Why Science Is Not Enough Summary

Ian Barbour’s Taxonomy Exploring the Relationship between Science and Theology Seeking knowledge and validity of the human search for the meaning and purpose of life is a topic explored by many curious minds. Both, the fields of science and theology offer their own unique insights in this discussion. In the contemporary society, the influence of the ideas about human nature previously dictated by religious doctrines is shrinking with the advancement of the scientific era. Nevertheless, the question of Truth is central in both disciplines of enquiry and therefore a relationship exists between these two subjects. Though his work, Ian Barbour establishes a taxonomy of four possible stances, categorized as conflict, independence, dialogue and

In other words, either it is science or religion, purely one of the two, which is in “possession of an exclusive key to knowledge” and offers all the answers (Polkinghorne 20). Conflicts between contemporary science and classical religious beliefs can be seen by examining scientism and biblical literalism. A historian, John Lukacs, in his article “Why Science Is Not Enough” presents the current idea of science being a paradigm of what constitutes reliable knowledge (Lukacs 33). This attitude as referred by its critics as scientism is also coupled with a conviction that all the personal and social problems will eventually be solved using science. Contrastingly, biblical literalism takes a literal interpretation of the Bible and is unwilling to accept the theories proposed by science. For instance, evolution, at times, is not accepted by the absolutist and lead to intolerance. In this case, a new argument called “creation science” asserted that creation of the world can be supported using scientific evidence and therefore it “must be given equal time with evolutionary theory in high school biology texts and classes” (Barbour 83). The concept of creation science was later ruled as not legitimate science by Arkansas court (Parker, Schmidt 47). As seen through these two opposite realms of seeking truth, due to their reluctance to

As mentioned earlier, in contemporary context science is deemed credible as the questions gets settled and theories are accepted by the scientific community. Instead of accentuating the answers received from science, it is, perhaps more significant, to examine the type of questions that religion and science tend to answer. Science addresses the set of questions concerned with the process of the physical world. How things work the way the way they do? Whereas, theology addresses set of questions concerned more with the meaning, value and purpose present in what is happening. Why is it happening the way it is? (Polkinghorne 21). Langdon Gilkey, in his testimony for Arkansas trial regarding creation science also alludes to these