I worded that poorly. I know spontaneous generation was proved wrong. While we now know far more than even 100 years ago, there is still far more that we don't know and scientists are continually updating and revising their theories as new data comes in. When we know all the facts and all the proofs are in, then it can be declared dead. Until then there remains a need to consider it. If creation is wrong, prove it. Don't just categorize it as a myth and dismiss it off hand.
" If creation is wrong, prove it. Don't just categorize it as a myth and dismiss it off hand."
Sigh. Not another directive to show *proof*. Theories aren't proved, they are supported by evidence or not supported by evidence. Creationism is not supported by the evidence; natural selection and common descent is.
It has not been dismissed offhand, it has been dealt with scientifically and defeated.
No. It was not. Science doesn't prove things; it guesses at things, and tries really hard to make good guesses. Presently, it guesses that spontaneous generation isn't a necessary assumption to explain why naturalistic origins of life are possible.
While we now know far more than even 100 years ago, there is still far more that we don't know and scientists are continually updating and revising their theories as new data comes in. When we know all the facts and all the proofs are in, then it can be declared dead.
No such point will ever be reached. You are asking far more of science than it is capable of.
Until then there remains a need to consider it. If creation is wrong, prove it.
It is not science's job to either prove or disprove creation by a Prime Mover god. Science gets along just fine without entangling itself in questions it is structurally unequipped to answer.
Don't just categorize it as a myth
Show me anywhere in "Nature" or "Science" or any technical biology journal or a position statement by an important scientific association that suggests this.
and dismiss it off hand.
Not science's job. Science needs an opinion about the nature of God like a fish needs a bicycle.
If there is no 'spontaneous generation' (abiogenesis) then there is no Evolution-period.(Macro)
They are now down to redefining life (protolife) to justify the belief that life can come from non-life.
Somehow the inorganic became organic.
Talk about FAITH!
Also, evolutionist's are very adapt at switching evolution that is true (adaptation within Kinds-micro) and Evolution as proof of a Common Ancestor.
Read Philip Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial.