As a scientist, I appreciate your thoughts very much. However, I strongly (but respectfully) disagree with many of your points. Please, let me elaborate:

You write: "Some of the recent outputs of scientific experiments are against most religions and individuals, and societal morals". Wikipedia defines [science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) as follows: "Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world". There is much more to it, but for the sake of simplicity I would like to stick with this definition for now. Science itself doesn't have a moral compass, as it's all about cold hard facts. Natural phenomena, such as gravity, exist, whether your religion agrees or not. Science itself doesn't care about religion.

You might have heard about [Galileo Galilei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei). He was an Italian astronomer, physicist and engineer, who didn't believe that planet earth is the center of the universe. For the defense of this fact, he faced massive resistance from the "holy" Inquisition and was condemned as being "vehemently suspect of heresy".

You write: "Since then, science has always been focused on how to improve life and solve complex problems in an easier pattern". That's also not true. Science itself really doesn't care about improving lives. Science is all about searching for the truth. Of course, you are right to describe that many useful and helpful things have emerged from the application of scientific principles. However, these are mere applications and technologies and not part of the scientific endeavor to understand how nature really behaves.

You write: "scientists have begun to carry out crazy experiments that will produce results not acceptable to many". What kind of experiments are we talking about here?

You write: "To hit the nail on the head, Gender-Affirming Surgery (GAS) is one of the outcomes of scientific experiments that against many morals". GAS is a surgical procedure. Nothing more and nothing less. It's not a scientific technique. Yes, it does rely on the use of medical tools, but so does the removal of a tooth or the appendix. 🤷‍♂

You write: "One surgically changing his gender is a step toward supporting same-sex marriage which also goes against many morals". You are mixing science, religion and morals. These are completely different things. It's your right to be again GAS or same-sex marriages. I'm in favor of both, for the record. However, our disagreements entirely stem from our different political or moral opinions. Science doesn't have anything to do with this.

You write: "I felt like I had to use my desired superpower to rewind time and stop the scientists who did the experiments for this invention". Without the science behind the nuclear bombs, we also wouldn't have nuclear power plants today. While I would consider such a scenario to be a good one, others might disagree. Here, once again, you have to be careful not to mix the science itself and its possible applications.