I don't see as much downside in scientific critical thinking as you do apparently. I don't blame modern wars on such thinking. There were enough attrocities from both sides during the European wars of religion. Then again, this period of 16th and 17th century history could be argued to be the result of people questioning authority and questioning what they'd been taught. However, I think we are all the freer as a result of the efforts and moral courage of those who thought for themselves.
Ah, it has been a long, long time since I struggled through Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, etc. You seem to be arguing like Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, "Oh, ages are yet to come of the confusion of free thought, of their science and cannibalism. For having begun to build their tower of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with cannibalism. But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter them with tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and raise the cup, and on it will be written, "Mystery." But then, and only then, the reign of peace and happiness will come for men."
I started out with a criticism of Crichton's reasoning and pointed out his error. The error is called dicto simpliciter and yes, we are the better for faulting his resort to fallacious propaganda. It's too bad, because I think the criticism of the hubristic environmentalist is warranted.
But on a deeper level concerning the value of critical thinking across the board, we should begin to recognize that both extremes, dogmatism and mysticism, are not a special prejudice of some past age. Nor is our present dispostion to technology or political procedure exempt from either extremes.