Science should limit its inquiries
Some apologists argue that science should limit its inquiries on religious grounds. This is sometimes justified by claiming that God is a sufficient explanation for phenomena.
"I found the most ready way of explaining my employment, was to ask them how it was that they themselves were not curious concerning earthquakes and volcanos? -- why some springs were hot and others cold? -- why there were mountains in Chile, and not a hill in La Plata? These bare questions at once satisfied and silenced the greater number; some, however (like a few in England who are a century behindhand), thought that all such inquiries were useless and impious; and that it was quite sufficient that God had thus made the mountains."
- "It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God. "
Book of nature
There are many writers who have held the opposite view that understanding the natural world increases the glory of God.
"for as the Psalms and other Scriptures do often invite us to consider and magnify the great and wonderful works of God, so if we should rest only in the contemplation of the exterior of them, as they first offer themselves to our senses, we should do a like injury unto the Majesty of God"
In fact, many early scientists believed that the natural world was a "book of nature" which, along side scripture, was part of God's revelation to humans. However, as natural philosophers began using experimentation and systematic investigation, serious omission and errors in both scripture and classical philosophy began to emerge.