I completely disagree with Myth #7. See my comments inline (bolding is mine):
Non-obviously, obviously there are such methods.Myth 7: Science and its Methods Can Answer All Questions.
Philosophers of science have found it useful to refer to the work of Karl Popper (1968) and his principle of falsifiability to provide an operational definition of science. Popper believed that only those ideas that are potentially falsifiable are scientific ideas.
For instance, the law of gravity states that more massive objects exert a stronger gravitational attraction than do objects with less mass when distance is held constant. This is a scientific law because it could be falsified if newly-discovered objects operate differently with respect to gravitational attraction. In contrast, the core idea among creationists is that species were placed on earth fully-formed by some supernatural entity. Obviously, there is no scientific method by which such a belief could be shown to be false.
Is there no such method because our scientists cannot observe other planets equivalent to the Earth? Is there no such method because they are unable to observe the past?
Inability does not necessarily mean impossibility.
Abortion is outside the realm of scientific inquiry? Doesn't true morality come from scientific knowledge of the world?Since this special creation view is impossible to falsify, it is not science at all and the term creation science is an oxymoron. Creation science is a religious belief and as such, does not require that it be falsifiable. Hundreds of years ago thoughtful theologians and scientists carved out their spheres of influence and have since coexisted with little acrimony. Today, only those who fail to understand the distinction between science and religion confuse the rules, roles, and limitations of these two important world views.
It should now be clear that some questions simply must not be asked of scientists. During a recent creation science trial for instance, Nobel laureates were asked to sign a statement about the nature of science to provide some guidance to the court. These famous scientists responded resoundingly to support such a statement; after all they were experts in the realm of science (Klayman, Slocombe, Lehman, & Kaufman, 1986). Later, those interested in citing expert opinion in the abortion debate asked scientists to issue a statement regarding their feelings on this issue. Wisely, few participated. Science cannot answer the moral and ethical questions engendered by the matter of abortion. Of course, scientists as individuals have personal opinions about many issues, but as a group, they must remain silent if those issues are outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
Why? Are those unverifiable or outside of Nature?Science simply cannot address moral, ethical, aesthetic, social and metaphysical questions.
Science cannot address moral questions? Then all manner of injustices happen.
Science cannot address ethical questions? Ditto.
Science cannot address aesthetic questions? Then beauty and ugliness are confused.
Science cannot address social questions? Then social disintegration entails.
Science cannot address metaphysical questions? Then there will be forever metaphysics, and science will never reach complete knowledge of Nature (never = until we destroy ourselves with such scientific approaches, or should I say, lack of approach).
