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.
This is my whole problem this is taught in high schools, before anyone has any understanding of anything (oh and it's taught in Jr. High, too). Regardless of the scientific merit of evolution, it is taught as theology. Students must believe and swear fealty to the wise and knowledgeable biologists.
Not that new, but I like to pop up on a VERY occasional basis. I'm glad I got the astronomy word correct, anyway--I know there are astronomy and astrology, and I can never remember which word goes with the hocus-pocus and which goes with the science.
In chemistry we would teach that the unguided assembly of proteins is not merely an unsolved problem, but an absolute impossibility.
You got that right. I shudder to think what would happen if creationists were to learn that the daily metabolic processes of any organism, with the myriad input from both the external and internal environment, and the millions of reactions occurring every millisecond, is FAR more complicated than any mere process of evolution. Surely, there must be some intelligence guiding the second-to-second metabolism of every living thing on Earth, because it's far too complicated to continue to function by chemical/physical means alone.
>>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.