[metmom]

If we’re going to teach evolution, are we going to teach punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism?

Are we going to teach pre-Cambrium explosion or that life evolved slowly from simpler forms?

Are we going to teach that life arose from non-living matter or that spontaneous generation is impossible?

[ColdWater]

Just as with other subjects, I agree that we should show the history of the study of evolution and how it has evolved as we have acquired more information about our history. As for spontaneous generation, we already teach in school how that was debunked (except for “And God created man” which we will leave to the church to teach).

[js1138]

If we’re going to teach evolution, are we going to teach punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism?

Are we going to teach pre-Cambrium explosion or that life evolved slowly from simpler forms?

Are we going to teach that life arose from non-living matter or that spontaneous generation is impossible?

None of these present any problems for evolution. But since you seem to believe there are separate laws of physics for the earth and off the earth, I can see why you would have trouble here.

[Fichori]

“If we’re going to teach evolution, are we going to teach punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism?

Are we going to teach pre-Cambrium explosion or that life evolved slowly from simpler forms?

Are we going to teach that life arose from non-living matter or that spontaneous generation is impossible?”

Well, Berkeley University has "From soup to cells — the origin of life" on their website...

Here is an excerpt:

“However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.” [excerpt]

Hehehe...