The implications of Evolution

Your statement is a gross over simplification. For example, in the case of the Manhattan project, it is true that politicians made the decision to pursue bomb research. However, that decision was in part prompted via the urging of famous scientists like Einstein, Leo Sziard and Eugene Wigner. The Manhattan project itself involved basic research, applied science, and engineering and it at least some cases that involved scientists doing engineering work and engineers doing scientific research. If we are going to force our definitions and call such folks, scientists, politicians, and technicians/engineers depending on whether they are currently holding a clipboard, test tube, screw driver, or fountain pen, then perhaps our distinction is meaningless.AndrewPD gave three possibilities, that science has implications or that science is done with goals and unspoken metaphysical or philosophical frameworks in mind. And he did not even say that all science fit into those alternatives. He said "a lot of science"Often science does have implications and in some cases we can point to scientist being aware of and acting on those implications. Sometimes science is done with goals. Surely breast cancer research has a goal. So his statement is trivially true even if his "unspoken" accusations are never true. However, tacking on hidden agenda conspiracy nonsense as alternatives while not making such statements false, is total BS unless Drew intends to back up his assertion with some proof that evolution falls into one of those alternatives.