Here's another attempt to illustrate that science can neither be good or evil or require or deny the existence of a god. Feel free to contribute your own examples, but only if you actually have at least a layman's grasp of the scientific method. Below is an example how someone might incidentally use the scientific method without knowing, while performing a mundane task. All science is based on the scientific method.
While fixing a cup of coffee:
Make an observation -
You get some coffee from the machine in the cafeteria, set an empty cup under the nozzle and press the button to dispense it. You see the cup before you.
Ask a question -
Is the coffee too hot to drink at the moment?
Form a hypothesis -
From your previous experiences with coffee, your hypothesis is that the coffee is likely to be hot, as is the nature of most coffee. Since it was recently poured, and not sitting out, you suppose the coffee may be too hot to drink. Your hypothesis is the coffee is too hot to drink.
Conduct an experiment -
You move your hand gradually closer to the cup to get an idea of the warmth. Very hot coffee should make the paper cup warm. If the cup is not very warm at all, then the coffee would likely be ready to drink.
Analyze the data -
Upon conducting your experiment, you notice the cup is not quite as warm as it normally is, thus the coffee is not as hot as it normally is. The coffee is most likely already ready to drink.
Conclusion -
You may drink the coffee without getting burned.
In this example, the hypothesis was incorrect, and it could be said that there may be a second experiment involved (sipping the cup) to help support the "Theory of the Temperature of the Coffee". This also illustrates that even if you approach science with a preconceived notion, you still eventually arrive at a factual conclusion.
This is in contrast to indoctrination, which starts with the conclusion, and attempts to stubbornly support it with apologetics. Had this been an example of indoctrination and apologetics as I understand them, it could have gone like this:
Pre-loaded data, assumed to be thoroughly analyzed: I read a book that says coffee is always hot, translated from a deprecated/extinct language.
Conclusion: The coffee is too hot to drink.
Experiments and questions are forbidden by the book that tells me coffee is hot, punishable by cruel and unusual means.
Wait 30 minutes for coffee to cool off.
Drink cold coffee.
Tell everyone else that the coffee was "warm to you and that's all that matters".
While fixing a cup of coffee:
Make an observation -
You get some coffee from the machine in the cafeteria, set an empty cup under the nozzle and press the button to dispense it. You see the cup before you.
Ask a question -
Is the coffee too hot to drink at the moment?
Form a hypothesis -
From your previous experiences with coffee, your hypothesis is that the coffee is likely to be hot, as is the nature of most coffee. Since it was recently poured, and not sitting out, you suppose the coffee may be too hot to drink. Your hypothesis is the coffee is too hot to drink.
Conduct an experiment -
You move your hand gradually closer to the cup to get an idea of the warmth. Very hot coffee should make the paper cup warm. If the cup is not very warm at all, then the coffee would likely be ready to drink.
Analyze the data -
Upon conducting your experiment, you notice the cup is not quite as warm as it normally is, thus the coffee is not as hot as it normally is. The coffee is most likely already ready to drink.
Conclusion -
You may drink the coffee without getting burned.
In this example, the hypothesis was incorrect, and it could be said that there may be a second experiment involved (sipping the cup) to help support the "Theory of the Temperature of the Coffee". This also illustrates that even if you approach science with a preconceived notion, you still eventually arrive at a factual conclusion.
This is in contrast to indoctrination, which starts with the conclusion, and attempts to stubbornly support it with apologetics. Had this been an example of indoctrination and apologetics as I understand them, it could have gone like this:
Pre-loaded data, assumed to be thoroughly analyzed: I read a book that says coffee is always hot, translated from a deprecated/extinct language.
Conclusion: The coffee is too hot to drink.
Experiments and questions are forbidden by the book that tells me coffee is hot, punishable by cruel and unusual means.
Wait 30 minutes for coffee to cool off.
Drink cold coffee.
Tell everyone else that the coffee was "warm to you and that's all that matters".
