[Liberty Wins]

". . . why point out the amorality of science?"

Maybe TasmanianRed was merely showing us how easy it is for scientists to put their individual philosophy into their work.

The universe is not "pointless" (Steven Weinberg), Earth is not merely "a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark," (Carl Sagan) and human existence isn't "just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents" (Steven Weinberg).

On the contrary, the evidence we can uncover from our Earthly home points to a universe that is designed for life, and designed for scientific discovery.

[cornelis]

Maybe he was. But the real problem is an advantage: Dimensio says, "The theory of evolution has no inherent political bias." In his view, the fact is evolution. Since evolution is science, voila! ergo-propter-hoc, evolution is without bias or prejudice. And you know, Dimensio is right, as much as Wolf Blitzer was right in his apology for CNN terrorist tapes: "Just the facts ma'am."

But facts are advantageous to a party in cooperation with supressed information. When a kind of scientific thinking is raised so high (no doubt for its amorality, nonmorality, content neutrality, etc.) then it becomes exclusive. It will turn a blind eye to all else. Religious dogmatists are not exempt.

What we end up with is an old office joke:

Rule #1 A cause is what we say it is?
Rule #2 If another cause is found, see rule number one.

[TASMANIANRED]

I don't know how I managed to lose this thread last night.

Science in terms of knowledge is an out growth of religion...There was the belief that a good and rational God created a good and rational world that we could understand.

Somewhere when God was expelled from science then science itself became perverse.

Thank you Charles Darwin.

Without God then every human life is only as valuable as an animal life.

Human lives are fungible..it became possible to view certain lives as expendable in the name of research...certain lives are expendable in the name of the greater good, other lives are expendable as donor organ suppliers..

Without the recognition that each human life is of valuable in an of itself we are reduced to a Darwinist survival of the fittest...

If man were moral, science would be moral...as it used to be...

It is no longer and science in a Godless world is amoral.