Arguing against 'factual science'

Re:  Fine with Bible Ban

The author infers that the school curriculum demands its texts meet certain standards, of which "fact" must be one.
        
When school curriculum teach evolution as "factual science," they go far beyond the available evidence, and some aspects of modern science have become increasingly tenuous and speculative.

In fact the everyday use of the word "science " has changed from dealing with things that are observable and testable to meaning "naturalism" and so includes conjecture and dubious hypotheses.
        
Although we live in a "cause-and-effect" universe, ultimate causes, such as origins, are outside the realm of reliable science.

Science can only reliably deal with the present world; it cannot reliably deal with the past, such as origins, or the future, such as ultimate destinies, as it cannot directly observe these.

I believe all scientists should be wary of their assumptions, as these can largely determine their findings. They should also be wary of extrapolations outside the range of observation.

The further the extrapolation, the less reliable the prediction. This applies in particular to boundary conditions, such as those involving initial conditions, or origins. Therefore, scientists can only speculate, imagine, or guess about the origin of life.

  
Zack  Zacharias