Wandering through the bookstore the other day, looking for a good history of Western thought, I came across an interesting title: The Republican War on Science, by Chris Mooney.

Now, I do not blame scientists for siding with Mooney because in all honesty, he is right to say that scientists and Republicans are often in opposition. Mooney is also correct when he says this occurs because of the strength of the religious right in the Republican Party. But I really do not think that the battles between science and Republicans are as much about God and whether or not he exists as is suggested ­— at least on the scientists’ side.

While many Republicans may have been baited into thinking there is a battle over whether or not God exists, the scientists know that question is more for philosophers; the real battle is over ethics. If God exists, it only matters whether he is partial or impartial to humanity’s actions. An impartial God gives no ethics and no idea of right and wrong. The extent to which we have an ongoing debate over God’s existence only exists because most Americans believe that God is not impartial to humanity’s actions, if he does exist.

Although God might supply us with ethics, the scientific method cannot. Looking at the structure of stars and the stages of evolution tells us nothing about right and wrong. The scientific method cannot tell us to preserve a forest for its own sake; it can only suggest it might be in the best interest of the human species to watch how it manages the Earth’s resources (though it cannot even tell us if the human race should persist).

Science can tell us wonders about the human body and how it works, but it cannot tell us that it is wrong to cut open human beings and bleed them to death just to get a better insight into how arteries function. There is no love or justice to be found in science.

This has been known for a long time and has been cause for despair for many atheists, Friedrich Nietzsche foremost among them. He realized that science cannot condemn; it can only observe, and because of that, he predicted that the 20th century would be horrifically bloody, which it was.

Assuming scientists are as opportunistic as any other group in the human race, they will ingratiate themselves with anyone that gives them power to pursue their own ends. Ethics inhibit science. It is wrong to kill for research, it is wrong to grab a man off the street and slice him up to satisfy curiosity, and it is wrong to cannibalize children born and unborn for genetic factors and body parts. Look at the Soviet Union. It is undeniable that it possessed much scientific talent, and it may even have been home to better science than the United States. But the Soviet Union also had some undeniably evil leaders that facilitated the murder of millions.

Science is a tool. In and of itself, it is not evil, just as any other tool is not inherently evil. The use of the tool is what matters. A shovel can be used to dig a ditch, but it can also be used to kill a man. A tool makes no judgment of right and wrong, but men do. Liberating science from ethics can only lead to despair. It will first take away humanity’s soul and ultimately, human life itself.

I have no doubt that this point of view will enrage many of you. I am sure you will disagree with my implied statement that the destruction of human fetuses to combat disease is wicked and cruel. You might say that my views on placing certain ethical restrictions on science will only further human suffering. But ask yourselves, what does science say of suffering?

Reach columnist Thomas Cloud at opinion@dailyuw.com.