Science without theology is a dead pursuit. Theology without facts and evidence is a fairy tale. Why folks seem so bent on compartmentalizing the process of education is beyond me.
The Trial of Galileo shows well how both church and science can err, and how both church and science can flourish when they intermingle. Neither of these two, given their history, can boast of perfection. Error is to be expected in view of our current condition.
The key to satisfaction in the pursuit of education is the allowance of free thought and free expression, with each observer having the right and capacity to accept or reject whatever propositions are made to reason as a result of having evidence.
A person can reject the proposition that 1 + 1 = 2, but he should not expect a vocation as banker. (A liberal Democrat, perhaps, but not a banker.) A person can reject the proposition that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but he should not expect a vocation as editor of National Geographic.
Dogmatic evolutionists abhor the notion that such things as free thought and free expression should be allowed in public schools, but they are not the sole owners of public schools. When the state establishes public schools, and requires by law that all children attend, then the state must allow all views to be allowed lest it be guilty of violating the First Amendment.
A good many people are so hard-headed about the distinction between immutable facts and reasonable conjecture, that they squeeze "science" into a fruitless, dead, narrow dogma. There is a place for immutable facts, but, given the extent of human knowledge, that place is smaller than we think. Let reasonable conjecture be permitted even in "science" class, but let it also be qualified as such.
The best solution to this whole controversy would be to abolish public schools altogether.
Seems to me the truly great questions of human life are eternally revisited by the human mind. The history of human culture down the ages testifies to the validity of this observation. For when you think about it, the earliest formulation of atomic theory came about in the ancient world of the pre-Socratic Greeks, with Democritus and Leucippus. The first formulation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics also occurred in this era, courtesy of Heraclitus. That man has continually revisited such questions is unavoidable, for they are great "open" questions. Trying to shoehorn their answers into narrow doctrinal forms strikes me as an exercise in futility from the get-go, for the simple reason that doctrinal reduction implies that such questions are "closed."
Which is why it seems the best thing science (or any other knowwledge discipline) can do is to frame its questions carefully, qualify its evidence, and then "follow the trail wherever it may lead."
Certainly i agree with you that the fullest and freest dialogue regarding the great questions is the best help for the advancement of human knowledge. I also agree that the public schools are justified in providing opportunities for such dialogue, given First Amendment requirements and the fact of public financing. All views ought to be "ventilated," it seems to me. In this way we avoid mass indoctrination of the young, and encourage them in the development of those mental habits necessary to the full exercise of critical reason. FWIW
Great post at #1806, Fester. Thank you so much for writing it!
You got it!!
Those who accept that 1 + 1 = 0 do tend to drift into computer design, though.
Thank you so much for your post!