[js1138]

For those who take evolution all the way back to pre-animate chains of amino acids replicating themselves in a primordial sea as the starting point, I think it does.

I would agree that most biologists believe this, but it is not a theory or even a hypothesis. It is more of a conjecture, since there are no real details.

Are you asserting it is immoral to assume natural causes and work to find them?

[js1138]

Regarding my post #833. I seem to have stepped into a bog. I was reading the statement loosely to be synonomous with abiogenes. I think most biologists believe abiogenesis happened.

[Question_Assumptions]

I would agree that most biologists believe this, but it is not a theory or even a hypothesis. It is more of a conjecture, since there are no real details.

Would you argue that this shouldn't be taught in schools, then?

Are you asserting it is immoral to assume natural causes and work to find them?

I am asserting that it is an unsupported assumption. See my screen name. It may even be a perfectly reasonable and useful assumption to make but it's still just an assumption, just as the belief in a divine agent is. If evolutionists would embrace the fact that it's an unknown and allow for the possiblity of God to inhabit that unknown alongside their assumption of a godless universe, I think it would defuse a lot of tension that exists among religous folk who would not otherwise be extremists on the matter. For many religious non-Fundamentalists, the problem is not that evolution explains that mane arose from animals but that it refuses to leave any room for God in the unknown. It seems to assume a godless universe. And that's where the atheist fanatics jump on the bandwagon and start beating their drum.