Evolution vs Creation in Education-

I find this debate terribly sad. It is sad because most of the players have very good intentions. It is sad because there is no compromise. It is sad because someone must lose something of value in the end.

The parents promoting creation/intelligent design wish to protect their children from a godless science. Not necessarily from science, but from a science that excludes God from the issue of creation. This is a genuine desire to protect, and the drive to protect offspring is powerful.

On the other side are scientists, striving to protect science education from being polluted by bad science. Unfortunately, God does not readily submit to scientific inquiry, and so good science will most likely be Godless. Not that all scientists are godless. Those who believe, however, cannot derive their faith from science.

Sadly, from what I have seen the creation/intelligent design faction does indeed promote bad science. This does not mean that they promote something that is not true. It does mean that creation/intelligent design may well belong in another venue.

I do not know if believers in God can begin with the evidence available through years of scientific inquiry and present a set of arguments that will pass the rigours of established scientific review. I an not so sure that they should.

I am still not convinced that science is the final arbiter with regard to what is true. It has proven valuable in building human knowledge and building a better world. It is worthy of a place of great honor. I am not convinced that it is ultimate.

A large part of the issue in this debate is good stewardship. Strangely, I find both the creation side and the science side are striving for good use of public funds in education. The scientist don't want to see public funds spent on teaching bad science. The creationists don't want what they view to be truth excluded from the education process for which they must pay through taxes.

Nobody wants children confused by different views of what is held to be true. However, lacking a consensus on what is true with regard to how things came into being, the educators are caught between waring factions. The children are destined to seek their own answers on the matter.

Perhaps that is the real focus. A system of education that teaches thinking, not just indoctrination. This is dangerous, of course. It will produce children who will not always think as parents may wish. It may produce children who think outside the box called "science," as well.

A generation of rogue thinkers might prove very interesting.

Dangerous children. Worth the investment.

Design II-

Engineering is closely related to science. Indeed, as an engineering technician I worked at one point for a man holding the title Scientist. I am aware of a philosophy of science. If there is a philosophy of engineering, I have yet to see it. So, off to Wikipedia I go. Yep, here it is. Amazing.

Design is inherent in the task of the engineer, and so there must be a philosophy of design. Ah, here that is. Aesthetics is an element of design engineering, along with a design that suits a purpose and performs a task or set of tasks correctly. My thought is that the ethical element of social influence should be an element of design.

In particular, making things as comfortable and user servicable as possible. That would be attention toward access of parts and assemblies, and the various ways such assemblies go together. Plumbing, electrical, or simply a matter of structure. The design should also account for adaptability to special needs.

Automobiles seem to be designed foremost with aesthetics and intangibles in mind, with the focus on the sale of the machine. Ease of maintenance and repair is not always foremost in the design. As a result the owner cannot assume a lot of the repair and maintenence tasks without ultimately defering to a specialist. The specialist often faces a daunting and unpleasant series of tasks performing many repairs and upkeep tasks, due to the design not taking their needs into account.

Houses are often the same. Plumbing is hidden away, and so difficult to access. Electical elements are not always easy to access without much effort. The repair and maintenence are not high on the list of design considerations. I would contend that the aesthetic demands that establish these tastes are driven by the upper class in society, where maintenence and repair is religated to a lower class and can be simply paid for. The lower classes are stuck with these sensibilitied they inheret (and perhaps even intentionally adopt) from the higher class.

This is, of course, a speculative contention on my part. I am, in essence, expressing my own values which tend toward easy owner maintenence. My own life philosophy places value on simplicity and designs that empower the owner of an artifact to keep and care for it themselves. I recognize that my own values are often at odds with the society in which I live.

This does reflect the fact that there are social and ethical elements in philosophies such as the philosophy of engineering and the philosophy of design. Aesthetics, economics, marketability, availablility of resources. Many factors that don't necessarily come readily to my own mind.

My own longing is for a philosophy that contributes to autonomy and individual empowerment. I want to be free of the aesthetics of the wealthy. I want to live in a user servicable world.

That is the essence of my philosophy of design.

Design and social strata-

I know by reading that the social divisions in England were quite strong, and even in the early and mid 20th century there were abundant evidences. It reflects even in such works as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Though the relationship between Frodo and Samwise is relatively close through the course of the adventure, there remains the sense that Sam is in a separate class. This, a fantasy in an imaginary world still reflects something of Tolkien's culture.

In the United States we do not have as strong a sense of social class defining us as persons. However, the service jobs tend to still be looked down upon by "professionals." I have done some of this service work, having been a janitor at various times in my life.

I was thinking on how such things as plumbing in our modern houses may well reflect a lack of regard for plumbers. When plumbing was a new thing, it was added to houses on the outside. That, of course, was necessary. Accessible, easy to work on. I have to imagine that the exposed plumbing was a point of pride for the new owners.

Sensibilities changed. It would be more attractive to place the plumbing inside the walls on new houses. It would be less apparent, and look better. However, now the task of plumbing was more difficult. This, however, was a lesser consideration. Plumbers were "working class." They were paid to bend and crawl to do their work.

Or so it seems to me. It is quite possible to design things to be easily serviceable. It is quite possible to respect the professional that must perform the services. After all, they really are
professionals.

Of course, I have an ulterior motive for such changes in design. User serviceability. I would love to have my plumbing and electrical be modular and accessible. I could then do the work myself. The same with the design of my car, and other elements of my life that can wear out or break down.

In the end, perhaps I have the least respect for professionals. I would rather keep my money, and be able to take care of the things in my life myself.