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

Baron Scarpia's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by Baron Scarpia

This could be used to make a case against outright dismissal of the concept of creationism and intelligent design in the science classroom. However, if included at all, it should still take only a small amount of total class time to discuss. And it is essential for any teacher to point out that, even if "soft creationism" and "intelligent design" are true, they cannot be considered science until they make predictions that can be falsified.

Hark! What's that I hear? The sound of backpedelling? Surely not!

I propose the following hypothesis - the universe was in fact created by me. This is more reasonable than saying that God did it, as I plainly exist. (I assure you I'm not a computer program created for a Turing Test)

As this hypothesis is no less than absurd than saying that God did it, time should be spent on science lessons debating it. Of course, just like forms of creationism, it should be noted that no evidence has been produced whatsoever to back up my claims to divinity. But nevertheless the hypothesis should be put forward in science lessons.

Professor Crowley, if you have no evidence for a position... well, it's rather hard respecting it, that's all.

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:13:00 UTC | #299605