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

Santi Tafarella's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by Santi Tafarella

I've been an agnostic for many years, and Thomas Crowley has not said anything ridiculous in the article.

He is, of course, correct in saying that young earth creationism should be kept out of the classroom, and that evolution is well-established as a scientific theory, and should be taught as such.

But he is also equally correct in saying that "Although science can state a great deal about what followed after the big bang, 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.
This yawning logical gap leaves open the possibility that something else may be going on."

There's nothing wrong in stating the obvious to students: There are mysteries about the universe's existence that science has (thus far) been unable to shed clear light on, and may prove unable to do so. Some posit that a Mind---or God---accounts for these mysteries.

A teacher who says this could then discuss the problems of infinite regress with students etc.

Obviously, questions of ultimate concern (whether god exists, where did the universe come from, how life began etc. etc.) are mysterious, and should not be dealt with in dismissive ways.

There may be a lot of things that those of us who are agnostics and atheists have gotten fundamentally wrong.

A little humility would suit us better, and is in keeping with the Enlightenment.

Keep questions open, and keep thinking.

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:16:00 UTC | #299610