>>You must be new to these discussions. Geology would be on the list if it were taught in high school, as would astronomy.
Physics is already on the list. schools will have to entertain all kinds of speculation about the variable speed of light and rate of radioactive decay.
In chemistry we would teach that the unguided assembly of proteins is not merely an unsolved problem, but an absolute impossibility.
In computer science we would teach that feedback cannot be a source of information.<<
The problem with that argument is that too make it, you have to understand the science and the implications... but the people making the argument for teaching things in science class that aren't science don't usually understand and therefore the audience is lost on them.
I can imagine Galileo dealing with people who didn't understand why gravity needed to be tested and science taught according to our best science rather than the philosophy of Aristotle and the Catholic church.
This really isn't any different. Their God is too small. They think he is threatened by doing our best to study the world. God is above such concerns, in my opinion - he is "compatible" with the truth.
You've got it.
Creationists think that God is incapable of 3 billion years of patience to create a human.
They think that "miracles" are simple instantaneous acts, rather than long drawn out processes.
The points in this thread are interesting, that if creationists really knew how complex individual cells are, they would claim that it's impossible for even a single cell to operate without divine guidance.
Creationists argue against evolution, because they think that "mere chance" could not explain life. But their God is too small to have created the existence of "chance" in the first place.