Replies

However, your statement above avoids what I believe is a valid point regarding education in our schools. Whether those two things are included in the theory of evolution is besides the point - they ARE taught in schools, whether as a part of evolutionary theory or not.

I have no problem with it being taught as a hypothesis on its own, though I would object to it being classified as part of the theory of evolution.

I was taught that abiogenesis was the result of a bunch of amino acids that just happened to assemble into proteins, then cells, etc...

I was taught that as well. I was taught that it was a hypothesis, not on the level of theory like evolution.

and I was taught the big bang theory.

I was also taught about the big bang theory. In a physics course. I was taught about evolution and abiogenesis in a biology course.

But they ARE taught in schools, and no other perspective is permitted, despite the fact that they are just as faith based as saying "God created the first life forms, and let evolution take it from there".

Do you have an alternative scientific explanation that fits observed evidence?

But then why is abiogensis also taught in schools, and usually in the chapter right before they start teaching evolution?

If you have an alternate origins hypothesis, I'd like to hear it.

"But they ARE taught in schools, and no other perspective is permitted, despite the fact that they are just as faith based as saying "God created the first life forms, and let evolution take it from there".

"Do you have an alternative scientific explanation that fits observed evidence?"

There is absolutely nothing about abiogenesis that "fits observed evidence". As you have yourself insisted on, ranted about, and claimed the right to feel extreme frustration over, the theory of evolution does not cover what created the first life forms. Abiogenesis is exactly as faith-based as a belief in God. There is nothing more "scientific" about it, and nothing that better fits any observed evidence. Actually, I take that back. Cause personally, I think that the billions of human beings who believe they have a sense of a divine being constitutes a hell of a lot more evidence than anything any scientist has ever put out to substantiate abiogenesis.

"But then why is abiogensis also taught in schools, and usually in the chapter right before they start teaching evolution?"

"If you have an alternate origins hypothesis, I'd like to hear it."

Sure. It starts like this... "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the Earth..." *hears the shrieks of pain* Ah, somehow, I didn't think you really wanted to hear it.

Fact is, while all your arguments may have validity in terms of why evolution should be taught in school versus Six-Day-Creationism, it has absolutely no impact on abiogenesis... and yet you trot out the same argument for abiogenesis that you did for evolution ("if you have an alternate scientific theory..."). What this tells me is that the screams of outraged "EVOLUTION DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN HOW LIFE FIRST ORIGINATED!" rants are intellectually dishonest, because when you take that argument out of the picture, the rest of the justification for teaching only the atheist faith-based doctrine of abiogenesis remains precisely the same.

Qwinn