Derb – I think you make some great points. But I also think you’re wrong. Humans started, I’m sure you’ll agree, living essentially a wild or “animal” existence. Since then, we have decided that humans have inherent worth. Killing your neighbor for his better slice of mastodon is no longer acceptable in civilized societies. Democracy has proved itself better than rule by strongmen. Kindness to strangers is a relatively new “invention” in human evolutionary history. Etc.

Science may have contributed to some of these things and science certainly helps us understand these things. But it is History and moral philosophy to which we owe most of these breakthroughs. Science offers few arguments against tyranny or the need for kindness. Indeed, we can both think of examples of champions of science arguing against democracy, working against kindness and against the idea of inherent human worth. As for art, Steven Pinker reduces music to mere “auditory cheesecake.”

Yes, recent scientific insights may help us understand why these discoveries were correct or how our genetic programming lends itself to altruism and the like (Matt Ridley’s The Origins of Virture comes to mind).

And yes, by picking 1005, you catch science at the begining of its bull market. But you still reduce the case for science to the areas where science is very good at doing what science is very good at. And I agree with you that science is going to be better at explaining combustion than, say, literature or religion. But literature and religion will do a much better job at explaining to me why I shouldn’t club a scientist over the head and steal his bunsen burner. All science can do is explain what’s going on inside my head as I bash the scientist’s head.