Wow, it just took me about a half an hour to get into my own blog, now I better say something worthwhile. I have been involved in a discussion with a nephew who I respect and admire. I think Facebook should only be for short comments so I am going to respond here. He wrote in support of the Pro-choice movement in Texas, and based his support on what he called "real unbiased science". I have thought about that and want to share. I doubt anybody can be truly unbiased, even in his argument he showed a bias against Christianity. I find that ironic in that much of science was pioneered by Christians trying to understand God's Creation. He is in the healthcare field, and hospitals were almost exclusively started by God followers. In the time of the plagues it was Christians who stayed and cared for the sick and buried the dead. Now Christian scientists are often ridiculed and or ignored.
Science has built a box and refuses to believe anything outside of their box exists. Science is restricted to observable, testable, repeatable results. That leaves a lot of things out. Many things do exist that cannot be confirmed or denied by science. History is a simple example, right and wrong is another, how about beauty or art? Human emotion, or attitudes, or love? Science would like to think of man as just some kind of biological robot. Given certain stimuli he will respond in a certain manner, but how do you explain personality, and differences in siblings? Philosophy, poetry and thought itself, cannot be understood scientifically.
How complete is science? That is an imposible question because we don't know where the end is, but is science nearing the end or just in it's infancy? Even math, called the pure science, is learning new things. Mathematicians are still trying to understand PI, a seemingly infinite number that has been studied for centuries. For argument's sake I will say science is 50% complete. That would mean that anyone basing their life on purely science only has half of the facts. Science has experienced game changing discoveries in the past and is sure to in the future. Even if science had 99% of the facts, the 1% left could change it all.
I think science is valuable, but it cannot answer all of life's questions, and pure science shouldn't even try. Science should be about facts not about whether it is good or evil. Science thought homosexuality was a defect that could be cured just a few years ago, now it considers it normal, was it wrong then, or wrong now? What else does science have wrong?
"Real unbiased science" also sets up an interesting dilema, who decides? Is the process democratic Scientific consensus has been wrong in the past. Who is the ultimate arbiter of what is "real science"? History is full of scientist that were ridiculed and persecuted only to be eventually be proved correct.
Everyone has a right to make moral decisions, but to base them on science, an admittedly incomplete field, is not logical. Morality is another subject that is not open to scientific debate. We all must make decisions and decide to take stands. I choose to use a broader perspective than just science.
