I think that all Scattercat's gun example shows is that Scattercat chose a bad analogy. Guns are tools *for* killing things. They don't really do anything else. Sometimes the things they kill are people, and sometimes the things they kill are animals, but if you're using a gun as a tool, you're trying to kill something.
A better analogy is a knife. A knife is not a tool for killing things. It's a tool for cutting things. There are plenty of non-violent uses for a knife - I use one every day to cook and eat my food. But there are plenty of people, now and throughout history, that used knives as tools for killing. Do we then look at the history of knives and think that knives are somehow morally implicated?
Or take another anaology. The sun is not a tool in that it was not constructed, but it is a perpetual (on a human timeframe) source of energy. This energy, daily, is used as fuel. It can also cause death and injury if exposed to carelessly - I've had sun stroke, it's not fun. There have been many societies in the world that have worshipped the sun as a god. Some chose to carry out this worship peacefully, others through violence (e.g. animal or human sacrifice). Is the sun, then, morally implicated?
And let's take a third analogy. A human right arm can kill people. It can wield a sword or a knife, it can punch someone to death, it can choke someone. It can also do plenty of non-violent actions, but let's look at the right arm of a violent man who has used it to both abuse and murder a series of other humans. Is his right arm morally wrong?
I'm not saying "science is ephemeral, beautiful, abstract perfection!" - I'm saying science is a limited thing that cannot stand on its own. I'm not saying that science shouldn't be judged, I'm saying that science shouldn't be judged out of context, any more than a right arm can be judged without judging the person it is part of. Science does not stand on its own, and attempting to view it on its own makes as much sense as taking the right arms of all the (right handed) people who committed horrific deeds in history and making a generalization over right arms.
And mostly, science is not a world view. There is a world view that worships science - often without understanding it - but that's not part of what science is, any more than the nature of the sun is affected by the actions of sun-worshippers. In your last paragraph, you fall into the trap of implictly comparing science and religion. But while people tend to present those two as equals, the truth is the religion is a much bigger thing than science. Now, if you were comparing religion to the world view that idealises science, that's different - that is comparable. But that's not what you said, and I don't think that's what you meant.
