I’m all for the science of finding things, presenting those things, to everyone, as things and then going on to see if we can make other things out of what we found. Men detected the properties (the effect) of magnetism: then they began, over time, to use the discovery to make things: that science makes this conversation possible.
On the other hand… Someone discovered the bones of a small hominid, then used it to make up another origin story: the discovery might be science, if archeology is a science, but the story? In general what I have against some fields of science is instead of discovering the things and then making something out of it, these fields make up something then try to make the things fit their story.
Then people, public and professional , just like the religious questioner asks for the answers he wants, can find in the stories the answers they’ve already decided are best.
What happens in the world of education is the story becomes the rule, taught as fact, and the student must adhere and conform or, in the case of the rare independent thinker, lie to graduate. Plus, what discoveries, what things, do not fit the official story is never mentioned in schools and never presented to the wider public audience.
To the Evolutionist a Monkey is a chapter in their book, to the rest of us it’s just a fucking Monkey