[cornelis]

I understand the safe verson of using "amoral." But there's a lot of mileage got from that. Recently Lynne Cheney pressed Wolf Blitzer on the terrorist tapes CNN has showed. His response? Just the facts, ma'am. "This is reporting the news. Which is what we do, we are not partisan."

Some of us are wisening up here. The facts are a liars best defense. Not to get up in a snit, but why point out the amorality of science? Is it an excuse? To me it sounds like license.

[Liberty Wins]

". . . why point out the amorality of science?"

Maybe TasmanianRed was merely showing us how easy it is for scientists to put their individual philosophy into their work.

The universe is not "pointless" (Steven Weinberg), Earth is not merely "a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark," (Carl Sagan) and human existence isn't "just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents" (Steven Weinberg).

On the contrary, the evidence we can uncover from our Earthly home points to a universe that is designed for life, and designed for scientific discovery.