Do you agree or disagree?

"Science can neither prove nor disprove that unobservable or supernatural forces cause storms, rainbows, illnesses, or cures of disease. Supernatural explanations of natural events are simply outside the bounds of science. Although science is "a way of knowing," it is not the only way."



Source: Prentice Hall Biology textbook :)Do you agree or disagree?
Agree, keep in mind science works on the assumption that a god doesn't exist.......eg. evolution anyone?



Can there ever be a scientific definition of "good" or "morality"?



Can science explain how the randomness of the Big Bang came and produced the complexity of life? The tilt of the earth? All the observable laws of nature?



Can science explain the people during their time of month giving me thumbs down?
Science finds reasonable and reasoned natural explanations for repeatably and reliably observed natural phenomena.



It does not deal in supernatural explanations; and because it does not deal in them, cannot say yea or nay to them. But what it can and does do is to provide you with a means of establishing and testing those natural explanations. Does the explanation cover *all* of the observed phenomenon? Does the explanation provide some prediction that can be tested? Does the explanation include a way of establishing an observation that would, if discovered, prove it erroneous?



Supernatural explanations can never satisfy these criteria; acceptable scientific explanations are acceptable because they *can*.



I suspect that this was the purpose behind that section of the Prentice Hall book.Do you agree or disagree?
I agree to a certain extent, I think if science dug deep enough into the supernatural they would find many unsolved answers.. By not taking into account that God exists means the supernatural avenue is closed for science, if science always looks towards the obvious events then they'll always miss the inconspicuous events..



Edit: Also one of the answers said that science is only for natural activities or processes..

I'm asking all science buffs to tell me where is it stated that science is solely for what we see as natural processes or to put it a different way who says supernatural activities are unatural really..

How does anyone really know that, i mean if you go back a few hundred years what would you have called radiowave signals and infrered signals..

They would be known as the supernatural.. Supernatural is only a word to explain natural activities that are somehow more super..
Science and Religion are separate and essentially unrelated fields. The goal of science is to understand the mechanisms of how the the Universe functions, not why it functions that way. Questions of supernatural entity or the nature of God(s) are religious, and based on faith. Since faith is acceptance without demonstration while the scientific method requires rigorously tested, repeatable, and peer reviewed demonstration prior to acceptance the two have nothing in common. A scientist can, therefor, be religious or not according to his own understanding without it in any way impacting on his scientific work.

The statement that there are ways of "knowing" other than science is a matter of your Philosophic viewpoint. Plato believed that we only know what we can prove, all else we simply believe. Each person must decide for himself what is acceptable to him, personally, as being proof, but he has no right to expect or require that other people lower or ignore their own standards to accommodate him.Do you agree or disagree?
The Father of Science, Bacon, explicitly put final causes outside the bounds of Science, so, yes, the text is correct.



"

Bacon separates distinctly religion and philosophy. The one is not incompatible with the other; for "a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." Bacon has been sometimes regarded as a defender of unbelief, because he opposed the search after final causes in the interpretation of nature. But it is one thing to discourage the search after final causes in science, it is another thing to deny the existence of final causes. "I had rather believe," he says, "all the fables in the Legend and the Talmud and the Alcoran than that this universal frame is without a mind" (Essay on Atheism). The object of scientific inquiry should be the "form," not the final cause."



http://www.malaspina.org/baconf1561.htm
I agree that a god could step in every single time certain circumstances are about to occur, and cause the results we see, but it's a little far fetched, so I would disagree with your conclusion that science "is not the only way." What other way could we possibly discover how the world works than Science? What you are suggesting is that the laws of Physics don't work, and it's god who gives you AIDS when you sleep with someone that has AIDS, it's god who clots and repairs your wound when you place a bandaid on it, it's god who paints rainbows every time the sun shines through misty skies.



Occam's Razor says that where there is a good simple explanation, there is no need to bring complicated deities into consideration. Probably my toe hurts when I stub it because of physics and anatomy, probably god doesn't see I stubbed it and come down and pinch it. But if he did, there would be no way of detecting this, so saying that there are other ways to knowledge is not correct.



Observing and asking questions, doing research, hypothesizing, testing, analyzing, correcting, repeating, these are how we learn about the world around us. Everything else is a coincidence of circumstance, evidenceless situationally dictated belief.
Agree :)



Actually, a post I just wrote to someone else's answer would be relevant here as well. I am going to paste it here as it addresses your subject, I hope this is ok.



"I think it makes a lot more sense, logically, that we were created than that we are a supreme mistake. Think of everything that exists in the world. The diversity, the complexity. Is it really easy to believe there were billions upon billions of 1-in-a-billion-chance mistakes?



It is especially difficult to swallow the "cosmic blunder" theory once you begin to realize that Science makes up just as many (if not more) "facts" as Religions do. Most things we consider "fact" are actually theories that have never been "proven" in the traditional sense. They are guesses and what ifs. Don't you remember learning the basis of the scientific method in school? Something is "proven" if you can not DISPROVE it. So by scientific standards, we can "prove" deity as well.



