A response to "Nature and role of science relative to RH bill"

Flor Lacanilao, a retired professor of marine science, University of the Philippines Diliman, wrote a Letter-to-the-Editor and was published in the 3 September 2012 issue of  PDI entitled "Nature and role of science relative to RH bill". I thought of commenting on some of the scientist's assertions:

The objectives of science, as I learned, are not to find the truth. They are aimed to understand nature and the universe, so that researchers and the government can plan and act for the people’s well-being. Many studies are meant to support scientific consensus, as in evolution and climate change. Hence, these are factual conclusions—supported by valid data. They are not permanent truth; they can be changed by more studies. This is the progressive nature of science.

Science is not to seek permanent truth anymore but only well-being?! I wonder if other scientists agree with that definition of science.

As from what I gathered from my undergraduate studies in a public state university, science seeks the Truth about the physical world regardless of whether or not it will benefit well-being of peoples. Well-being is just one of the consequences of science: Theoretical Physics, for example, does not aim directly to improve well-being of people. The apparent non-permanence of scientific truth is due to the piece-meal approach of many studies. Instead by seeing nature of science as "progressive", I see it as "incremental".

Response to "CBCP's monumental blunder"

Dear Mr. Butch del Castillo,

I write you in response to your 23 August 2012 article entitled "CBCP's monumental blunder". I understand it was meant to tell the Catholic bishops they made a faux pas by threatening to strip AdMU of its Catholic status because of almost 200 of its faculty signed a pro-RH Bill manifesto.

I read your article several times. What particularly caught my attention was your characterization of the position of the Ateneo faculty as being "hard to dispute or refute" which was the following:

"It upholds the constitutional right of couples to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions, honors our commitments to international convenants and conventions, and promotes the reproductive health and reproductive rights of Filipinos, especially of those who are most marginalized on this issue -- our women, poor families and young people."

Indeed, pro-RH Bill Ateneo faculty's declaration of their position appear noble. But I have these questions:

Does this position really reflects the true nature of contraception-laden RH Bill?
Does the use of contraception fulfills these alleged noble goals?
Are these "noble" goals really that noble?

The obvious answer I see is NO!