Science is the Limit-hmm?

Many scientists of the 19th century . . . often felt that they would someday achieve absolute truth and ultimate understanding,” says the book The Scientist. “Their successors,” the book continues, “speak only of reaching ‘partial understanding’, of continually approaching truth but never grasping it completely.” This lack of absolute knowledge seriously limits what science can do.
Scientific facts have never changed over the years, whereas scientific theories have—and this repeatedly. In fact, at times theories have lurched from one extreme to the other. Medical scientists once thought, for example, that withdrawing blood from the body of a seriously ill person was the scientific thing to do. Later they thought that infusing blood was the answer. Now some are beginning to recognize the wisdom of not doing either and of searching for less dangerous alternative treatments.
Obviously, what scientists know is far less than what they do not know. The World Book Encyclopedia notes: “Botanists still do not know exactly how the process of photosynthesis works. Biologists and biochemists have not yet found the answer to the question of how life originated. Astronomers have not yet developed a satisfactory explanation of the origin of the universe. Medical scientists and physiologists do not know the cause or cure of cancer or how to cure the various virus diseases. . . . Psychologists do not know all the causes of mental illness.”
Science is also limited in the sense that it can be no better than the people who pursue it. In other words, a scientist’s lack of knowledge is compounded by his imperfection. The authors of 5000 Days to Save the Planet discovered that “time and again . . . special-purpose organizations have manipulated research, distorted cost-benefit analyses and suppressed information in order to sell harmful products or to continue activities which are detrimental to the environment.”
Even if the majority of scientists are honest, this is still no reason to place them or their activity upon a pedestal. “They are just like everybody else,” argues British-born Edward Bowen, himself a scientist. “They all have their failings. Some are dedicated, some unscrupulous, some sharp as a whip, others dull as dishwater. I’ve known some of the great names of science, men who have done tremendous good for the world. And while I’ve known no scientist who’s been in jail, I’ve known some who richly deserved to be.”
Clearly, because of its many limitations, modern-day science is not up to meeting the challenges of the 21st century. Especially has it failed to protect the environment, and rather than help rid the earth of war, it has helped create weapons of mass destruction. So really, I question if you can confide in such ones?