Basic HTML Version
judgcd whar scicnce can really do.
This includes che public, che press,
and in sorne cases even sciencisrs
rhemselves.
Dr. Edward David, science advisor
ro Presidenr Nixon, remarked in an
edi corial in
Science:
.....
I have
become concerncd char public expec·
tarions of speccacular achievemencs
are far greacer rhan science and cech–
nology can produce.... Scicnce and
engineers are not omniporenr" (May
28. 1971). The edicor of
Science,
Dr.
Philip Abclson, commenred similarly
char "che public needs
co
undcrsrand
char science and rcchnology cannot be
applicd successfully ro che fulfillmenr
of cvery wish"
(Science.
Augusr
21.
1970).
The crux of che problem of over·
expecrations was pinpoinred concisely
by rhe Vice Chancellor of che Univcr–
sicy of Nocringham, Dr.
F.
S. Dain·
con. He warned: "Far coo few peoplc
have any norion of rhe power and
limirs of science." He wenc on: "This
applies ro Members of Parliamenr, che
professions, che public - and parric·
ularly che communicarions media"
(Scie;Jce
joNma/,
Ocrobcr 1969).
The media. by sensarionalizing che
achievemenrs of science, has conrrib–
uced
co
a false, all-powerful aura chac
has been associaccd wirh science by
rhe public. In addition, many scien·
risrs have failed ro communicace che
limi rarions of rheir respective disci·
plines ro rhose ourside science or ro
those being rraincd in science. This
rragedy has foscered unwarranced
fairh in science alone as "che only
crusrworrhy source of authenric and
repucable knowledge" (L. Mumford,
The Pentagm of Power,
p. 29). Ir has
been jusr such inflared and discorred
expcctacions thar have conrribuced ro
thc growing disenchanrmenr with sci·
ence.
The limirarions of science are
essenrially rhose of che merhod ir uses
- rhe scicnrific merhod. Once rhcse
limirarions are realized and undcr·
srood, we gain a berrer perspecrive of
what science can do and whac ir can–
nor do and che crue relarionship
22
becween science and che Holy Bible.
The mosr basic limirarion of che
scienrific merhod is rhar irs observa–
don and resring rechniquc is esscn–
rially resrricred ro che physical senses
of man - ro whar he can see, rouch,
rasre, smell or hear. Whar cannoc be
observed and resred in chis manner
cannor be dealr wirh scienrifically.
I
e is jusr rhar simple. Yet rhis phys·
ical limirarion has 1ed ro rhe
erroneous norion rhar what scicnce
cannot deal with musr not be impor·
rant or perhaps doesn 't evcn exist
1
onsense!
Such ·'real intangibles" as !ove,
beaury, and sarisfacrion, which are felr
inruir.ivcly and are very real ro the
individual beholder, are ditñcult, if
nor impossible, ro define or measure
scienrifically. The exisrence of God,
who is composed of spirir - rhar
is, nonphysical subsrance - cannor
be direcdy proven or disproven by
merhods of scienrific measurcmenr
alone.
Such urgent gucsrions as "why
does man exisr'" and "whar purpose
is rhere for lifc?" are seldom raiscd in
science becausc science cannor answer
rhcm. This does nor mean rhar rhcre
is no such rhing as purpose, but only
rhar rhe scientific mcrhod is nor fun·
damenrally capable of discerning pur·
pose. Sciencc is limired - vcry
limited - when ir comes ro answer–
ing rhe big guesrions of life.
A rhird basic limitation of rhc sci–
enrific merhod is rhar ir is nonmoral.
ft is merely a neurral method of
inquiry. lt is a merhod of
acq!liring
information ro rese rhe validi ry of
ideas.
l/ow
rhe acquired informarion
is used becomes a moral or spirirual
issue and is dcrermined b)' rhe judg–
menr of rhc invesrigaror. Of irse!
f
rhe
scienrific merhod does nor make value
judgmenrs of what is righr or wrong,
good or bad. Ir does nor make moral
decisions. This musr be done by rhe
scienrisr; his merhod won'r do ir for
him.
Bur on whar will he base his judg·
menr? This is the crux of rhe currenr
crisis!
The Currenc Crisis
Thc discoveries of science have
inundared mankind wirh ph\·sical
knowledge. Bur rhe sciencific merhod
has nor supplied and cannor supply
the moral and erhical guidel!nes rhar
would effecrively govern rhe use of
rhar knowledge. Science fails, by its
very narure, ro provide man wich a
sarisfying insighr inro rhe meaning
and purpose of human life.
The tradicional source of such
knowlcdge has been religion and phi·
losophy. Yer rhe rise of marerialisric
sciencc has undermined rhe influence
and credibiliry of borh by exposing
rhe erroneous foundarions of many
rheological and philosophical con·
ceprs.
But rhe inabiliry of science
ro
replace false knowlcdge wi rh rhe rrue
knowledge has lefr socicry wirhour
ANY absolure moral guidelines and
wirhout A!':Y discernible purpose in
life.
This is why many are cxpericncing
an impelling feeling of dissarisfaccion
and frustration in rhe midsr of a
knowledge explosion, surrounded by
ingcnious rechnological devices.
Pcople have bcen led ro expect
infonnarion from science ehae ir was
never equipped ro provide. While rhe
scienrific merhod is a proveo, pracrical
rool for acquiring cerrain rypes of
information. ir has inherenr limita·
tions and requircs guidelines for irs
proper use.
Thc limirarions of science make ir
obvious rhar rhe scienrific view of
realiry - ofren the only view of real ·
ity rhar is considered credible roday
- is only a parcial - and ofrcn dis·
corred - view.
It
is incomplere of
and by irself. This realization has
created a rcnewed inrerest in
che
spiri·
rual, che mysrical.
Yct rhis world's religions - for·
mal or mysrical - havc nor provided
lasting, rruly sarisfying answers.
The quesrion remains - "WHY"?
Where are we ro look for answers ro
rhe big quesrions of lifc?
(To be continued)
PLAIN
TRUTH
November 1972