In that science is no more or less "logical" or "rational" than spiritual faith. Since science cannot "prove" just as faith cannot "prove" with absolute certainty that something is or is not what one posits.
But back to the article. I agree that "faith" (as in spiritual faith) has been twisted for the purpose of doing great harm. As only one example, "science" has been twisted by some to posit that a fetus is not a human being worth protecting from harm. Even though rationally, science cannot prove what is or is not a human being, many people who place their faith in "science" use what is currently known about sentience to justify non-protection of a human-like entity. Science can neither prove or disprove what is a human being, but people who put their faith in scientific "facts" can and do pretend to prove just such things.
This is only one example of how "science" can be used, just as religion or spiritual faith can be used, to justify a moral position. Neither is a rational evidence-based argument for making moral determinations, yet both are used all the time for just such purposes. Therefore both the spiritual/religious and the scientific/observation person are going on pure "faith" that their arguments are sound.
Now, if "science" were devoid of human participation, and therefore pure, I would agree that science could not do ill. But the same would be true of philosophy and God (assuming he exists). Toss in humans to any belief system and presto! you have a exponentially increased the probability for both innocent logical error and willful evil.
Does this mean you are not sure if there is science or not, or does this mean you are not certain that the conclusions of science are correct. Cetainly you do not mean science itself is only imagined or a fiction.
When a scientist says that water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen in the proportion of two atoms of hydrogen for every atom of oxygen, he didn't come to that conclusion by some, "inner revelation," or reading it in some book that claims authority for what it says. He bases his conclusion on experiments which he can repeat, such as electrolysis, by which water molecules can be separated into their component parts, i.e. hydrogen and oxygen. Such an experiment is what is called "evidence," and the explanation of what is observed in the experiment is called "reason." Please give me an example of the same kind of evidence and reason in religion.
In fact, any scientist will tell you that "science" cannot prove, it can only disprove.
I know of no scientist that says "science cannot prove." No doubt there are people who call themselves scientists who say anything, but no one who truly understands science would say such a thing.
Hereare two articles from The Autonomist:
If They Believe That - Science is a critique of science and its corruption by superstition. The first part discusses the nature of science itself.
Proof discusses the nature of proof, which has been repudiated by the anti-intellecutal post-modernist movements of our day.
In most cases, scientific proof is so thoroughly convincing and its evidence ubiquitous, most people are unaware that proof was ever required. For example, up to two years after it had been proven, so-called intellectuals and scientists were publishing papers in serious journals showing that heavier than air flight was impossible, and even if it were possible, it could not be proved. This was while the wright brother were going around the country flying in heavier than air machines.
Or maybe you think heavier than air flight is just an illusion and has not yet been proven.
... "science" can be used, just as religion or spiritual faith can be used, to justify a moral position.
While someone may attempt to use what they call science to promote some particular ethical view, science is ammoral. It is the study of the nature of things as they are and has nothing to say (or ought not) about how that knowledge is to be used.
This does not mean that science is morally irrelavent. It is quite relevant in all cases where the truth or facts depend on scientific evidence, such as using DNA evidence to prove or disprove that a particular individual is involved in a crime. Of course if, as you and the post-modernists believe, science can prove nothing, such evidence should not be allowed.
Sceince is only a tool for discovering the truth about one aspect of reality, namely, physical existence. As such it is incapable of doing either good or evil. The application of the discoveries of science is technology, and many people confuse technology with science. Certainly technology can be used for good or evil, and modern war includes many examples of its evil application.
Hank