Unfortunately in modern education (and the mass media) evolution, natural selection, and abiogenesis are mixed together as a single concept. So Darwinian natural selection based evolution is seen as the explanation for the origin of life -- something even many evolutionary biologists would have a hard time supporting or justifying.
Natural selection clearly plays a major role in evolution, but it also isn't the only factor. The existence of domestic animals, like cows and dogs, certainly can't be explained by natural selection. Nor can the existence of modern commercial hybrid plant species. So clearly other factors are involved, at least since humans became active on the planet.
Interestingly, I know of no researchers today who can accurately define a test which can identify biological entities designed and created in labs by humans, which one would assume would be "intelligently" designed. If you can't identify a living genetically engineered and created organism how would you expect to know if other organisms were or were not "intelligently designed"?
There are also cases of simple organisms that modulate their development based on their environment - which is essentially Larmarckian evolution, although apparently the organisms retain the ability to grow into multiple forms. This ability, if widespread, adds quite a bit of complexity to the simple natural selection models.
And a theory which says "life must have begun as a result of a lot of random molecular interactions which ultimately ended up producing a living organism" isn't much of a theory. It really has no more basis than someone that says "life must have begun as a result of some space ship arriving on earth and leaving organisms here". Both rely on a long statistical chain of events. To really dig into the origin of life requires a very deep understanding of how molecular biology works, probably more than is now available.
Instead of schools wasting time fighting over what shallow "theory" or "fact" they teach, they should make an effort to teach the students about what the various theories really mean, and how one might go about testing, understanding or evaluating them. Hopefully those students will go on to advance our understanding of our world and how life began.
Of course Darwin got the idea of natural selection by observing artificial selection. He spent decades talking to animal and plant breeders. From these sources he was able to estimate the kinds and rates of variation that occurred.
From the observed rate of variation he was able to estimate the minimum age of the earth necessary to produce the variety of life now seen. His estimate was close to the currently accepted span since the Cambrian, and far more accurate than any estimate produced by the physics of his time.
Interestingly, I know of no researchers today who can accurately define a test which can identify biological entities designed and created in labs by humans, which one would assume would be "intelligently" designed. If you can't identify a living genetically engineered and created organism how would you expect to know if other organisms were or were not "intelligently designed"?
The vast majority of scientists believe in God and do not have difficulty reconciling their work with their faith. I recall Carl Sagan saying something to the effect that his examination of the universe reinforced his faith in God rather than challenging it. Science is, by necessity, materialist, and it has to ignore teleological explanations, relying instead on what is observable and measurable. It is an approach to understanding the universe that is not necessarily a full understanding, but one that is helpful by making exploration, discussion, and discovery possible, rather than accepting arguments from authority. The risk is, some ill-informed people (who might reject religion for personal reasons, or just not understand the scientific method) inevitably reduce evolution to believing something like:
"life must have begun as a result of a lot of random molecular interactions which ultimately ended up producing a living organism"
This is an idea that is predicated on faith also, and is not something supported by science, if by "random" one means "without order" (instead of "order beyond our comprehension").
The idea of a Creator is not inconsistent with the idea of natural selection or other evolutionary theories. Although ID poses some good challenges to natural selection, they are metaphysical challenges, thus outside the realm of science. I don't say this to elevate science above other worthy fields.
Instead of schools wasting time fighting over what shallow "theory" or "fact" they teach, they should make an effort to teach the students about what the various theories really mean, and how one might go about testing, understanding or evaluating them. Hopefully those students will go on to advance our understanding of our world and how life began.
I could not agree more. And what could be more conservative than to teach that ideas have consequences? The problem is, this supposes that school boards and parents see the education of their children as a good, rather than seeing the schools as the instrument of this or that ideology.
JMHO.