Noble sentiment. If I came across as insulting you, then you have my apologies. Too much time on these threads tends to leave one rather jaded.
At the very top of his list (note: his list; not mine), was this statement: "the first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred." (1960, p.6)
This is commonly referenced as being crucial to the theory of evolution. However, while abiogenisis (the commonly used term for the process described in the quote) and the theory of evolution are related, they are independent. Aboigenisis is, in layman's terms, "How Life Came To Be," while the theory of evolution describes "What Happened Next." You other cite is similarly flawed in that it concerns the Origin of Life, not the Origin of Species.
there is as much faith required for evolution as Creationism.
Not true. Evolution is based on evidence. Critters evolve. This has been observed. Populations of like critters can speciate. This has also been observed (Google on "ring species"). The fossil record is replete with examples of gradual change, with the regular emergence of particular structures (VadeRetro's ear bone example, for one), and an orderly pattern of descent and divergence. New fossils are discovered daily and in almost all cases fit neatly into the pre-existing structure. Those that don't are accomodated with minimal fuss. This is evidence, not faith.
Creationism has no evidence, defines no structure of descent, and, in fact, compels that the appearance of an evolutionary lineage be denied.
This is about a group of parents who are fighting to take back their schools, in their community, paid for with their tax dollars. In that endeavor, we must all be united.
I live in Cobb County. Regardless of any other characteristics (good OR bad) they may share, fundamentalist Christians are notoriously poor science teachers.
SCIENCE---LAWS/design!