Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CarolinaGuitarman
We should teach religion in a science class because science doesn't have a particular answer yet?

I guess what I am saying is if someone in a science class asks such a question, shouldn't the teacher be able to at least say something like "many people's religion says they were created and science does not have an answer?"

Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation; as it is the only theory with any scientific credibility that concerns the origins of life, that would be the only choice

I guess I do not understand why abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation?
54 posted on 01/11/2006 4:00:16 PM PST by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: microgood

"I guess I do not understand why abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation?"

It'd the "spontaneous". Abiogenesis as a hypothesis involves many steps of increasing complexity and not a "poof" - Creation would be a "poof".

Spontaneous Generation has never been disproved, and, by its very nature, can never be.


56 posted on 01/11/2006 4:07:43 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

To: microgood
"I guess what I am saying is if someone in a science class asks such a question, shouldn't the teacher be able to at least say something like "many people's religion says they were created and science does not have an answer?"

Science does have an answer, if tentative, that at least has some evidence to back it up. The statement you want added is so general, while I wouldn't object necessarily to the religious allusion, I doubt it will do anything to answer the student's question that they already didn't know.

"I guess I do not understand why abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation?"

Spontaneous generation was a claim about how microorganisms and many insects come to be, instantaneously, and that this happens all the time even today. It has nothing to do with abiogenesis, which tries to show how the chemical precursors to life could have formed and come together to form the first self-replicating organism. Abiogenesis does not claim that the conditions for the formation of life exist anymore, nor does it deny that today life comes from life only (on earth anyway; it says nothing of what may be happening on other planets.) It has about as much to do with spontaneous generation as Lucretius' ideas about atoms have to do with modern atomic theory.
58 posted on 01/11/2006 4:13:09 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson