Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools

[Ronin]

My apologies, but I feel I must point something out- this seems like a complete cop out. How exactly can something logically have "always existed"? I could just as logically state that God and some basic matter always existed, and that he just decided one day to terraform the heck out of everything and that humans just couldn't comprehend the Law of Conservation of Energy back when the bible was written, as it would have blown their minds.

there is a difference between having the honesty to say "I don´t know exactly how that happened"...and making up fanciful stories.

[seireikhaan]

there is a difference between having the honesty to say "I don´t know exactly how that happened"...and making up fanciful stories.

If you can't explain something, how can you declare any possible explanation for it to be a "fanciful story" with any degree of certainty?

[Ronin]

If you can't explain something, how can you declare any possible explanation for it to be a "fanciful story" with any degree of certainty?

there is a difference between a theory based on observable facts and something just pulled out of thin air and imagination.

There are different degrees of possible "explanation".....

Scientific observation of the universe gives us clues that the universe is expanding, and by observing this expansion scientists theorized that at some point in the past all the universe was contained in one single point and expanded from there....they called this moment the big bang....this is a logical conclusion from observed facts.

where did the mater that constitutes the universe comes from? we don´t know.
what was there before the big bang? we don´t know.

....maybe someday we will find evidence that will give further insight into these questions...and maybe we won´t...honestly these questions don´t keep me up at night.

Simply going "when I can´t explain something, then God did it" is just a cop out...
it´s a fairy tale built upon nothing else but the fact that some people can´t deal with the "I don´t know" answer, for some strange reason I can´t fully grasp this freaks them out.
But the fact that some people like this "safety blanket" does not endow it with any logic value.

I could just as easily write a book about a magical creature called 'pillow-pants' and say that he created the universe and everything in it during a cosmic game of lego with his cousin 'Rashnavack'
Is this a silly and fanciful story? absolutely.... but it has as much going for it as any other God tale....

[seireikhaan]

Simply going "when I can´t explain something, then God did it" is just a cop out...
it´s a fairy tale built upon nothing else but the fact that some people can´t deal with the "I don´t know" answer, for some strange reason I can´t fully grasp this freaks them out.
But the fact that some people like this "safety blanket" does not endow it with any logic value.

I could just as easily write a book about a magical creature called 'pillow-pants' and say that he created the universe and everything in it during a cosmic game of lego with his cousin 'Rashnavack'
Is this a silly and fanciful story? absolutely.... but it has as much going for it as any other God tale....

1) I am NOT stating that "just because I don't know, it must be God". If you had read my first response to this thread, you would notice I do not favor teaching creationism as science, because it is not. So frankly, you can put the hostile connotations down.

2) You have yet to explain how one can simply abandon a particular theory regarding an unexplainable action just because it seems rather bizarre. Example: I imagine that before telescopes, trying to figure out if the earth or sun was the center of the universe(of course, neither are, but I digress) was, for all intensive purposes, impossible. Yet, should they have abandoned the idea that neither was the center of the universe and filed it away into "fairy tale" land just because it seemed so illogical?

You would, if it had not been for Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest explanation is the preferred one/the most likely. Since my version is much simpler than yours, it is also much more likely. You are bringing something to the table (god) which you have no evidence for, and I am not.

You're also getting it the wrong way around: I was mostly answering to the special plea of "everything needs a creator, except this god-thing that has always existed".

And, for the most part, Occam's Razor is fairly reliable. However, I return to my previous example of the center of the earth. Before telescopes, it seemed far most likely that the Earth or Sun(generally earth, though some deviated) was the center of the earth. They couldn't yet prove it one way or the other. But certainly, Occam's Razor would logically point to one of of these two as the answer. However, it is most certainly incorrect to state that either is the center of the Universe. Again, I am not saying with all certainty that what I proposed is correct- merely that discounting it as a fairy tale is actually quite illogical.

As a last side note, why would god create us with these mental facilities and the will to understand if he intended us to not be able to understand anyway?

Ah, but he did create us with the mental facilities. Certainly you and a boatload of scientists have comprehended the law of conservation of energy quite well. It just took us a few thousand years to get around to it.

As for the free will part... I don't particularly feel like going into an argument over that. I'll just summarize by saying I disagree with your viewpoint that evolution and socialization take all actual choice out of life.

[Ronin]

2) You have yet to explain how one can simply abandon a particular theory regarding an unexplainable action just because it seems rather bizarre.

I am not saying a theory should be abandoned because it seems bizarre.......something might seem bizarre but if there are some facts that point towards it then it is a possible explanation.

what I am saying that if you have zero observable evidence to support an idea, then it is at the present time nothing more than fiction and not a theory.
This can of course change if further evidence is uncovered on the subject.

[seireikhaan]

what I am saying that if you have zero observable evidence to support an idea, then it is at the present time nothing more than fiction and not a theory.
This can of course change if further evidence is uncovered on the subject.

No, it is not quite fiction. It is an idea. Nothing more, nothing less. Personally, I value ideas, though in pertinence to the current discussion I stay rather agnostic on due to the inherent impossibility in attempting to comprehend it in any exact form. Interestingly, I also happen to appreciate open books.