In a better understanding of current science breakthroughs and truth, I do my best to read quite a bit about the subject. I have noticed a real split in the scientific community beyond creation vs evolution and various evidences of our origin. With presuppositions firmly in place it appeared the scientific community is divided to interpret the data. If a scientist believes in a Creator then the likelihood of interpreting the data properly.* If the scientist doesn't believe in a Creator then they have to shove the data into an abstract box consistent to evolution. *noted, my bias to this subject. I just heard of a label for, off the deep end, science that was intriguing. Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges coined it the 'cult of science' in an interview.
Hedges said in an interview at salon.com "You know, there is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere. Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history. So, there's nothing intrinsically moral about science. Science is morally neutral. It serves the good and the bad. I mean, industrial killing is a product of technological advance, just as is penicillin and modern medicine. So I think that I find the faith that these people (new atheists) place in science and reason as a route toward human salvation to be as delusional as the faith the Christian right places in miracles and angels."
Mr. Hedges is a Christian and was critical towards radical Christian fundamentalism in his previous book American Fascists. I haven't read that book yet, I would guess that Hedges might of been properly linking 'radicals' with false converts who follow the Bush doctrine of the neoconservative (Neocon) movement. Vastly different then the atheists link the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) to Christianity. Admittedly, I agree when he writes that "Christian radicals" (I would call them 'false converts') are often so consumed with power and wealth they are no longer practicing Christianity in its traditional sense, as a religion focused on compassion and caring for the downtrodden."
Hedges later added in the interview "That's what leads Hitler to try and breed humans and apes to try to create an oversized warrior or to send expeditions to Tibet to find a pure, Aryan race. I mean, that's not science. It's the cult of science, and I think the New Atheists also make that leap from science into the cult of science, and that's a problem."
I do like this man as we share many of the same points of view, he shoots it straight and I love that in someone. His comments sure has sparked my curiosity enough to read his new book "I Don't Believe in Atheists". I will have to wait to see Hedges' points. Science is morally neutral as he states, I might add that science is also objective. But people are subjective and scientists are people. So by proxy, science may be subjective. I would also conclude that science may be morally neutral, but if people are either Christian or evil then one could conclude by proxy, Science, as a community, can be both for the better of mankind and evil. It all depends on their perspective to God. So I agree Hedges, we cannot place our faith in science and reason as a route toward human salvation, but we must place our faith in God for our Salvation. I anticipate your book arrival Mr. Hedges, thanks.