[aNYCguy]

Would you find it outrageous if, in science classes, it was suggested that... science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence, so He MAY be necessary for the universe and science itself to exist?

You're correct that science cannot address supernatural causes, and if I understand your suggestion in this paragraph I agree with you. Students should learn the definition of science, which will include understanding that it does not address any attributes of supernatural forces whatsoever.

That is what you're suggesting, correct? Students learning that science does not include deities in its scope?

[puroresu]

####That is what you're suggesting, correct? Students learning that science does not include deities in its scope?####


Partly, but not entirely. You see, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. But neither can it prove or disprove godless naturalism. We can observe, for example, that 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen produce water. But we have no idea whether this happens because God made it that way or because it just simply "happens". To argue that science must assume the latter and exclude the former is simply bias, not the product of "freethinking" or any scientific process.