~Anya"



I think many people are under the misconception that science is all about cold hard facts, proven beyond a doubt. They forget, or maybe never knew, how that "proof" process takes place. Many don't know what science is at all.



Science

鈥搉oun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6. a particular branch of knowledge.

7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.



So Witchcraft can be a science. I bet that makes a few people's heads spin!
Storms= precipitation (rain), separation of ions in clouds cause electricity to build up (creating lighting and therefore thunder)



Rainbows= illusion caused by photons hitting water vapor



illnesses= genetics, and external factors, and germs



cures of diseases= faith healing is obviously a joke, so I presume you mean when SCIENCE finds cures for diseases....
False on both accounts.



We can trace the causal chain of events that lead to natural phenomenon such as rainbows, and illness. If the entire chain is not broken by unexplainable impossible events, we know that the supernatural played no part in it.



Science is the ONLY way of knowing. The alternative is bullsh** philosophical explanations based only on human imagination. If we resorted to theologic explanations for natural phenomenon, gravity would be explained by Intelligent Falling.



I pity you - you are getting a crap education.
What are you talking about?



Rainbows are made when the light spectrum of the Sun shines through water vapor in the atmosphere. This we know through science.



Storms happen when the Sun heats the Earth and cold pressure rushes in where the heat has risen, causing wind. We know this though science.



About 85% of diseases have been identified and cures have been made through science.



There aren't any supernatural forces involved in these processes.



The reason why more storms are happening is because idiot humans especially Americans are pumping endless CO2 into the atmosphere and causing the temperature to rise more often, thus as I explained heating the Earth more causes more cold air to rush in, therefore more storms.



Science doesn't even attempt to explain a supernatural presence in this process, when the natural evidence is self-evident.



As for what you describe as 'supernatural', that is merely what scientific technology has yet to explain, at some point it will.
I agree. If it's unobservable, science can't do anything about it. After all, one of the steps in the scientific method (which we're all so familiar with, i'm sure) is observation. And as a Christian, I can say that while I think that science is right one some things, it isn't right on everything, so it can't be the only way of knowing, but just a way.



By the way, wish I had had a biology book like that...mine never said a word like that.
Anything that gives people any idea that they can cure themselves supernaturally, I disagree with. That's dangerous. That's how kids die from something easily treatable, like diabetes, because their parents think prayer is all they need.



I don't care if you think rainbows come from God, but attributing illnesses to the supernatural is, again, extremely dangerous.
Sure.



How can one explain a "supernatural" occurrence with naturalistic means.



Then again, by the same token supernatural events do not take place in a natural existence, otherwise such an event would in fact be natural, as it must conform to be observed naturally.
there is no such thing as the super natural world, nor god, jesus, hell, heaven ect. Science should be the only way so we don;t have so many wars about which god is the right god. All religion is the same with all the same stories about some guy doing something good and people following him, why people have use the excuse of god to do something good doesn't make much sense to me. Science disproves it all but i dont really care. i am alive now what does it matter where i came from or where im going to end up.
i agree. im amazed at people who look at science like it provides for all things. God gave us scientific and rational sequencing and thought, but not only that. faith is rooted in logic but goes beyond it. they are not contradictory but complementary. mature faith realizes God is able.
No, I completely disagree. Science has proved that storms, rainbows, illnesses and cures are all caused by natural processes. If a natural cause is known, there is no reason to speculate on whether a supernatural cause or explanation may exist.
What a crock of crap.



This is equivalent to trying to tell someone that they can successfully pick up a turd from the clean end.



SEMANTICS. Of course you cannot prove or disprove ANYTHING that is unobservable!
"...Supernatural explanations of natural events are simply outside the bounds of science. .." Science has nothing to do with the supernatural.



There is nothing supernatural about the universe.



How well does the explanation, "Goddidit" float with you?
While this is true, this is like saying:



"Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of fairies."



Though technically a true statement, do we really need to give much consideration to such outrageous suggestions?
I agree. The supernatural is beyond the scope of science, at least for now. That is in no way proof that God and spiritual beings don't exist; just proof that we have no quantifiable way to measure or detect them.
Agree.



Science also cannot disprove the existence of gods, but including statements like that in a biology textbook is a disservice to science education.
The purpose of science is to understand the natural world-not the supernatural. Religion explains the supernatural.
science is a "way of knowing" the facts of life, religion and spiritulism is not



These superntural beings can be disproved by admitting they dont exist
science of finite minds cannot explain infinity,

science cannot explain how a heavy bumble bee can fly,

science cannot explain what makes a baby take its first breath,



so I agree :)
That is one sad, misinformed heap of a biology textbook.



PS "englishbiblefan" do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Agree. Most scientists agree on intelligent design anyway.
Agree!
agree

i have Prentice Hall History book i think.
awesome
Not really.
I agree.