The limits of science

Over in the topic "The Science of Evolution (no politics or religion)" they want to discuss pure science. It was suggested those of us who want to discuss the underlying philosophy of life take our discussion elsewhere. So over here I'd like to discuss the limits of science. Often people talk as if progress in science has somehow proven a purely materialistc view of the world. It, in fact, has not. The deeper questions of metaphysics and all that exists are philosophical in nature. Science explores the material world. It has nothing to say about what does or doesn't exist outside of the material world.

the science of evolution is a religition that is proven false. its worse than islam im (im not a muslim)

It is actually just a theory but when people use it to defend materialism it becomes dogma and has nothing to do with science.

Where did the metaphysics have to be started at ?

I think that what 'proves evolution' is not the fossils and stuff but the lack of concrete evidence for the contrary that god exists.

I have witnessed the wormhole existence.It was correspond to religion claim of miracles.

Evolution seems to be prevail on every living forms.

 To re-phrase an old quote; science pertains to temporal matters, whereas wisdom pertains to eternal matters.

Better understand words like science before dropping such childish statements, only showing your missing knowledge.

The same to the topic-title, the limits of science. The limits are shifting more and more, exceeding the thought limits. There are limits to the current state of knowledge as one can see when kids try to talk about science here.

So are you suggesting that science is not limited to the material world?  Although the world at the quantum level appears very different from the world we inhabit at the macro level, the quantum world is still material.

As I see it, science suffers from two major limitations: (1) It (supposedly) refuses to look at evidence that is non-reproducible; (2) It has its own culture and bias, but any bias is contrary to the scientific method.

As examples of the hypocrisy of (1): science won't investigate miracles, ghosts, UFOs, etc. supposedly because those are not reproducible but it will investigate a supposed meteorite crash or gorilla cannibalism even though those are not reproducible either. As examples of the hypocrisy of (2): science was hostile to the claims of meteorites, chaos theory, plate tectonics, and rogue waves, but later such phenomena were shown to really exist. 

I suggest nothing. Easy to see that science is not limited to the material world. Even 2000 years ago people could think on an abstract level, drawing conclusions from it.

It deals with atoms and subatomic levels, their fields and alike. But it's way more. And going further to the M-Theory it's almost entirely theoretical and the thought of matter is almost vaporized.

i'm going to give you bad news but that is not the case. 

god is Santa for adults it's just that there's no-one to tell them that he's been made up.

On what basis does "Everyone know there is no God"? 

  You cannot know for a certainty that something does not exist, but of course it is possible to know for a certainty that something does exist.  That fact will always haunt the atheists and never let them rest easy in their conviction because they know that it is impossible for them to "know there is no God."

 That is the bane of an atheist's existence, never being sure and not having any lasting purpose in life.

If there is a world outside of material world, then science will attempt to find it and study it. There is no limitation here: so far only the material world has been well documented and observed, and, as far as the current evidence goes, there is no other worlds.

I'd say limitations of science lay in the domain of things not following the cause-effect pattern. Again, it is not clear whether such things exist at all, or if they exist, whether they have any influence on our Universe. But if they do, then studying them would fundamentally contradict scientific method, as the whole idea of testable predictions won't make much sense there. Perhaps we will need to employ a completely different method to study them, maybe even build a new logic incompatible with modern mathematics.