Often, science is regarded as a complete and irrefutable body of knowledge and therefore, is equated with "truth". However, in reality, science is made up of an incomplete and porous body of knowledge outside of which there is no known boundary. What that means is that while science does have a huge and increasing body of knowledge (e.g., you can, in relative safety, fly on an airline at 35,000 feet and be relatively sure that you will land at your destination), there is no way to know for certain how much science doesn't know nor even what all the questions are.
Science is and will always be, by its very nature, an incomplete body of knowledge. If there would ever be a time that science knows everything (in theology, we refer to this as omniscience), then science would cease to exist since science exists at the interface between the known and unknown in the physical world.
I should also mention that if a mode of thought (i.e. science) says that it wants to pursue only naturalistic (i.e., non-supernatural) explanations of this world, I personally don't have a problem with that. In my work, I don't usually ask myself what are the theological implications for using a part made out of C65500 silicon bronze rather than 302/304 passivated stainless steel. That's not to say that there are never theological implications with engineering decisions. When I am selecting an encapsulating material for use in manufacturing, I certainly look at and compare the health risks shown on the MSDSs (Material Safety Data Sheet) of various materials and consider the potential health implications to workers who might be handling those materials (in light of the 5th commandment to not hurt or harm my neighbor). However, making an evaluation and decision based only upon the physicial properties and aspects shown on a technical data sheet is not necessarly morally wrong (what determines the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action from God's point of view also requires us getting into acting out of Christian faith -- but I will leave that for another time). And if there is a mode of thought that only wants consider the physical and natural aspects of this world, per se, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, when science does not humbly and inherently acknowledge that, by definition, its knowledge is and will never be complete or when science insists that there is nothing apart from the measurable and detectable physical world, it steps into an area outside of its own self-defined mode of thought. At best, all science can do is offer no comment to such questions. (Here we could also get into the history of science and its relationship to theology, but I will leave that for another discussion)
A few illustrations to make my point. Notice, in the third illustration that the question before the U.S. District Court (Kitzmiller v. Dover) was not "is intelligent design true?". Rather, the question was "is intelligent design science?" Those are two completely different questions. The first would answer "what is objectively true and certain?" The second would be "does ID fit into the same mode of thought and action as science defines itself?"
- from Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999), National Academy of Sciences, p27
"Terms Used in Describing the Nature of Science. Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
- from Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National Academy of Sciences, page 30
"Second, the statements of science should never be accepted as "final truth." Instead, over time they generally form a sequence of increasingly more accurate statements. Nevertheless, in the case of heliocentricism as in evolution, the data are so convincing that the accuracy of the theory is no longer questioned in science."
- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KITZMILLER v. DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
Case No. 04cv2688, MEMORANDUM OPINION, December 20, 2005
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." p 64
"To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true “scientific” alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science." p89
Posts
