Science can't answer questions about value.

For example, there is no scientific answer to the

questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk
cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce
of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need
is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way
to scientifically determine value.
Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and
wrong, is outside the determination of science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never
help us solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus
develops; the question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate those events is determined by
cultural and social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.
Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from consideration of the moral issues
surrounding what they do. Like all humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what
they do.

Science cannot explain anything about art. Almost all scientific establishments have acknowledged
this, as well as any artists who have had their artwork critiqued unfairly. What makes art such an
untouchable topic for scientists is the myriad of strange and foreign concepts that are easily
understood by everyone but scientists.

For example, color is something that is obvious to even a small child. However, scientists cannot give
a solid definition of what color actuallyis. The literal mindset that science demands completely
obscures simple concepts like color and requires concrete and redundant explanations. When
presented with the question "what is color?" most scientists will be unable to answer.

The realm of the divine is expressly forbidden for science. The best evidence for this is the invisible
force field that prevents any scientist from entering a place of worship. Because they cannot enter
churches, mosques, or temples, scientists have no way to study God. Therefore, their opinion on the
subject is not to be trusted, as all scientists are, as a rule, atheists.

One of the interesting (yet unexplainable) phenomena that occurs when science and religion
mixes is observed when one quotes holy scriptures within earshot of a scientist. The most
striking observable effect is the physical melting sensation a scientist feels, as his flesh is
stripped from bone.

Scientists have tried to study this in depth to explain why this happens but have been unable to do so,
due to both the test subject and the examiner melting simultaneously whenever a repeatable
experiment is organized. As a result, mostEuropean countries have passed laws banning the
recitation of scripture in the vicinity of reasonable people.

Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge

Although scientists often care deeply about how their discoveries are used, science itself doesn't indicate what should
be done with scientific knowledge. Science, for example, can tell you how to recombine DNA in new ways, but it
doesn't specify whether you should use that knowledge to correct a genetic disease, develop a bruise-resistant apple,
or construct a new bacterium. For almost any important scientific advance, one can imagine both positive and negative
ways that knowledge could be used. Again, science helps us describe how the world is, and then we have to decide how
to use that knowledge.