'Science can never provide a final answer or things, it is only a
way of studying them' Do you agree ?
It is somewhat rash to assume that the only role of science is to answer the question 'How?' That was true in the days of Newton, when an educated person could have a grasp in outline of all human nowledge! Science then filled some of the gaps left "y the deli"erations of the philosopher and the theologian! Since then, it has far outstripped the contri"utions of "oth! #hilosophy has degenerated into historical study and has no modern contri"ution to mae! Theology has made no advance since the $iddle %ges! The mantle of seeing answers to man's most fundamental questions has fallen on science! &hether these questions will ever "e answered is an entirely different matter, "ut there is no other way ahead! So the topic'statement is fundamentally wrong! (y 'science', of course, is meant physics, which is fundamental to all studies ' chemistry, "iology, astronomy, indeed all macro and micro investigation! #hysics has identified the laws which eep the universe in a state of equili"rium, and today sees a unified theory to account for the space'time continuum necessary to the e)istence of that equili"rium, and the various other 'dimensions' "eyond the four nown which are postulated! So science moves towards the first philosophical question, 'Is there a unified theory, or are events ultimately random?' The answer to this question, if ever found, leads to the far more fundamental question, 'To what e)tent, if any, id *od +the ,reator- limited "y his own creation?' The determinism of .aplace is now seen to "e totally "eside the point, and "elongs to a mechanistic view of the universe which can no longer "e sustained! Today, science is moving rapidly towards a 'chaos' theory which taes into account *od's freedom of action plus the predicta"le results of laws already nown to us, and also unpredicta"le events! It is interesting that whereas the old scientific determinism either limited to the ,reator's function or precluded the necessity of a ,reator, or saw the ,reator as totally detached from his creation, science today is "egin forced into a "elief in *od! It also moves towards an acceptance that the scientifically unnown area, the *od ' manind 'personal' relationship, is not only feasi"le, "ut liely! So science has "ecome much more than 'a way of studying things'! &hether science can get "eyond this point is a matter of con/ecture! %t a shrewd guess, science may well esta"lish the possi"ility of 'eternal life', without "eing a"le to advance any more proof than could the old'time theologian! &orld religions have always said that such a "elief depends on revelation and personal faith, and it may well "e the ,reator's intention to eep it that way! 0aith, at least, would "e greatly devalued if it could ever "ecome the su"/ect of scientific proof, whatever that may "e! %nother answer, again stemming from the 'chaos' theory, is to the co'e)istence of good and evil! If there is a ,reator, it follows that evil, at least as understood "y humanity, must have "een allowed to enter the world'scene at some point, "ut deli"erately! 1edemption from its consequences is another result, and history is the record of the struggle "etween the two forces! This says science, although leading to apparently random results, such as the little child stepping under the "us, or a death from cancer, is not random at all! %ll the same, it may stem from 'chaos', if this is seen in con/unction with a "elief in the indestructi"ility of the human personality! So, say the faithful, '*od not only creates, He cares', and science today is not disposed to re/ect this possi"ility, the two approaches may converge on the same point! The processes of the universe are incredi"ly diverse and complicated, so why should the possi"ility of life after death "e ruled out ? Such a "elief is an essential corollary to any concept of /ustice in the ,reator's character! This is not /ustice merely in the sense of retri"ution! The early 2ews "elieved the ,reator got so fed up with humanity that He destroyed them in the 0lood, "ut made a fresh start with Noah's family and the paired livestoc' Divine /ustice is part of the concept of Divine .ove, which postulated creation, with manind as it's highest sentient form, as an e)pression of that love! So the great world religions have this at least in common with modern science3 there is a "enevolent ,reator who offers post'earthly life in some other dimension in e)change for the human response of indness and o"servance of a revealed moral law! 2ustice, therefore, moves into an eternal setting! % religious scientist will find no essential disharmony "etween his or her faith and the scientific outloo! The great questions of life have satisfying, if unprova"le answers! Some of the inadequacies of religion, such as early church doctrines of the cosmos, and strictly (i"le'"ased theories of the origin of species, have "een corrected "y scientific investigation without detriment to the central core of "elief! &here science, or more precisely the scientist, inevita"ly falls short is in the application of an essentially simple moral code to the comple) issues raised "y scientific advance! *enetic manipulation is a case in point! The whole question of in'vitro fertili4ation is highly controversial! %ll that is on the local scale! 5n the grand scale the ,reator may, or may not allow the discovery of a unified theory of the universe which will provide answers to supplement, rather than displace the answers already provided "y the higher religions!