What exactly does science mean? Now it is under the supposed science realm that global warming has been conceived, and further science also heads the minds of the concept of cloning. The scientific community seeks to give the appearance of riding shepherd over the high ground, above all. The scientific community demands, and requires control with their system of educating the very young to wall out the Heavenly Father from their high estates, called public schools.
They use government to collect their tithes that maintains their apparent stature of fittest to survive. They believe they are 'gods'. That other religion spoken of in Genesis, 'you know' the god of knowledge.
Science - pure science - is neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral. It has no concept of right, wrong, good, or evil. It just observes physical phenomena, predicts and tests its behavior to measured conditions, and studies the results. On the other hand, scientists (and the scientific community which they make up) are human, and subject to the same motivations and biases as the rest of us. It would be just as disingenuous to claim that science could never be abused as a tool for selfish and dangerous reasons as it would to claim the same of religion.
You mention global warming and cloning as examples to make your point. As such, I'll also use them to make mine:
Scientifically speaking, there is little doubt that the Earth's climate is entering into a period of elevating temperature. While the duration, amount of increase, and rate of change are legitimately being challenged and debated, the underlying actuality that it is happening is pretty much indisputable. Where the real controversy lies is in measuring (and reversing) the contribution to global warming by human actions. At that point it tends to cease being 'pure' science and becomes a political entity that is no more 'above all' than the people that are using it to further their own agendas.
And as for cloning - it is not science that chooses to pursue it or not. It is individuals with their own ethical standards, with the encouragement (and limitations) of the public will. Science itself does not judge the benefits, nor does it weigh the ethical consequences of this pursuit. Frankly, it doesn't care. There are new phenomena to be observed, new results to study, new data to learn. Whether the result of cloning research is exploited, or if it is even pursued at all for that matter, is a question that is wholly external to the science itself.
No 'high ground'. No 'riding shepherd'. Science simply does.
They use government to collect their tithes that maintains their apparent stature of fittest to survive. They believe they are 'gods'. That other religion spoken of in Genesis, 'you know' the god of knowledge.
Many entities seek government sponsorship, bluntly because it has the deepest pockets around. However, in some cases it is not automatically a bad thing. There can be gains made on both sides of the purse - the grant recipients get resources that make possible avenues of development they could never dream of otherwise. And hopefully the public that gave the money through their government will reap the rewards of a better quality of life, advancements in their production ability (and thus their ability to create wealth themselves), and an increasing understanding of the world around them and how it can be used, preserved, and improved for their overall benefit.
Of course this system can be exploited and abused by scientists as easily as by any other charlatan, regardless of their cover story.
Oh, and if I were of a cynical mind, I might interpret your reference to knowledge being a false god as an attempt to defend a position that can only be preserved by keeping the masses immersed in ignorance. It suggests that any wielder of religious power that advances the idea that knowledge is evil fears that the more their subjects learn, the harder it will be to convince them that they are the sole holders of all God's truths. But that's just if I were to apply a cynical filter to your comment.