What are the fruits of scientific atheism when applied to human behavior and governance?

Auschwitz. Gulag. The Laogai. Reeducation camps. Babi Yar. Dachau. Srebrenica. The Cultural Revolution.

The list of science Nobel Prize winners advocating extermination of Jews? Nada.

The list of science Nobel Prize winners glorifying the Gulag? Nada.

And so it goes. There is just absolutely nothing to back up this blood libel on science. What has happened is that guys like Marx asserted that their claptrap was science. Marxtion Science is like Creation Science and Christian Science and Scientology: these guys all want the name of science attached to their belief system because if it’s science, it’s empirically grounded. Which it isn’t.

Then when these belief systems lead their believers into error and sin, who gets the blame? Not Marx, not LRon, not Hitler or Stalin or Mao [scientists? Hah!]…no. It’s all the fault of Louis de Broglie. Or Marie Curie, or Charles Darwin, or Arno Penzias.

Science, unfortunately, does not include a code of ethics that would apply to life in general. It can’t, and still be science. There are good codes out there, embedded in Bible and Torah/Talmud and Buddhist writings. If you could strip out the bloodier-minded parts of the Quran, or write them off as historical edicts, meant for only one time and place, maybe even what would remain of that book.

There may be others; I’m no scholar of religion. Thanks, Christians and other believers, those who uphold and defend the ethical core. Science has little to contribute on that front. The best we can do is to carefully avoid setting bad examples.

No thanks to the Discovery Institute and its crowd of huckster theologians. You-all set very bad examples. How can it possibly work, to try craft and cunning and lies to advance the good? Won’t that tactic always fail? Who is the champion and patron “saint” of lies?