Tuesday, 23 June 2015

A Law Must be Consistent With Right Reason

Otherwise, it is not a law.

That is very clear from St Thomas Aquinas.

It is also very clear that government endorsing non-laws, rules that go against right reason about the common good of all, are tyrannic.

Now, United Kingdom very clearly has a problem here:

The Guardian : Free schools will not teach creationism, says Department for Education

The Department for Education has said Michael Gove is "crystal clear that teaching creationism is at odds with scientific fact" after a warning that the government's new free schools could be exploited by fundamentalist churches looking to promote a literal interpretation of the Bible. ... The DfE spokesman said groups setting up new free schools in the UK will be vetted to ensure that they have "strong education aims" and "high curriculum standards". He said: "The education secretary is crystal clear that teaching creationism is at odds with scientific fact. Ministers have said they will not accept any proposal where there are concerns about the people behind the project."

The Guardian : Free schools must teach evolution, ministers announce

All free schools will be forced to present evolution as a comprehensive and central tenet of scientific theory, ministers have announced, following lobbying by senior scientists concerned that Christian-run institutions could exploit loopholes in the rules to present creationism as a credible theory.

The tightening of the funding rules for free schools comes after representations to the Department for Education by the Royal Society and its president, the Nobel-prizewinning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse, as well as by secular and humanist groups.

Why this? Because someone had been alarmed at:

The Guardian : Free schools are exploiting loopholes to teach creationism
Andrew Copson

So, some reader might be an Evolutionist. He might say, "look here, evolution is true, this rule is therefore in accordance with right reason, there is nothing tyrannic about it".

OK, treating the Orthodoxy of yesterday is not tyrannic? Like Catholicism was treated under Elisabeth or Gustav Wasa or Frederick III or the regency of James VI in Scotland (as had been that of Edward VI in England)? The Cecils (both Richard and William) and the Cromwells (both Thomas and Oliver) were basically doing everyone in England a favour?

There is sth to be said against that in most cases. I would not disagree with certain early Christian rulers outlawing paganism as practised in public. But then the paganism was hardly a matter of conviction anyway. From Christianity on, religion has been a matter of conviction. And there is something very unsatisfactory to tell people that what everyone of a certain people had hitherto believed sincerely was henceforward to be treated as an error to be actively fought.

Note, there have passed a few generations between when everyone in UK before Hutter was a Young Earth Creationist and now that Michael Gove wants ALL teachers in UK, not just state hired ones, to help uproot it as the error he considers it is. But no one will deny that the Creationists do in fact represent a former Orthodoxy, recognised as such by everyone. As no one could reasonably deny Papism was identical to the Catholicism of the Middle Ages.

This is one right reason to reject this kind of brutality, even if evolution were right reason. It is also one reason to ask oneself very carefully, if evolution really is "right reason" even as a "scientific" account of the history of earth and life.

But if we stick to what law means - I have refuted evolution many times over elsewhere, I have my Creationist blog for that - we can get other indications that the policy is against what can rightly be considered the rule of law.

You see, when Mr Jones's children go to school, even if Michael Gove is sure evolution is true and deserves to be taught to them, and creationism is untrue and deserves to be kept out of their science classrooms, Mr and Mrs Jones might disagree with Michael Gove.

And the question about right and wrong reason is whether the question in practise should be settled according to the will of the Jones couple, because they are parents, or by Michael Gove, because he is Minister of Education.

It is obviously also traditional - thus also yesterday's unanimous orthodoxy - that the answer is that the question should be settled by the Jones family and not by Michael Gove. So, even if he can pretend he is clear enough on the matter, he is clearly representing what will be considered tyrannical by Mr and Mrs Jones - and ideally by some honest evolutionist neighbour (supposing honest evolutionists still exist and Dawkins hasn't managed to either absorb all of them into his dishonest fanaticism or alienate the rest from evolutionism by it) who is aware of the family model of education.

In other words, for Michael Gove to be in right reason, not only does his new theory about the history of life and earth and universe have to be correct, but his equally new morality also. That means not just the world view but also the morality of centuries are discarded.

Michael Gove is therefore very clearly acting and imposing unright reason, wrong reason, someone's personal advantage or collective class advantage at the expense of the good of the common weal.

And the profiteers are of course evolution taught science teachers, who can continue to indoctrinate freely classes which Michael Gove is as carefully as possible cutting off from any news about other points of view than Michael Gove's.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St John's Eve

Update, St John's Day:

When I said I had a Creationist blog, you could of course have gone to the tab above where it says:

Alii bloggi, other blogs, autres blogs

If you did, you must have found the Creationist blog very quickly, along the two other apologetic blogs "somewhere else" and "Great Bishop of Geneva!", but if you didn't, here is the url (and title) for it:

Creation vs. Evolution

No comments:

Post a Comment