Sunday, May 08, 2011

Do These Religious Assertions Belong In Science Class?

Phillip Johnson and intelligent design profile...Image by Raymond Yee via Flickr
Do the following religious assertions belong in science class?

1. Human begins are not justfied in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.

2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.

3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures.

4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function.

5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.

6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.

7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life.

8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.

9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.

10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.

Yes?  Click here for the implications.

Related articles

1 comment:

Frances said...

I wouldn't want those comments in a science class. However, neither do I want the wholesale disrespect of religious believers that is current in many classes today.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"