Fact: a piece of information presented as having objective reality 

Objective: belonging to the sensible world and being observable or verifiable especially by scientific methods

(Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary)

Science involves the gathering of facts – facts about the world, facts about what processes shape it and how exactly they work.  These facts are observable in the universe – plants do perform photosynthesis, the earth does orbit the sun, etc.  Often, science involves the interpretation of gathered facts into theories and laws.  This involves more abstract thought and divorces the scientist from the material world for a time – but once the law or theory is formulated, the “real world” must be revisited to see whether this new construct is consistent with reality.  Thus, responsible science involves explanations that can be tested objectively, or which may be tested objectively by possible technology in the future.

So it makes sense that science cannot decide morality, nor should it, morality being a subjective concept.  Scientific facts themselves are neither good nor bad, and the pursuing of science, while it may lead to a better understanding of the universe, shouldn’t be construed to give a better understanding of morality.

Unfortunately, in many cases scientific facts are used in just such a way.  “Homosexuality is wrong because the male and the female are made for each other, not male and male or female and female.”  “The parts just don’t fit.”

Or, stepping out of the gay rights debate for a minute, an oft-used argument against evolution: “If evolution is true, then we are just overly complex germs – not special creations of God.”  “Evolution dehumanizes humans and presents a world without meaning to life – we are only slightly smarter apes.”

I’m not trying to argue for or against the morality of homosexuality or the viability of evolutionary theory here.  I’m simply trying to show that debates on these topics are not advanced by taking scientific facts and putting moral weight behind them.

Homosexuality:

In evolutionary (sorry!) terms, yes, the male-female mating situation is the “intent” of nature.  It is the way in which genetic material is passed on to the next generation.  And yes, the male and female bodies were designed with complementary parts to accomplish this task.  However, these facts alone do not make a convincing argument against homosexuality.  Something being used in a less-than-ordinary fashion is not intrinsically immoral.  You can swat flies with a magazine just as well as with a flyswatter, and you’re not upsetting the moral balance of the universe.  If you’re arguing against homosexuality, delve into religion or other areas – stating the facts and putting an unnecessary moral spin on them gets you nowhere.

Evolution:

In terms of plain facts, yes, according to the theory of evolution humans are “overly complex germs.”  However, it does not follow that the world shaped by evolution is “without meaning.”  You can have outside reasons for thinking the world is with or without meaning, but they do not necessarily follow from the facts of evolution (should they indeed be facts).

And now, for a more secular group that relied on the “fact makes meaning” reasoning: the social Darwinists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  The theory of social Darwinism simply held that societies, like individual organisms, evolved according to the law of “survival of the fittest.”  Therefore the strongest societies eventually won out over the weaker. 

Proponents of social Darwinism used it to promote laissez-faire capitalism, believing that poverty was a sign of weakness in character, person, or otherwise, while wealth was a sign of fitness.  The social Darwinists would have minimized help to the poor, since they were obviously morally unfit.  (My liberal bent might be coming out here.)  Also, social Darwinism was used to maintain policies of colonialism in underdeveloped regions like Africa and parts of Asia and was seen as a justification for racism and the doctrine of white supremacy.  (Encyclopedia Britannica, “social Darwinism”)

So from the theory of societal evolution – which, by the way, was shown to be false as the twentieth century progressed – came the idea that allowing the evolution to run its course, effectively hanging the poor and the non-whites out to dry, was morally acceptable and even beneficial to the whole of society.

So there’s a danger in looking at the way something naturally is – or is most likely to be in nature – and divining from this fact a moral obligation to abide by this rule of nature.  Such reasoning should not enter into a debate, much less be its cornerstone.

A/N: For clarification and/or possible bias: I don’t find anything wrong with homosexuality and I think evolution makes sense.  I’m also in favor of welfare and I don’t hold with white supremacy.  I think that pretty much covers it :)