Science - pure science - is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral. It has no concept of right, wrong, good, or evil. It just observes physical phenomena, predicts and tests its behavior to measured conditions, and studies the results. On the other hand, scientists (and the scientific community which they make up) are human, and subject to the same motivations and biases as the rest of us. It would be just as disingenuous to claim that science could never be abused as a tool for selfish and dangerous reasons as it would to claim the same of religion.
You mention global warming and cloning as examples to make your point. As such, I'll also use them to make mine:
Scientifically speaking, there is little doubt that the Earth's climate is entering into a period of elevating temperature. While the duration, amount of increase, and rate of change are legitimately being challenged and debated, the underlying actuality that it is happening is pretty much indisputable. Where the real controversy lies is in measuring (and reversing) the contribution to global warming by human actions. At that point it tends to cease being 'pure' science and becomes a political entity that is no more 'above all' than the people that are using it to further their own agendas.
And as for cloning - it is not science that chooses to pursue it or not. It is individuals with their own ethical standards, with the encouragement (and limitations) of the public will. Science itself does not judge the benefits, nor does it weigh the ethical consequences of this pursuit. Frankly, it doesn't care. There are new phenomena to be observed, new results to study, new data to learn. Whether the result of cloning research is exploited, or if it is even pursued at all for that matter, is a question that is wholly external to the science itself.
No 'high ground'. No 'riding shepherd'. Science simply does.
They use government to collect their tithes that maintains their apparent stature of fittest to survive. They believe they are 'gods'. That other religion spoken of in Genesis, 'you know' the god of knowledge.
Many entities seek government sponsorship, bluntly because it has the deepest pockets around. However, in some cases it is not automatically a bad thing. There can be gains made on both sides of the purse - the grant recipients get resources that make possible avenues of development they could never dream of otherwise. And hopefully the public that gave the money through their government will reap the rewards of a better quality of life, advancements in their production ability (and thus their ability to create wealth themselves), and an increasing understanding of the world around them and how it can be used, preserved, and improved for their overall benefit.
Of course this system can be exploited and abused by scientists as easily as by any other charlatan, regardless of their cover story.
Oh, and if I were of a cynical mind, I might interpret your reference to knowledge being a false god as an attempt to defend a position that can only be preserved by keeping the masses immersed in ignorance. It suggests that any wielder of religious power that advances the idea that knowledge is evil fears that the more their subjects learn, the harder it will be to convince them that they are the sole holders of all God's truths. But that's just if I were to apply a cynical filter to your comment.
My Webster's New Collegiate dictionary, 1973 science (n)[ME, fr. MF, fr. L scientia, fr. scient-,sciens having knowledge, fr. prp. of scire to know; akin to L scindere to cut --- more at SHED] 1 a : possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding b : knowledge attained through study or practice 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b :something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like *systematized knowledge* c : one of the natural sciences 3 a : knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomens: NATURAL SCIENCE 4 : a system or method based or purporting to be based on scientific principles 5 cap: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
So I think the designers that design the systematize knowledge are very much under the microscope of good and evil. Back to that Genesis knower, he knew very much of the knowledge of good and evil, and the result of that 'garden party' left two in human flesh with the knowledge that they were without clothing and thus they sewed fig leaves together to cover their nakedness. No the event did not occur (no matter what the religionists claim) in an apple orchard, but a fig grove.
What does that really mean? Is rape amoral, moral, or immoral according to “Darwinian” science?
A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion
Is this textbook statement amoral, moral, or immoral according to “Darwinian” science?
Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history and society and Freud's attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism…
---Douglas Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology (1998, 3rd Ed., Sinauer Associates), p. 5
Is “Darwinian science” - ‘pure science’ or can you name another branch of science taking a position on human morality that doesn‘t involve evolution?