I was recently watching that old 1930s film Things To Come, based on the novel by H. G. Wells.
Towards the end, after civilisation has rebuilt itself from the ruins of a devastating world war to a new high of peace and prosperity, they introduce the character of the sculptor Theotocopulos, who rails against this neverending progress - exemplified by a planned Moon mission - and says that it is time to say "No more!" and call a halt to science.
So, surrounded by peace and plenty and using a world-wide televisual forum, Theotocopulos uses rhetoric to whip up the crowd up into a mob determined to smash the evil 'space gun'.
I laughed till I cried, not because of the dated effects or turgid monologues, but because in 1936, in the relative austerity (by today's standards) of the inter-war period, Wells and Alexander Korda (the director) had so accurately portrayed the small-minded hypocrisy of a man who takes every available opportunity and luxury afforded him by science and uses it to decry science as an affront to 'human dignity' or 'divine provenance'.
Dan Hile pretends that science and technology are different because he hates science for contradicting his beliefs but won't give up the benefits it has brought him, which he pretends are merely 'technology'. Most likely, he owes his life more to science than to God, since the basics of obstetrics, hygiene and modern medicine that have brought infant mortality rates down to around 1 in 200 live births owe everything to science and little to technology.
By comparison, a third-world country like Mali has an infant mortality rate of 1 in 8, with 1 in 10 mothers dying in childbirth. If the US had such rates, 24 more children would die in their first year for every 200 live births, which is about 510 thousand more infant deaths each year.
Dan's mind may be stuck in the dark ages, but he should be thanking his god for the science that means his body isn't also.
(www.savethechildren.org.)