>>From my point of view, the scietific method is the best way of
>getting objective truth.
I have no quarrel with that. My point is that "objective truth" is a lot
smaller category than a lot of people think it is. I also think that
science has worked beyond its capacity when it tries to comment on that
which is beyond objective truth or to even deny that there is truth beyond
objective truth (which is what I've been seeing on this list)
>Do we agree that science, _given time_, can be used to describe
>much of the things we observe in the universe (like gravity,
>chemistry, life's beginnings, thinking...)?
>
Yes and no. Science can tell us how, it cannot tell us why. I think
sceince should stick to the how and religion should stick to the why
(because of this I think creationism is a farce-especially in a biology
class). I think that both science and religion can become very arrogant and
think that they have all of the answers by themselves, neither of them is a
complete explanation of the human condition in and of itself.
>Or, if we do not agree, what do you suggust we turn to to complete
>the above task?
>
>ken
>
I think dialogs like this are extremely helpful. I think God gave us the
internet so we could have a forum for the discussion of theology where we
couldn't get in fistfights. :-)
John Crooks