[citation][nom]1a2b3c4d[/nom]@FrabberThe level of ignorance in your comment is ridiculous. The "state of perpetual conflict" you speak of, while yes, is partially true, is also why science and knowledge is constantly evolving. We learn more as technological developments are made available. An obvious example you seem to fail to appreciate is modern medicine. The knowledge of the human body is still incomplete, and constantly, theories are put forth to explain many illnesses we have (neurological disorders of the elderly such as Alzheimers, the mechanisms of diabetes etc.) The same can be applied to space, where early theologists believed the earth to be at the center of the universe, contraindicated by Copernicus, ultimately verified by modern science.I personally believe this to be far superior to a static world view maintained by religion, where creation is based solely upon the word of their individual scriptures.Clearly, science never claimed to know everything, it simply postulates and aims to learn. Religion on the other hand claims to know. Do you see the problem now?[/citation]
Religion sattles with the things we are given and have to learn to appreciate. Living a good life is more than difficult enough for a lifetime. So yes we take the assumption and stick with it unless you have a better alternative.
The knowledge we have of the human body is not so deep as you might think, just enough to manufacture some medicine for which we hope it doesn't have any negative side-effects which we eliminate by testing on animals trial and error. The human body is maybe more complex than the universe around us, If you want to fully understand biological pathways and all the chemical reactions that are going on you will probably need a computer that is not going to be build within thousands of years. We will always be probing and poking around with the tiny limited information we have and claim to have found the next big thing in science. These scientific truths have a very limited lifetime. The statement that eventually science will explain all is just as ridiculous. It seems like we could just be stuck in a local minima with the whole of science or that the scientific search problem is infinitely more complex than we think. I do value science a lot, but in the end it has no more value than my screwdriver or hammer in my toolbox. If I would have a car accident and would have to have a scientific hart transplant to live, I would say thanks, but no, I am already dead. My wife knows that.