I agree with your main point here, and I believe an overwhelming number of scientists would as well: that is, while science does not by itself have a 'moral' dimension, how we apply the knowledge revealed by science most assuredly is a profoundly moral issue. No one is absolved from basic human moral responsibility in the name of pursuing science; the Nazi 'doctors' who performed 'experiments' on inmates in the concentration camps abdicated their basic human moral responsibility and were butchers and murderers, not scientists.
Fortunately, in our Western societies, the application of scientific knowledge is not determined by scientists in isolation but is open for debate in the public domain and--if necessary--subject to legislation enacted by our elected representatives. Granted, this is an imperfect and often fractious system, but superior, in my view, to any proposed alternative.
And it is my view that one of the most dangerous 'alternatives' to the above is in fact the proposal of the Creationists, which seems to state that science must only reveal knowledge that is consistent with a particularly narrow and sectarian definition of religious truth. It is an attempt to 'control' science by crippling knowledge and undermining basic and rational empirical methods. And--in the case of a small number of individuals, I do believe it can be demonstrated that this is part of a theocratic agenda, as much at odds with our Constitution as it is with basic science.
Summary of my point: your concerns about the use of, say, cloning technology, are widely shared (not least of all by me), these concerns are indeed moral ones, but it is both foolish and dangerous to believe we can protect ourselves from the consequences of knowledge by either not pursuing knowledge or (worse) to pollute our own well-established methodology for the pursuit of that knowledge
Cordially
I suppose for convinced atheists any mention of God by government creates a theocracy. Most people probably don't see things in such a stark light. Mention of God doesn't necessarily imply a particular sectarian view of that God or mean that belief in God is compulsory.
I'm not saying that I'd personally want to see legislation about the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent Design. I'm not crazy about adding new laws, and generally prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. But the alarmism of some secularists -- the idea that there's something wrong or unamerican about things that are very much in the American grain -- makes it hard for me to agree with them.
Those who sound the "science is under attack" alarm without an admission to their opponents that technology itself can have dire consequences when it's not guided by humane and moral values that give me the creeps. Perhaps those who give a more balanced view will win converts to their view.