What science is NOT - Its Limitations - Part III

This blog is a very adequate quote from All About Science:

The Limitations of Science

---

Mankind has never devised a better tool for solving the mysteries of the universe than science. However, there are some kinds of questions for which scientific problem solving is unsuited. In other words, science has limitations.
There are three primary areas for which science can't help us answer our questions. All of these have the same problem: The questions they present don't have testable answers. Since testability is so vital to the scientific process, these questions simply fall outside the venue of science.


The three areas of limitation are:

• Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically determine value.

• Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and social rules--in other words, morality. Science can't help here.
  
  Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.

• Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach.
  
  In view of this final point, it's interesting how many scientists have forgotten their own limitations. Every few years, some scientist will publish a book claiming that he or she has either proven the existence of god, or proven that no god exists. Of course, even if science could prove anything (which it can't), it certainly can't prove this, since by definition god is a supernatural being.

So the next time someone invokes "scientific evidence" to support his or her point, sit back for a moment and consider whether they've stepped outside of these limitations.  Scientific method is limited to a process defined by that which is measurable and repeatable. By definition, it cannot speak to issues of ultimate origin, meaning, or morality. For such answers, science is dependent on the values and personal beliefs of those who use it. Science, therefore, has great potential for both good and evil. It can be used to make vaccines or poisons, nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons. It can be used to clean up the environment or to pollute it. It can be used to argue for God or against Him. Science by itself offers no moral guidance or values to govern our lives. All science can do is show us how natural law works, while telling us nothing about its origins.
_________________________________

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

This three part series on Science And Its Limitations will serve as an important base as I continue progressing in future blogs.  I hope that you will use it as a barometer for judging articles and books that you read to discern what is truth and what is not.   

Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm.  Let nothing move you.  Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.
(1 Cor. 15:58)