There's no such thing as 'science on its own'. Science as we know it was born out of, and set in motion upon, a particular philosophical/religious foundation of premises, which it inherently (and now implicitly (thanks to centuries of conditioning) ) presupposes, contra other specific foundations. From that fact follows a quadruplet of other premises; 1) without said foundation, science ceases to be science, 2) When science is being fulfilled, when it is being useful, when it is solving what it is otherwise originally set to solve and offer, it is simply being true to its foundation and purpose. 3) a scientist can successfully practice his science in its narrow scope and still be ignorant/denier of science in its wider scope (i.e. of its foundation and original purpose), this is "not practicing science to its full extent". 4) If some scientist's specialized scientific work aligns with science's wider scope but only to some extent, e.g. successfully finding a cure to a particular disease, or to a full extent e.g. with the intention of ultimately offering it universally, then automatically, this scientist, sha2a am aba, is either partially or fully fulfilling the aforementioned religiously assigned role, no matter how much he may scream or yell in denial.Thank you!!!! people don't understand that science on its own is worth NOTHING.. it is useless and never solves anything.. it is science supported by thoughts and prayers that actually finds solutions to world problems.
ARE YOU SERIOUS NOW??? so 3am betrabbi7 el scientists jmile enno they wouldn't have existed without religious institutions?? or you mean they should thank you for keeping them alive and not burning them on a stick for heresy!
Also, no scientist was burned or killed for their science by the Church. You're just parroting and propagating a 19th century baseless myth that's long been abandoned.