I find it infinitely interesting how people can criticize science for not being omniscient. Scientists don't know what dark matter it (yet.) So? Does the Bible mention dark matter? Does it mention quantum mechanics? Black holes? Gravity? No?

So, then, when your argument is stripped to its skeleton, what you're saying is that science is flawed because is raises questions instead of covering them up.

"Science is just too limited to answer the big questions."

Science has explained the origin of the universe (big bang,) it has explained the development of species, it has mapped the human genome, and it won't answer any big questions, eh? We don't have them all, of course, but science is a means, not an end. We're not through yet.

"Each of us will just have to decide what we want to believe without the benefit of proof."

Ah. Here is the fundamental problem with the religious society. You can't figure out the universe, so why even try, it's best to just believe whatever sounds good to you? Is that it? So many believers that I've spoken to pick and choose what aspects of the religion they respect; for example, they are Christian but pro-choice, or they had premarital sex, or they are gay and blasphemously choose not to change their biology, etc. That annoys me. Actually I am more accepting of fundamentalists (though they have other habits that bug me, the view that since they are Christian everyone else has to be, too) than loose interpretators in some circumstances. At least they take their religion for what it is, instead of what they'd like it to be. If you go through a faith and take what sounds good to you personally and just claim that the rest is invalid, you have reached the height of hypocrisy.

• Science is flawed for not covering up. - johnpowell - April 9, 2001 - 20:18 UTC
  • Maybe Kolob are protons :) - stormcrow - April 9, 2001 - 20:26 UTC
    • Kolob is nearest to God's home - johnpowell - April 9, 2001 - 22:30 UTC