Yokes Falling Away

In my last post , concerning science teachers outrage over the "Evolution Freedom Act", the premise was completely missed it seems. And almost the entire discussion strayed. This is my fault I guess as I believed that 1) Ungodly Cynic had been languishing for readers and I assumed this piece would fall under the radar so-to-speak and 2) I should have inserted some commentary to get the ball rolling in the direction I hoped it would go.

I am not "science literate" nor am I "science illiterate", actually I'm an artist/musician by nature, but I do have a high esteem for the scientific community and am interested in the plight of science that seems to be mired in polity and ideology of late. Not science itself per se but by those who have immersed the "science debate" into a quagmire of push and shove that is public politics.

We must remember that what has come down the pike from theoretical science and ends up in our public classrooms has been thoroughly vetted by peer review (I hope). We must also remember that science is amorphous and not stagnant like most religious dogma and doctrine.

By inserting an unquantifiable equation into the science classroom (like a creator) as it concerns the origins of life; are we not opening the metaphorical can of worms? Who is this creator? Is it Allah? Jehovah? Alfadur? Is it some, as yet unknown, multi-dimensional entity?

Science needs to keep it's hands clean of these postulations. These are philosophical arguments. Science deals with what is observable and falsifiable as best it can. This is my understanding, at least, as concerns the Scientific Method.

As a minority opinion about the origins of life on this planet would a parent want their children taught that this "evolutionary creator" was indeed Marduk of Sumerian yore? Science can not and should not speculate on that which is not observable.

With the ongoing debate about Intelligent Design as a valid theory for evolution; does this not fly in the face of traditional origin philosophies? Traditional religious adherents should be abhorred by Intelligent Design, one would think. But because there is an "apparent chink" in Darwin's great idea they have fallen onto the their own sword by seeking to embrace an equally philosophical idea that is only marginally near their traditional presumptions of the origins of life as outlined in whatever scriptural or doctrinal teachings of their faith.

Either life was originated as described in these religious/ideological teachings or it was not! This is quite plain and simple and those who choose to veer from their religious doctrine in this matter have chosen and, dare I say, taken a step away from the literalist interpretation of their religious teachings. Is this not blasphemous on the face of it? They would be burned at the stake in more barbaric times!

Science is inherently secularist. Meaning that religious or philosophical ideologies can and should be addressed but nowhere should political pressure be asserted in implementation as regards these ideologies in the public square. Just as we don't teach literal interpretation of Creation as outlined in the Abrahamic tradition of Genesis in public biology classrooms nor should we teach that Uri Gellar has a part in the teaching of Physics in the public classroom.

The key word here is public. We, as a society, owe it to ourselves to be honest and respectful when it concerns our fellow citizens and the education of their children. Nowhere does it state that the teaching of Darwins' "dangerous idea" is mandatory. Citizens are more than free to send their children to private institutions for instruction on the the origins of life. They are equally as free to home school their children as well.

I believe that the conundrum with faith-based education and science-based education is not so much about science as more to do with the ideologies of religious doctrine that are not based in what science inherently stands for: observation.

We can not observe what is outlined in most origin tales. To claim otherwise is dishonest.

In essence we have been starting all over from the Age of Enlightenment onward. The yoke of ignorance (and I do not say that word lightly) has been loosened and the claims of unfounded "hypotheses" are fading away in the light of terrible, oh so terrible, scrutiny and skepticism.