Evolution vs. creationism in US public schools

Allowing for the possibility of something isn't to say that it's reasonable to believe it's the case! But if it can't be examined, observed or measured & there's no practical experiment by which something can be tested, then it's beyond scientific analysis.

God can't be measured... Sorry. Do you need proof for everything?

That's a bigger question than you probably realise, so I'll answer it in the morning when I'm feeling fresher.

Ok, I'm in no rush. It seems like you do need proof for everything.

I will accept that.

What I will not accept are things like there-is-no-such-thing-as-AIDS, the-Earth-is flat, or the-universe-is-only-6000-years-old.

Those things are an insult to various education systems of the Western World.

I believe that the universe is 6000-12000 years old. But God has been forever. A nd even though we can look at stars that are billions of light years away, God made them that way so we could navigate probably.

The earth could be flat, and it could be round. I don't know myself for sure. And AIDS does exist.

I knew it!

Even God is part of this conspiracy, against Young Earthers!

Where does it all end??????

'Proof' is a very weighted term Jay. Listen carefully to many professional scientists & you'll hear them remind us that nothing in science (for example) is ever proven. They mean proven in the sense of being certain & beyond all doubt.

But don't be mistaken about this because established theories in science are often as close to being certain as it gets.

So when you ask "Do you need proof for everything?", I have to answer that absolute proof in real-Universe situations is not available. What's more relevant is 'justification', the grounds on which we accept one thing as being the most probable fact of the matter over another.

So is belief in a non-physical creator deity, as described by many religions, justified? Is there good enough reason in the form of evidence to believe such an entity is a matter of fact? Personally, I don't find good enough reason to justify belief in such a thing.

Surely belief in anything claimed to be a matter of fact is fanciful if we don't have sufficient justification for it?

Do you need proof for everything you believe?

There is a point where you believe something that you didn't believe before. You needed proof to believe it before you did, though. 

I've tried to explain the limits of 'proof' in the sense of being certain because it's hardly ever available, outside of mathematical principles that is.

Do you understand what 'justification' means?

I'm not even sure how you're using the term 'proof'(?) but I think more in terms of confidence. I have a mental image of a confidence scale from zero to 100% & I place the propositional beliefs I have on that scale.

Yes, in fact, I just defined it today to someone else in the CHT.

What do you mean by justification, since your definition isn't theological?

I understand that proof is a word that is very broad.

I mean proof in evidence for something.

Well dictionary definitions are usually a good place to start:-

"Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth"

"1: the effect of evidence sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that a particular fact exists. 2 : the establishment or persuasion by evidence that a particular fact exists"

Then you come to the question of what constitutes 'sufficient evidence' & that's less clear.

What is sufficient evidence for you?

That's going to vary from person to person but one test might be 'that which would convince an average, reasonable person of the truth of some claim'.

Certainly some kind of substantial evidence is needed to justify belief at all, so that would be the starting point - to support belief in something, demonstrate evidence of some kind for it.

When Darwin first published his book On the Origin of Species in 1859, the fossil record was very much incomplete. And none of it accurately dated.
But since that time, we have filled in the Fossil record much more completely and accurately. Giving us a much clearer picture of what existed in the past.
And what have we discovered?

Single-celled organisms predate multi-celled organisms.
Vegetable organisms predate animal organisms.
Exo-skeletal organisms predate endo-skeletal organisms.
Fish predate amphibians.
Amphibians predate reptiles.
Reptiles predate birds.
Reptiles predate mammals.
Mammals predate primates.
Primates predate apes.
Apes predate humans.
And much, much more.

So, after considering all that, the most obvious question becomes: if Evolution is really so wrong, how in the heck did it manage to get everything I just listed above, exactly right??