The conflict between science and religion (particularly Christianity) is centuries old. It probably preceded Galileo though Galileo is the portrait scientists hold up when any Christian dares to question the work of a scientist. Both the debate over embryo-destroying stem cell research and intelligent design are the latest battles in this ages old war.

Scientists have a deep-seated fear of Christianity. Not only do they ceaselessly try to “remind” us that Christianity is the cause of most if not all of history’s bloodshed, but the actively try to ban it from the one realm where they rule… the academy. FIRE has story after story of the suppression of free expression on campus.

The University of Illinois in Champaign, for example, allows students to host talks to persuade people to be pro-choice, Democrat, Republican, objectivist, and a variety of other conceivable notions. The one thing the University does not allow is for hosted talks to be “evangelical in nature” or to proselytize. You can try to convince anyone of anything with your “free speech” until you try to convince them to be religious. Practice has shown that this campus generally only applies the rule when Christianity is the religion in question (or at least some serious version of it).

Scientists, for their part, refuse to entertain moral questions of their research because they oppose any religious interference in science. The problem with this dynamic is that scientists are not in the best position to determine broad societal principles which would impact what research gets funded, allowed, or used.

The general trend in the academy is to have highly-trained and highly-specialized experts. There is nothing wrong with this class of person, society needs them. However, society also needs broad-minded scholars who can understand and apply several disciplines and bring them to bear for problems. This person is not accepted in the academy.

The question of stem cell research involves more than simply microbiology. What is most important to fund in a society of limited resources is an economic question, not a scientific one. What is “right” or “just” for a society to allow is a legal and philosophical (or moral) question, not a scientific one. Scientists say this research must be allowed because the ends could justify the means. These questions cannot be allowed to rest solely with scientists because the issues involved go far beyond science. While some scientists will proclaim that they know better in these areas too… as Will Rogers says, “There is nothing so stupid as the educated man if you get him off the thing he was educated in.”

To be outright reactionary, the “scientific” mind when freed of religion or any questions of morality has produced some of the greatest horrors of the 20th century: human experimentation, social Darwinism, racism, eugenics, and so on.

While one can make a historical argument that religion has over-stepped its bounds over the scientific community has returned the favor by doing some over-stepping of its own. Science is not and cannot be the end-all-be-all of human nature, human experience, or human meaning.

John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for Blogcritics and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a columnist for the Daily Illini and blogs at Part-Time Pundit deep from the corn fields of Illinois. He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.