Aquinas would likely not have understood how they could overlook all the "evidence" of God's handiwork all around them, and how they could discount the possibility that the knowledge they were acquiring came through their senses, but that the understanding of that knowledge came from the divine abilities given to them by God. Science and religion generally do not mix, although there are some who feel that both have a basis in truth and that both are correct - at least in part. While some scientists believe in God and some religious individuals believe in evolution, it is generally an either/or proposition, not one where both are possible or even acceptable. Aquinas would not have been interested in changing his philosophy and psychology about life and about God in order to meet the requirements of science. He was very devout, and remained that way throughout his life (Copleston, 1991). While scientists may not agree with his beliefs, there is a certain amount of respect that must be given to someone who holds so strongly to his beliefs in the face of information...
Conversely, there is no scientific "evidence" that will cause a true believer in God to renounce that belief. What people see as evidence of science or of the Divine varies from person to person, and comes back to the nature of knowledge and the senses of the body. How a person perceives something with the senses, and how that person accepts or rejects what his or her senses tell him or her, can shape that person's viewpoints on this life and the potential for the next.
References
Copleston, F. (1991). Aquinas: An introduction to the life and work of the great medieval thinker. New York: Penguin Books.
Paterson, C. & Pugh, M.S. (eds.). (2006). Analytical Thomism: Traditions in dialogue. New York: Ashgate.
