Everything in the universe happens for a reason, and science is man's way of explaining why these things happen. Science is based on fact, rather than religion, which is based on belief, and many scientific theories can actually be proved. If they cannot be proved, then evidence for them can be suggested. For example, there are many sources of evidence for the 'big bang' (the beginning of the universe) - such as the abundance of Hydrogen and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (just to name a few), yet we cannot actually prove that this was the beginning of the universe, as obviously, we cannot rewind time. This means that science can only take educated guesses, supplying proof, in regards to some things.

While science cannot PROVE everything, it CAN make educated theories, based on similar scientific studies, as to why things occur. This is why a large majority of science is purely theoretical - because our equipment is not yet advanced enough to allow us to prove everything. However, technology (and therefore science) is rapidly improving and expanding each year; it is only a matter of time.

If you argue that science can only 'explain' something by proving it (for example, we know that the most abundant element in the Earth's atmosphere is Nitrogen, and science can prove this), then science can never know EVERYTHING, as there are many things that cannot be proved.

Following the example on the left, one example of something that cannot be proved is the creation of the universe. No one will never know how this occured, as obviously, nobody was around at the time, and so science can only ever make 'educated guesses'.

The very purpose of the term “science” is an explanation for everything. If a perfect knowledge could somehow be obtained then the universe and everything in it could be explained by the holder of that knowledge.

This whole debate seems, to me, to be futile as it is like asking the question “Can an explanation for everything explain everything?” the answer to which is unquestionably and obviously: Yes it can.

The question we should be asking ourselves is “Can such a knowledge be obtained?” my answer to which would be “No, absolutely not” but that’s another debate altogether.

Science is a concept we use to explain the multitude of phenomena that occur. It is meant to explain the reason for all of them occurring. Science is capable of explaining everything, we just aren't at the stage where we are capable of doing that (due to lack of technological equipment and inability to test beyond the realms of our current solar system and such).

We do not need an observer at a certain point in time to have witnessed an event occurring to know how, when, or why it occurred. After all, an observer that can relay to us how they had witnessed the event is certain to be biased. In this case science is like history, we do not recreate the events, we can't. Instead we piece together the pieces of the puzzle in order to "create" our own interpretation of the events. And this brings up the ambiguous nature of this question, can science explain everything objectively? or can science only explain everything when an observer is involved?

Take the Doppler effect as an example. A mobile emitter of sound wave frequency "f" is moving towards a stationary observer who perceives the sound wave as frequency "F" instead. We all know that when the emitter is in motion the distance between the wavefronts it emits will be either compressed or elongated. The title question hence can be akin to asking the question of "what is the frequency of the sound wave?" here. Is it the frequency of the original waves emitted we want to know? Or is it what value we perceive it to be?

In the case of the latter, yes, science can explain everything FOR us in a manner that WE can understand. After all it is humanity that had "invented" science. But can science explain everything objectively? Well, we'll just have to wait and see.

All explanation are not the same, for a scientific explaination give us the ability to predict with greater probility the future thus increasing are ability to make educated decisions.. were something like an appeal to god promises result in the after life.. The problem is obvious in the fact that nobody has been in the after life and back. And importartant but hard thing to get out clearly is the difference between pop science and what is actually science. As and insider, I am aware that most people tend to think of only technology as science. but this are products of science. not science it self.. another problem is supposing science as this special catagory of knowledge.. . when the method is just an externalization of prediction and trial and error process that you use to simply walk at the door. in that you make a prediction. if I push this block of wood. it will move.. 2 I push the block or would 3 it moved.. so know I know..if the block didn;t move. I would have to change my prediction(theory) to something like the block of wood is nailed down. Then proceed to check it if is .. with the very same thinking process.. and eventually we will get it. and thus we get an explanation which gived us predicting power..

were a god like explanation is to just suppose the same thing, over and over again.. Further support is that when you look back in time you realize all civilizsion. explain what they don't know by some form of spirits. as knowledge about things increases the less and less gets attributed to spirits........ a good example is greek mythology .. where the explation for every cause is because of some god. .. the reaon for the sun.. is the sun god...... the reason for movement is water is a water god.. earth good. ect... but they are no more mythological then any spiritual explanation.. if is just the bias of modern religions we say those are myths.. another example is native america.. south and nortern. that is because of the isolation of variation of civiliztion.. there explanation were still compose of spirtist.. why the water move ... a water god.. we may not have explanations of why how the world began .. but just putting in a god filler doesn't bring us any closer to understanding .it.. in fact its hurtful.......... for by putting that as an explanation prevents of from trying to figure is old.. because we think we know... .. for example if science didn;t make demarkation from religion.. then we would have never figured out what we know now.. we would still be just saying good is the purpose for what we don't understand .. but this is an explanation which depend on ignorance..... that is to lack a criteria for explanation, that is it is no more an explantion then that which does not exist. . because because faith is a default criteria.. that is when you got nothing else you are forced to have faith......but its better to say that we don't know... this enable us to keep asking .. and if things are progressing the way they are.. then why give up.......for why would god give us the power of reason. that is, are onlly distinquishing power incomparison to animals.. and tell us not so use it at the same time. (if you thiest) ... thus my major conclusion is an explanation with not criteria of itself is not an explanation. don't mistake the word explanation for the concept..

I would say that your argument is irrelevant as what you are actually telling your audience (by saying that the imperfection of mankind makes perfect understanding impossible) is that mankind cannot explain everything. The ultimate goal of scientific studies is to obtain a perfected knowledge of the universe and everything in it. The very purpose of the term “science” is an explanation for everything. If a perfect knowledge could somehow be obtained then the universe and everything in it could be explained by the holder of that knowledge.

This whole debate seems, to me, to be futile as it is like asking the question “Can an explanation for everything explain everything?” the answer to which is unquestionably and obviously: Yes it can.

The question we should be asking ourselves is “Can such a knowledge be obtained?” my answer to which would be “No, absolutely not” but that’s another debate altogether.

Science and religion CANNOT work as a pair. Of course dependent on the specific religion one defines it's compatibility with scientific explanations may vary. But in the modern day when we speak of religion people generally refer to the most widespread beliefs - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism etc. Monotheistic and polytheistic religions ARE NOT compatible with science. The scriptures these religions are based upon contain "facts" that come directly in conflict with scientific observations, for example the age of the Earth, the origin of life or even the solar-terran relationship.

Science is an instense study to try and understand the workings of the universe, it is fundamentally flawed because it cannot and will not ever explain the WHY of anything. Religion was created/discovered to explain just that but then religion also depends on your own personal opinion; religion and science teamed together can explain everything, they work well as a pair but you cannot ever hope for science to explain everything because it's far too detached from emotions etc. to be able to explain questions such as why are humans here. Therefore science can never explain everything.

Neither Science nor Religion - both of which are (Hu) Man made - can answer everything. They are both ultimately based on human beliefs and these are by definition incomplete. It's the ultimate Catch 22. So just enjoy continuous learning Keep using your brain until the day you die OR The day you stop using your brain IS the day you die

Science tells us that evolution originated from matter we don't know of. If science doesn't know the matter than how can science answer everything?

To explain my point, here is a question for you. Can science explain why whales sing? yes. But can it explain what they're singing about? no. Can it explain if there is a god or not? no. can it explain what happened before or during the moment of the beginning of the universe. not anymore, the light took billions of years to get here. but it passed now. All we can see is 300,000 years after it happened