




The problem is, your use of the word "objective" along with "values."
Both definitions three and four are inherently subjective, that is
they are particular to a given individual, or personal. You see,
what one person may see as worthwhile, another may see as worthless.


Again, your form of measurement in this sentence, that being of "worth"
is subjective. 



When I find that my usage of a word is different than the usage of
that word given by another person, I try to find a standard against
which to judge that usage. In most cases, the dictionary is the standard
I use. Here is a definiton of objective:

objective ADJ. 1. Of or having to do with a material object as 
distinguished from a mental concept. 2. Having actual existance.
3.a. Unenfluenced by emotion or personal prejudice. b. Based on
observable phenomenon.

By this definition, science does not have an objective worth, since the
phrase "objective worth" is an oxymoron. However you asked something a 
little differently this time, you asked for an objective basis for a
notion. The fact that the use of science as an intellectual tool is
responsible for changes in our world (the changes are material, and
thus "objective") would provide an objective _basis_ for an argument.
However, the conclusion arrived at from that argument (that science is 
"good") is subjective.

I think that the problem here is one of word usage. Take a little time
and read the definitions of these words: objective, subjective, worth,
value, morality, good, evil. I believe that if you think about the 
meaning of them for a while, you will have to conclude that there is no
such thing as an objective morality.
