Churches and non-religious governments are both equally likely to do this. Additionally, people naturally do it even if they try not to. People complain if the ethics are wrong, and most religious leaders can't help but respond to that. We're generally built to conform to crowd wisdom because it makes us stronger as a species.

Science is all about understanding things we observe, and using that understanding to make cool stuff happen. (For example, understanding electricity led to people making computers.) Some people take this further and see beauty in the various scientific theories kicking around, which is a nice touch. Many people take it further still and treat it as a religion. This can be healthy (for example if the beauty you see in science motivates you to live a good life), or it can be unhealthy (for example if you push members of other religions to define themselves the same way you do).

If someone's motivation in life comes from the God they know and trust, and they are using that motivation to study science and cure cancer, then destroying their motivation in life would be a shame, wouldn't it?

I would appreciate if you could find the verse(s).

Yes a local community supporting cancer research is so mindblowing

What would be a bit surprising is say the pope or some other religion head coming out and agreeing with science on something. That said, it does happen. I think pope john paul II admitted he supported evolution. That was somewhat unexpected. But then he was also completely against birth control, and did his best to ignore pedophile priests. woot.

Of course its a question of existence. If something doesn't exist, "it existing" can't be true. Or said another way if something doesn't exist, it has no truth.

In your example, unsolved doesn't mean much. there was a crime, so it existed. the hard part is finding the evidence.

Science does NOT preclude a god, or gods from existing. So far there has been very little evidence to show one way or the other, so science itself can't really say much other than "it's unlikely" or (probably more accurate) "I don't know".

Here's the fun part, I'm not Athiest

Ok that's one down. Here's hoping a.cc scans posts and just appends religions to the member tags to be able to skim these threads.

?

Science does existence. It can't measure that which doesn't exist. If something does exist, science will find a way to measure it.

If science can never explain it, that means it never existed, and can't exist, and will never exist. Science evolves with itself, with what it learns. Should one day there be evidence for something it previously said was extremely unlikely, then it has to incorporate that into the current understanding. Anything less is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la-la-la-la-la"^[1].

Sure. But if there's truly no evidence what so ever, the most logical conclusion is that it didn't happen. But what "Truth" are you talking about here? That it happened? That necessitates there was some evidence that there was a crime, ie: that it happened, that it exists.

Probably the closest label that describes my beliefs is agnostic.

I somewhat disagree with Wikipedia's "unknowable" bit though.

I dunno. It seemed like you were implying that god and other such things were unobservable, and untestable. That means it doesn't exist. Now if you were to say it is currently not testable, that's different. But given past posts you've made on this subject, I doubt that's something you'd admit.

My comment was that the scientific method cannot always be applied to discovering the truth about something in all situations. This is completely divorced from religion, God, etc. Your own comment was roughly equivalent:

I think you're misunderstanding the scientific method as a whole. Yes, specific tests may fail rather badly with insufficient information. (kinda like "OMG I Can't see it, thus it can't exist!" when talking about sub atomic particles)

In the grand scheme of things however, it will continue to evolve till we get our "meaning of life, the universe and everything", or at the very least, an approximation thereof.

There's also a commandment.

That's easy, 42!

If you knew the answer to life, the universe and everything, just what possible questions could you have?