The average person treats science no differently than those in the dark ages treated dogma.
Well, fair enough.
They get science 'fact' passed down to them by priests (the news) and monks (schools) and take it as fact without ever questioning one bit of it. When somebody questions this they turn on super defensive mode and abuse the person for being 'stupid' and 'ignorant' regardless of this is indeed the truth, much like blasphemy was treated.
News aren't the priests of science. Not most news at least. Newspapers like popular science would be (and they do provide proper sources for their content), but not your everyday TV news. Those are like the crazy townsperson who spouts just about anything they hear, as long as they like it and they think people will find them interesting. They may be spouting wisdom, or just a bunch of bullshit. However, I will admit that schools would be on pair with monasteries, some even worse. And people do in fact question stuff, but instead of back then when the monks would be like "I'm wiser" teachers today are more like "You're stupid", which makes it scary for the average question to ask questions about complicated stuff. And yes, some people will defend what they think are absolute facts with the only justification being "You're stupid" or "That's what this smarter-than-you person said". The school system is not perfect, and could in fact be better.
Ok fine, this element might always be here, but is it any better with science than with the church? At least with the church we had the benefit of morality being baked into the dogma. With science we have a movement away from morality that started before wwII, had a short lived realization that it was awful and needed to be policed (Nuremburg) and then a return to immorality.
Well, it lies in human nature to defend one's belief. Which is good, as it keeps us from believing just about anything. But it can make some of us too arrogant to see if we are actually right on our beliefs. And scientific facts have been proven useful many more times than religious ones have. Science isn't concerned with morality, and they (Science and religion) don't exclude each other (though they don't get very well together). Science does NOT stand for immorality, it simply stands for finding out the truth. Science is better at finding out the truth, because science requires testing and questioning of the world. And science is not like a religion, since it does not tell us how to live. Science says what happens in life, and we need to derive from that how we should act if we want to live in a certain way. Science gives us opportunities, a lot more than religion does. But this meaning is lost through a bad educational system and news-companies with exceptionally bad source criticism (When it comes to science anyways), understanding of words like "maybe", "possibly", etc., and statistics. It's not the scientists who get's to be the head of news-companies, or Minister of Education.
Science wants to raise the dead, clone people, and perform all sorts of immoral tests. The sad thing is that these routinely pass an "ethics" committee. Yeah - because zombies are ethical and can consent to experiment.
No. Some scientists may want to. Science does not, because science does not have a mind. Science is no organization or group, or multiple at that. Science is a tool which the scientists agreed to be used to determine who/what is right and not. Science is about finding the truth (or get as close as possible). If they are going to raise the dead, they'd probably use a donor - they have to get permission from the relatives anyway, and if the person didn't want to be used for this the relatives are probably going to say nay too. Anyways, science is already "raising the dead" - People with stopped hearts and no more brain activity can be "raised" if both organs are still intact and have not yet started decaying (too much). This is usually done within minutes though, but it is raising a person who is by definition dead. And raised people don't go around eating brains, and don't rot away.