Critical thinking please....!!!?

Question

I personality think that we never gonna achieve state of perfection in science since we, the observer, are the part of nature itself...

however, nature seems to walk in its own accord and creating its own rules....as if it had been programmed from the very beginning...if it does, can science and religion can be one thing??

i don't know if my statement could support creationism, since i, myself, am actually evolutionist but how could the other evolutionists explain the fact about this?

Answer 1

Good thinking, keep it up.

Science deals with something called objective reality. A proton and an electron are attracted to each other. That's a fact, a fact of nature. Science uses well-defined, disciplined methods to study that fact, and come up with 'laws' and equations to allow the force of that attraction to be calculated in great detail and under a wide variety of conditions.

The electrostatic attraction is 'perfect' (complete and accurate). Some particular 'law' of science might be perfect, or it might not. Maxwell's Equations have served science and engineering extremely well, but even that set of laws is not perfect, because it does not hold at the quantum level. So the next step was taken, and now QED/QCD (quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics) extends Maxwell to the quantum level. So, at the moment, it looks almost perfect. But we shouldn't really consider it perfect (complete) until it also covers gravitation, and gravitation at both quantum and relativistic scales. Perhaps some day string theory will do that. If it does, we will consider it a perfect (complete and accurate) theory. Until, of course, we find some new way that it still doesn't describe reality with complete accuracy.

So, you could say the physical phenomena are perfect, but our understanding of them is not.

The existence of God is also objective reality. If there is no God, there is no God, and there's nothing man can do to create one. If God exists, God exists, and has a certain character and nature, and there's nothing man can do to change that. All that man can do is be right or be wrong in understanding God.

Science can't experimentally determine the existence and nature of God with the same tools it uses to investigate the physical universe. If God is the Creator of matter and energy and spacetime, it makes sense that He's not composed of the same stuff He created.

Science and religion are not 'one thing'. They study completely different domains. But both should work to arrive at an understanding of objective reality.

If someone with a scientific background, or any rigorous academic background, wants to understand the objective reality of God, they will look seriously, honestly, and with an open mind at the available evidence. C. S. Lewis did that, but not exactly with an open mind. He started with the intent of disproving God. But he looked at the record of historical accuracy and fulfilled prophecy in the Bible and reached the opposite conclusion.

The best work I've seen is the second reference, written by a well-respected and accomplished scientist, head of the Human Genome Project. He covers many current controversial issues of apparent conflict between science and God.

As best I can tell, the vast majority of the science of evolution is correct. Yet, there is a mountain of outlandish claims made in the name of evolution or in the name of religion.

In my mind, the greatest outstanding questions are how did the universe come into existence, and how did the mechanism of DNA come into existence. Where did the mass and energy for the big bang come from? If you theorize intersecting M-brane manifolds, where did they come from? Creationism, in its simplest and most honest form, simply says that God created it, and we don't know how. Genesis 1 is not a science text. Science has no alternative explanation, but neither can it refute this one. We simply do not have the means to evaluate this issue.

Answer 2

it seems programed to you, so you should explain it to me.
it does not seem programed to me and i have never heard of a natural law changing.
we are part of nature and therefore have a bias perspective, but you have some odd ideas that i have never heard before like science pursues perfection and that perfection is not natural.
this said, there is no real reason to think that evolution could not have been part of a supernatural creation, but then again no reason to think it was.

Answer 3

Actually you did not explain any facts. You explained your thoughts. The fact is the science is not perfectionist and never will be. Science is a quest of finding most accurate answers. Not the exact answer. We always try to figure out how nature behaves and we try to create rules in order to help us understanding the nature.
There are no exact answers in nature, in our lives, in science.
This is why religions sucks. They dictate exact answers written in holly books. And force people to believe what is written. On the other hand, if science finds evidence can reconsider its way of thinking and re-evaluate its answers. Flexible.
.

Answer 4

can anyone actually define perfection?

If you could visualize it, we could do it. Perfection is a stupid word.