I did not say there was. What I asked was, let's say we have a scientific theory which happens to be true, and which also happens to have been used to condone evil. What do we do with the theory?
That'll be a good question to keep in mind should the situation ever arise. But until we have a *THEORY* that is *TRUE*, it'll just have to sit on the back burner.
Don't forget that truth is a word best avoided in science so science can't declare that something is true.
Brought to you by the folks at caltech of all places. And they should know if anyone does.
For the lurkers not following the discussion, I frequently post a definition from a CalTech physics website: Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/LiU/resource/misused_glossary.html