This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Science can't explain the big bang - there is still scope for a creator

AmericanGodless's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by AmericanGodless

This argument for opening science classrooms to religious speculation is incoherent and self-defeating.

"Sir Michael Reiss says: 'Some students have creationist beliefs. The task of those who teach science is ... to treat such students with respect'." [Treat the student with respect, yes. Also respect the student's right to have private beliefs. But the science teacher has no business respecting the portrayal of such beliefs as having anything to do with science.]

"..it cannot in fact explain how "something" (the energy of the universe compressed into a volume the size of a golf ball) arose from nothing beforehand." [Victor Stenger, in "God, the Failed Hypothesis", holds that the sum of our "something" may actually all cancel out and add up to nothing. The point is that a creative agent, at this point in our investigation, is not only unnecessary, but a hinderance to further research -- we don't even know yet what all of our "something" is.]

"..life's increasing complexity - including the very recent appearance of modern man - is also consistent with (but not proof of) the possibility of some special creative agent existing." [But a special creative agent is consistent with anything from intelligent design to a moon made of green cheese!]

"..(the reasoning being that, if God is responsible for creating the big bang, then the incarnation and resurrection would be child's play by comparison)." [As I said.]

"This could be used to make a case against outright dismissal of the concept of creationism and intelligent design in the science classroom." [Wrong. It is the very heart of the case for dismissing them from the science classroom.]

"..they cannot be considered science until they make predictions that can be falsified" [then why drag them into science class?]

"And the subject certainly does not warrant arrogance from those who seem to think that scientific materialism is the only logical option for the 21st century." [Scientific materialism is the unifying theory of science, and has no credible counter-examples. Until supernaturalism makes some credible predictions that resist falsification, material naturalism is indeed the only logical option for science.]

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:48:00 UTC | #299579