Replies

"Evolution says NOTHING about the creation of the universe, and it says NOTHING about the origin of the first life forms."

For the record, let me state that I am not a Creationist. As an agnostic, I don't believe that evolution and ID necessarily contradict each other (pretty much the Catholic perspective).

However, your statement above avoids what I believe is a valid point regarding education in our schools. Whether those two things are included in the theory of evolution is besides the point - they ARE taught in schools, whether as a part of evolutionary theory or not. I was taught that abiogenesis was the result of a bunch of amino acids that just happened to assemble into proteins, then cells, etc... and I was taught the big bang theory.

Fine, if you don't consider these to belong to the theory of evolution, I won't argue with that. But they ARE taught in schools, and no other perspective is permitted, despite the fact that they are just as faith based as saying "God created the first life forms, and let evolution take it from there".

In all of these evo/creo threads, I -constantly- see the evo side make this claim - that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Okay! Fine! Accepted! But then why is abiogensis also taught in schools, and usually in the chapter right before they start teaching evolution?

Qwinn

But then why is abiogensis also taught in schools, and usually in the chapter right before they start teaching evolution?

Good question. At most they should teach that there are many speculative theories about the origin of life, but little hard evidence.

However, your statement above avoids what I believe is a valid point regarding education in our schools. Whether those two things are included in the theory of evolution is besides the point - they ARE taught in schools, whether as a part of evolutionary theory or not.

I have no problem with it being taught as a hypothesis on its own, though I would object to it being classified as part of the theory of evolution.

I was taught that abiogenesis was the result of a bunch of amino acids that just happened to assemble into proteins, then cells, etc...

I was taught that as well. I was taught that it was a hypothesis, not on the level of theory like evolution.

and I was taught the big bang theory.

I was also taught about the big bang theory. In a physics course. I was taught about evolution and abiogenesis in a biology course.

But they ARE taught in schools, and no other perspective is permitted, despite the fact that they are just as faith based as saying "God created the first life forms, and let evolution take it from there".

Do you have an alternative scientific explanation that fits observed evidence?

But then why is abiogensis also taught in schools, and usually in the chapter right before they start teaching evolution?

If you have an alternate origins hypothesis, I'd like to hear it.