tower of Babel appear implausible.
From here also arises the contrast between Christianity and science, which,
although overcome in many respects, still makes it difficult to adhere to those
narratives. In practice, the Church overlooks these accounts, which remain in
the background. A modern pope never cites these facts, never speaks of the
serpent tempting Eve.
So, in my opinion, on the one hand, Christianity from a philosophical point of
view has made science possible, but on the other hand, it has encountered
difficulties in reconciling with its results. For example, only evangelical
fundamentalists still affirm creationism, while other believers speak of "Intelligent
Design," which is more complex and does not align with the Genesis narrative.
"Intelligent Design" is a scientific-cultural movement that is gaining ground
particularly among believers. In summary, its fundamental point is the theory
that natural beings cannot be merely the result of chance and blind randomness
but presuppose a design by an intelligent being. If we find an ancient amphora
buried in the sands, we immediately think that it cannot be the fruit of chance
but that it was designed and built by an intelligent being, even if we have no
idea who it might be. Similarly, if we encounter a living being, we must think
that its complexity, immensely greater than that of an ancient amphora, is
somehow the result of an "Intelligent Design." In reality, this argument differs
from the traditional one of the order of the universe because it inserts
reasoning into a properly scientific context. Modern science, from Galileo
onwards, has excluded any metaphysical reference from its sphere: it deals with
what is empirically observable and excludes by principle anything that is
metaphysical or beyond nature itself, such as the existence of God and not only
that, also moral values and in general all value judgments. Methodologically,
therefore, science cannot refer to a divine intervention. However, the "Intelligent
Design" movement wants to demonstrate that even in modern science, it is not
possible to interpret nature without an ordering intervention, that this idea is
therefore not confined to common sense or medieval science. It aims to challenge
the idea that the order of the universe is in opposition to modern science and
the product of ancient prejudices now overcome.