[microgood]

Biogenesis has nothing to do with biological evolution. What happened AFTER life arose... *that* can be (and is) explained via evolution.

If this is the case, why teach it at all in the schools? I have no problem with the concepts of micro-evolution where there is real science going on, but why bother with the dinosaur crap and all those ages and stuff when the average student is not going to be digging for dinosaurs or transitional species. That stuff should be left to those that want to major in archeology or paleontology, where speculation is the order of the day.

They should emphasize the useful stuff like physics, thermodynamics, etc.

[PatrickHenry]

I have no problem with the concepts of micro-evolution where there is real science going on, but why bother with the dinosaur crap and all those ages and stuff when the average student is not going to be digging for dinosaurs or transitional species.

The average student will never be a surveyor, so why study geometry? The average student will never be an historian, so why teach history? I could go on with this list, but you get the picture. People are taught these things so they will know something of the world in which they will live, and so they will not be complete ignoramuses. For this reason, they are taught biology.

[orionblamblam]

>>Biogenesis has nothing to do with biological evolution.

>If this is the case, why teach it at all in the schools?

That makes no sense. Greek lit has nothing to do with aerodynamics. Why teach it in school?