RE: [20 years in the electric chair]
I assume the failure rate of dna testing is miniscule, when accurate samples are gathered. But what if the reverse were true. What if someone was set free if they couldn't be proven guilty by DNA? Do we want science to determine a persons fate without the a jury? Its really a tough problem in my mind. Man is fallible, and yet man has to determine the truth of the charged. On the other hand, at any point in time, the accuracy of science is limited by man's current understanding of it. And certainly man is involved in collecting the DNA, and processing the results.
Ultimately, it is my faith in God's sovereign justice that allows me to sleep at night. Whether it be science, a jury, or a freak accident, belief in a good God is the only thing that gives me peace. I don't know what I would do without that. I guess I would trust in science.
Comments
Let us understand science.
When scientists are honest, they are simply observing what God has put into place: therefore, all failures in science are man's failures. The opposite would be like getting a good review for a bad movie. It was the observer who is incorrect.
As far as DNA is concerned, it is always accurate. When a sample is contaminated, the reading is confusing. It can easily be written off as faulty. The only time DNA is unreliable is when the wrong person's DNA is somehow mixed with that of the guilty.
Well said
That is the link which I wanted to establish. That at any point in time man's understanding of excellent design (creation) varies based on what is understood and published as science. That variance in understanding does not change reality.
jamesj- JID: hystrix@jabber.g4g.org