Science and religion

In Chesterton's time, the discussion about science and religion was not new; Darwin's theory, though, was fairly new, and people were thinking about its consequences. Chesterton wrote a short and simple essay, 'Science and religion', in which he discusses the question if science could ever prove religion wrong. First of  all 'To mix science up with philosophy is only to produce a philosophy that has lost all its ideal value and a science that has lost all its practical value'.
He proceeds by quoting from a work called "New Theology and Applied Religion", in which the authors state that, since we have found no scientific evidence for the Fall, Paul's theology in the New Testament, based as it is on the 'total depravity of man', cannot be true.
Chesterton points out that we have two completely different fields here. What kind of evidence could science ever find for the Fall? These modern writers forget the reason why men thought mankind wicked: 'because they felt wicked themselves'. I remember reading a similar argument before (perhaps in C.S.Lewis?); I do find it important to realize that whatever scientists say, they can never give us mere mortals 'primary purity and innocence'.