Science is not a substitute for morality, the two go hand in hand. The Left however invokes a powerful ploy to attempt to redefine their various preexisting perspectives on morality as being “Science”: they take questions of morality, cast them into questions of science (injecting their own moral bias in the process), and select those studies which answer those questions in ways which affirm their existing moral biases. They therefore always end up feeling they are on the side of “The Science”, while ignoring (willfully or not) that they have selected from the beginning that very science which was on their side.
This isn’t the place to keep going on the topic, but feel free to reach out “my username at outlook dot com” if you’d like to discuss further.
I agree. Science is not Morality. (see atom bomb).
But also, morality shouldn't over-rule science. If there is a hypothesis, and it can be tested, so you know what is true, then a religious belief shouldn't make you ignore it. The 'right' these days is anti-science to the extent that they are rejecting things that can be tested and shown to be true. Rejecting things that can be proven.
Agree, probably enough on this thread.
Later, bye, best of luck.
Probably wont e-mail, because I'm paranoid about anonymity.
This isn’t the place to keep going on the topic, but feel free to reach out “my username at outlook dot com” if you’d like to discuss further.