But why is it this particular claim any more viable than "God did it"?
Or did you think science was doen by Laws and Theorems beign handed to men by God ona silver platter?
Of course not. But one should not teach the speculation as established.
OK. Then please point to a science site that backs up the notion that God said ZAP and suddenly bacteria had flagella.
That's the point. Talkorigins is no different. It's a religious site. It argues from the point that God couldn't have done it so any such claim is ridiculous -- not that "we really don't know so maybe God did do it. Let's investigate further."
> But why is it this particular claim any more viable than "God did it"?
Because it has evidence backing it up. The chemistry is not based on handwaving or superstition; each step described is a physically possible one.
Tell me: what do you think about the theory that those young men in Aruba kidnapped and/or murdered that girl (name escapes me)? How would you rate that theory against "God did it?"
> one should not teach the speculation as established.
Sure. That's why we should teach evolution and not creationism in science class. One has evidence and makes successful predictions, the other is creationism.
> It argues from the point that God couldn't have done it
Incorrect. It argues from the standpoint of "ok, what has *positive* evidence?"