Thomas Crowley, a professor of geosciences at the University of Edinburgh, in a recent piece in the Guardian, thinks maybe so.
I’ve been an agnostic for many years, and I really can’t disagree with anything that Crowley says in the article.
Crowley is not advocating the teaching of YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM in the classroom. He says flatly that “young earth creationism” is ridiculous, and that the age of the earth and the evolution of species is well established, and should be taught as such.
But here is where he parts company with, say, Richard Dawkins, in what a teacher might say to students regarding the universe’s origins:
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.