1) It doesn't take a God to "plant fake clues." Trust me, we can do that for ourselves. I'm not saying that I think science goes on fake clues; however, I am saying that to assume that we don't go off of incorrect tangents is asinine. Once again, I'm not saying I'm applying it to anything here.
If I did, though, I would ask you to consider the methods we have of dating the Earth, which is mostly geographical, via fossils, stones, and rock layers in the Earth. Yes, I believe it is mostly accurate; however, it's hard to go beyond just making estimations. Science like that is a bit less solid because of the fact that there is not an experiment to recreate; there is no way of double checking that estimation. So, is it a good hypothesis? Yes. Is it possible that we may be off? Yes.
My question remains unanswered: What makes creationism worthy of attention?
We have a lot of evidence for our current scientific understanding of history, but you are right that we cannot be 100% of certain of it. Even with that considered, however, I do not see any reason to study creationism of all hypotheses. Is there any evidence that points specifically to the earth being 6,000-10,000 years old and created by the Judeo-Christian God? If not, then I don't think it should be up for discussion as a challenge to science. The probability that a theory is true is not just determined by the amount of evidence for it, but also by the disparity between the evidence for it and the evidence for the alternatives.
Saying "it is possible that you are wrong" is not equivalent to saying "it is probable that I am right."
2) Of how we evolved to this point; science still can't complain the origins of life, or why the universe came to be in the first place.
Abiogenesis is one of the greatest remaining mysteries, fair enough. I think it will probably be figured out within the next three decades or so; we'll see what happens. But we don't have evidence to suggest that the first self-replicating molecules were supernaturally created. Occam's razor dictates that the current direction of study is the right one: chemical reactions.
As for "why" the universe came into being: that is really a philosophical question, and a rather pointless one at that. We can study how the universe developed, and even how it came into existence (this being the realm of theoretical physics, working towards the grand unification of relativity and quantum mechanics), but we don't even know if there is any "why" to be studied. Ours might or might not be the only universe. The existence of matter might or might not have had a beginning. Who knows? It doesn't give us reason to hypothesize a God behind it all.
3) That may be; theistic evolution is a younger theory. However, I'd like to see these polls before I make any conclusions.
According to a
May 2008 Gallup poll, theistic evolution is behind creationism, 36%-44%. (Interestingly, theistic evolution is more popular with teens. A
2005 Gallup Poll of those ages 13-17 had creationism trailing 38%-43%.)
These numbers have improved since 2005, when a
Gallup poll showed creationism leading 53%-31% among U.S. adults.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/19207/Most-Americans-Engaged-Debate-About-Evolution-Creation.aspx
4) I'm not so sure; there have been many calculations on the likelihood that life could come from nothing, through some sort of primordial soup, and become an organic, reproducing cell...well, so far, it's hard to be convinced -- creationism or not.
Keep in mind that evolution can occur before a fully functioning cell exists. All that is necessary is a self-replicating molecule. The chemical reaction required might only happen once in a 6x10^23 times, but those are not bad odds.
5) I wasn't withholding anything. In case you missed it, half of my arguments have been centered around the idea that science often isn't as completely concrete as many believe it is.
And what I'm saying is that half of your arguments are therefore irrelevant. The fact that many people think science if more concrete than it really is does not change the fact that there isn't anything more concrete to which we should be referring. Discovering that oxygen doesn't taste good should not persuade you to breathe only nitrogen.
6) Yes, but you have to understand that the concept of evolution is not the same; people can see gravity at work, it is obvious, and you don't need a degree in science to know it. In fact, you could have no clue about the freefall acceleration, and still know that things fall. With evolution, you can only see that we are here.
It could be comparable if you had a ball sitting on the ground, and, without having really seen something fall before, and through calculations based on the size of the crater and a bunch of other factors that point to gravity, conclude that it had fallen. THAT is a lot less concrete, even if it still is a strong theory.
We see evolution at work too, thanks to the rapid reproduction rates of microorganisms. The process is also obvious when you think about it; we all know there is variation within the species, and we all know that some variants are more advantageous to reproductive success than others, and that most variants are passed on genetically. The cause is no mystery. The effects of gravity, on the other hand, while observed more often in a direct fashion, are not self-explanatory. We don't really know
what gravity is, only what it does. Evolution is therefore more thoroughly understood, because we know exactly what natural selection is and what it does.
7) I never said to use Genesis as scientific proof. It's not scientific. What I am saying is that socially, historically (especially historically), is that Genesis had more direction going for it than did many other claims of the time. It's not scientific... but it's not as off as many scientists want to believe it is.
Then we can ignore it in the realm of science.
8) It's not about whether it's Christian or not; it's about the fact that "myth" automatically implies falsehood, which is disrespectful in either case, whether you believe in it or not.
If you really believe that it is disrespectful those reasons, then you should never use the word "myth" to describe anything that anyone has ever believed. Do you?
