Creationists in the Classroom?

Religious discussions are of course taboo in most classrooms, but even in our frequent discussions of ethics in business, a student occasionally attempts to bring a religious slant to the conversation. Now, I respect a "thoughtful faith," where someone has studied and contemplated various faiths and religious tenets and critically concluded that a particular religion and its precepts are reasonable. In fact, I honor a thoughtful faith, respect anyone's religious opinions, and cherish our freedom to have diverse beliefs. Yet I wonder about a "blind faith," based on wishful thinking, unchallenged dogma from one's upbringing, psychological need, etc. The problem I have is with those who feel compelled to impose their beliefs on others. While those that overtly hurt others in the name of their faith are despicable, of course, those sanctimonious zealots that proselytize, that feel compelled to educate me, save me, to arrogantly believe that their truth is the one true truth which then justifies any number of dogmatic attitudes and behaviors also seem destined to share Dante's circle with drug dealers, child molesters, terrorists, lawyers, and the like.

I believe that religion is a personal thing, but can tolerate the public "In God We Trusts" and the holiday displays, if that's what people want to do, and you can feel free to light your candles, publish your Praise-the-Lord blogs, kneel on your prayer rugs, and let the cows sleep in your driveway if you like. My problem is when you try to impose your beliefs on others. While this has many facets, one dangerous annoyance is the attempt to inculcate textbooks with religious beliefs. Creationists (whose very existence oddly may support their claims against evolution), now paradoxically often use the more marketable term of intelligent design. They are especially pernicious.

Debating why creationism does not meet the standard of a theory is like shooting fish in a barrel (not a randomly chosen simile), and many, including most courts, have done so far better than I could. Rather, I wonder what the logic of the creationist argument is beyond the "See, it's in the Bible, and the Bible is the word of God" proposition (which seems a little silly to me, but if that's what you want to believe, OK by me. Just spare me the you've been blessed with the gift/insight/power of faith and I haven't bit. Feel free to pray for me though- not much downside there.). The attempt at providing a thoughtful argument often revolves around one of two premises. The first is that causes must have effects. The second is that which cannot happen by chance does not. These premises become what I will label the "argument of infinite regression," and the "God does not play dice argument," to borrow from minds dramatically greater than mine. Yet the premises cannot be allowed to be assumptions (allow me two premises, and I can win any argument, to paraphrase Thomas Aquinas), and these premises and the arguments that follow will be the subjects of the next two entries, probably followed by a conclusion entry.

Next: The Argument of Infinite Regression