Replies

(Flying Circus's wife here)

There are two uses of "evolution" that are often confused.

1. genetic change over time.
This one has been proven.

2. development of current life from primordial soup.
This one has NOT been proven and cannot be, because our long-ago origins cannot be observed. It will always be, at best, a theory.

I think evolution debaters like to use whichever definition suits what they want to say. I have heard some in favor of the theory of life's origins say "evolution has been proven" while they are really referring to the genetic change definition.

Those who want to say "evolution should not be taught as fact" are referring to the second usage, but in this statement they ignore the genetic change fact.

I don't think the presence or absence of intelligent design is a question of science, but neither do teachers have the right to insist that students accept a secular humanist view of the UNPROVEN theory (number 2), or the assumption that life came totally by chance, as fact. These are NOT established facts. I do not, however, think teachers need to interpret Genesis to their students to be fair about the Evolution debate. They just need to make it clear that the origin of life is not known, and this is an idea of how it may have come about.

Additionally, science can only tell us how things happen, not why. For instance, you cannot disprove God's influence by showing how the world came to be. If we do figure out the "how" correctly, who knows? We may get a word of praise when we meet the designer.

To his wife.

#1 is proven, but that is evolution

#2 on the other hand is abiogenesis, not evolution, and no, this theory has not been proven, but there are scientists working on it and we have some really great leads.

See Ichneumons post #212, it really is a fascinating look into the abiogenesis studies going on.

Other then that, I have no disagreement with you at all.