Sorry in advance for the length. Sometimes it takes many words to formulate an argument. Thank you for the interesting discussion. I am interested in your response to some of the things I have said here.
Of course science has value. Many lives have been lengthened, or in the case of premature babies, enabled because of mens pursuit of scientific knowledge.
We lose sight of the fact that science has no answers regarding living a good life. As in, a good child, a good sibling, a good spouse, a good parent, a good citizen, a good employee or employer...
A person's worldview directly effects the above crucial aspects of life. Science and knowledge should have no bearing on any of these character attributes. However, what I find myself reading is how influential modern science is on peoples worldview. People look to legal wrangling and scientific studies rather than moral absolutes to take positions on watershed issues.
One of the things I love about George W. Bush is his commitment to making decisions based on principles, rather than the latest intellectual focus groups conclusions, like Clinton did. It seems the scientific establishment has chosen to travel down the Clintonian elitism path.
A logical conclusion of a worldview based on belief in evolution is that we (humans) are a product of pure chance. Killing, via survival of the fittest is a way an organism can improve it's environmental security. Death of disabled, elderly organisms contributes to the survival of the organism by increasing the amount of shelter, food and water.
The result of removing the Creator reduces mankind to the animals that evolution dictates that we are. The Biblical model - which enhances the character and joy that life has for free-will creative agents with high intellectual capacities, differing from animals - presents an entirely different perspective on reality. God gave us dominion over the animals, so that they could serve us.
Science becomes a gift of discovery that no other creatures can indulge in. Relating ideas to one another perfectly lines up with a trinitarian Creator who within the Godhead models the most important aspect of our purpose. Valuable relationships that bring deeper meaning to our existence.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ to be a perfect model of how He wishes us to relate to one another. Most importantly, Jesus died on the cross to provide eternal life for us to live out our full potential with Him in eternity. we are only scratching the surface in this life. Quantum physics has opened an entirely new reality to modern scientists, that was revealed all along in the Bible thousands of years ago.
Our Founders found the Bible to be the reservoir of unchanging principles that a society can most effectively function with. Eliminating God and the Bible casts the forming of principles back to man via legal reasoning, and science. based on what I have postulated, we can see how mans reason will always fail because of our inability to know the cause and effect of everything. God has proven His principles are based on a supernatural understanding of cause and effect from an eternal perspective.
Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name [is] Holy;
Isa 43:10 Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
No, we're not. Evolution is not a process of pure chance. We evolved because our ancestors survived and propagated themselves. And that process was not entirely devoid of attributes we might call 'good'. In most but certainly not all cases, qualities that lead to our survival are good qualities. We do seem to have evolved as primarily monogamous creatures; as creatures that value truth-telling and have an innate sense of fairness; that display reciprocal altruism; that are innately repulsed by incest and the unclean. That's not to say that those things are wrong because we have a natural dislike of them, but it does mean that evolution isn't necessarily a force for brutal, amoral competition.
We shouldn't form a system of ethics based on any natural law, be it evolution, gravity, or the second law of thermodynamics. How the world behaves, and how we should behave, are entirely different issues. But science, to the extent that it lets us understand ourselves, does have a bearing on what it means to be a good father, spouse, citizen, etc.. In most cases, in fact, science reinforces what traditional morality preaches. Traditional morality preaches the integrity of the family; science tells us that biological fathers have far more invested in the well-being of their children than the casual lover who happens to be currently impregnating the mother. Traditional morality says we shouldn't have sex with close relatives; science tells us that leads to genetic defects. Even the arcane dietary rules of Leviticus seem to have had quite a bit of hygienic practical sense.
So I wouldn't say science has no answers. It has a part of the answers; and the rest of the answers shouldn't ignore science.