That's fine, but in the meantime, the current evidence is that there is about as much chance of abiogenesis happening naturally as there is that a wall full of Egyptian heiroglypics were formed by random erosion.
It is the study of the spiritual world, which by definition, is not detectable by existing scientific instruments or tests.
Perhaps not--at our current level of technology. :) However, if the spiritual world has an objective reality, perhaps within a hyperdimensional universe, then we should not rule out the possibility that science and religion will eventually overlap a priori, which is the current trend.
Religion does not belong in science classes until it can scientifically prove it's assertions.
I agree. Look at my first couple of posts on this thread. Personally, I don't care if ID is taught per se (not because I don't think that it's scientific, but because I recognize that it's in its infancy), I just want certain known lies about evolution to be removed from the textbooks, and I want an honest admission given to the students that there is currently no viable theory for how abiogenesis could have come about by accident or natural law. As it stands, the primordial soup nonsense is still being taught as fact as of this year.
If the evolutionist side of this debate were completely honest in the classrooms about what they do and do not know and about what they can and cannot prove, teaching ID as a counter-point wouldn't be an issue.
If the evolutionist side of this debate were completely honest in the classrooms about what they do and do not know and about what they can and cannot prove, teaching ID as a counter-point wouldn't be an issue.
Specifics?
What is being taught in the classrooms that is not honest? And in which classrooms?
Apples and oranges. We're not talking about the origin of life.
Perhaps not--at our current level of technology. :) However, if the spiritual world has an objective reality, perhaps within a hyperdimensional universe, then we should not rule out the possibility that science and religion will eventually overlap a priori, which is the current trend.
Until it's scientifically provable, it does not belong in science class. Period.
I agree. Look at my first couple of posts on this thread. Personally, I don't care if ID is taught per se (not because I don't think that it's scientific, but because I recognize that it's in its infancy), I just want certain known lies about evolution to be removed from the textbooks, and I want an honest admission given to the students that there is currently no viable theory for how abiogenesis could have come about by accident or natural law. As it stands, the primordial soup nonsense is still being taught as fact as of this year.
Evolution does not address the origin of life. It only states that all life evolved from a common ancestor.
If the evolutionist side of this debate were completely honest in the classrooms about what they do and do not know and about what they can and cannot prove, teaching ID as a counter-point wouldn't be an issue.
Evolution does not address orign of life.
ID says there is no evolution, only creation.
ID cannot be a counterpoint to evolution because they deal with two different aspects.
In fact, ID, as I understand it, says that animals do not and did not evolve. It says that all animals were created by God with absolutley no changes to their physiology between the time of their creation and now.