So am I. It's not science and doesn't belong in a science class.
Nor more than Spontaneous Generation is science, since it deals with matters of metaphysics by begging the question. However, for an honest, 'liberal' education both creationism and godless life by poof should be discussed, as ontological and epistemological backdrops for the sciences.
[unspun, earlier post]:... which is to say "only spontaneous life generation theories allowed, in our science class." (Hardly a matter for science.)
While it is NOT part of the Theory of Evolution, it is a current scientific hypothesis and research is being done on it. Have you got a alternative scientific hypothesis to propose?
It is a fallacy and an epistemological usurpation to say that hypothetics regarding utterly spontaneous generation are science while hypothetics regarding any intelligent design are not. You cannot claim that a coin about this question must only come up "tails" (i.e., without a creative Head) in science class. Or to put it another way, if you do, you're wagging the dog.
That is censorship, along the same lines as the Inquisition (albeit, without the red-hot pokers or the rack).
Furthermore, scientists should also have the intellectual honesty to admit that if there is an all-powerfull God, he could have developed all that we might see as evolution within seven of something that he calls days (or one in one moment).
If it is phrased as a scientific question capable of being assessed by valid research, then, yes, it is science (see the previous threads about "RNA world" research). Saying "Goddidit" or advocating ID/IOT are not science.
However, for an honest, 'liberal' education both creationism and godless life by poof should be discussed, as ontological and epistemological backdrops for the sciences.
What utter nonsense. We don't teach children about the monsters under their bed, pixies and elves, Giant Chickens and pink unicorns, or demons from the underworld in science class either.
It is a fallacy and an epistemological usurpation to say that hypothetics regarding utterly spontaneous generation are science while hypothetics regarding any intelligent design are not.
We are not talking hypothetics. We are discussing scientific questions that we may be able to answer someday about spontaneous generation and banning any such study on the other.
You cannot claim that a coin about this question must only come up "tails" (i.e., without a creative Head) in science class. Or to put it another way, if you do, you're wagging the dog.
We do not, nor do we assume that the "coin" has only two sides.
That is censorship, along the same lines as the Inquisition (albeit, without the red-hot pokers or the rack).
Really? Should we include the Giant Chickens or pink unicorns because some other religion wants them included too? Where would you draw the line? Would you force us to include your Creation story and then exclude all others?
Furthermore, scientists should also have the intellectual honesty to admit that if there is an all-powerful God, he could have developed all that we might see as evolution within seven of something that he calls days (or one in one moment).
We do, but it's so trivial a point that it's not worth discussing. And, of course, the logical fallacy from that point is that there would still be no relevant connection between such a god and your religion or your particular religious book, so starting with your religious book and attempting to work backwards to the first point, is not considered a fruitful endeavor to a scientist.
I hope this answers your questions.