quote:
When speaking of evolution it is my understanding that it logically should at least be very closely associated with abiogenesis, (it invariably continues to be taught as connected by teachers, why?)
That really depends on what you are talking about. In terms of the history of life on earth they are closely connected, one follows on from the other. If we define life to exclude early chemical replicators that developed into life (and I prefer not to) then evolution may play a part in abiogenesis. We might evenuse our knowledge of evolution to try to inform studies of abiogenesis by trying to reconstruct the first life.
However they are logically separate when dealing with anything following abiogenesis since it really isn't relevant exactly how the first life got here. As I pointed put in my prior posts we don't need to know how the planets formed to observe their movements or even reconstruct the paths of those orbits through history.
quote:
...and for the purposes of clarity, it certainly needs to be at least strongly emphasised that the ToE effectively has no known beginnings other than that the idea started with a common ancestor, a "simple", ALREADY EXISTING (Intelligently- Created?) life form
That certainly doesn't, add any clarity to the teaching of evolution. And really, we have no good rival to abiogenesis on Earth right now.
quote:
Incidentally, and surely to the embarrassment of secular evos, there is in fact no such thing as a "simple" life form- indeed the genome of the much touted "simple" amoeba proteus, (the amoeba traditionally is taught as being the likely common ancestor), has 290 billion units of DNA- some one hundred times that of the human bein
No, modern amoebas are certainly not represented as the actual ancestors of modern life. And why should it be embarrassing ? It really fits in much better with evolution than creation...
quote:
The ToE with its current ambiguity, (such as is widely taught in schools/mainstream education), coupled with an insistence that every genetic transaction in evolution is unguided or random is why I assert that there is a religious ambition to exclude a Creator.- Ask a bunch of high school students today if they feel that they have been taught the TOE as fact and I'm pretty sure most will say yes, indeed if you observe the exam questions, they at the very least treat the theory as fact
So, a good scientific education is evidence that there is "a religious ambition to exclude a Creator" ?
quote:
There has also appeared over time to generally be a subtle (why subtle?) "evolution" within the theory of evolution from ideas to fact, often with little or no tangible evidence (eg the on-going controversy with transition across species), this is similar (albeit less blatant) to the following typical example of "transition" in another aspect of science: "The Earth is thought to be 4.6 billion years old". "Therefore since [fact] the Earth is 4.6 billion years old,"
So, as favourable evidence accumulates we become more certain of our ideas. This is a problem ?
quote:
As stated elsewhere, the religious pursuit by some to obviate a Creator from science or even from the origins of scientific theories stems from the dislike for accountability or relationship with a being higher than ones-self (pride?)
The constant complaint of the creationist "Scientists are so proud that they refuse to worship ME!"
But as I have pointed out before, the vast majority of qualified experts - including Christians - accept evolution. If evolution was simply a fraud concocted to deny the existence of God that even someone as uninformed as yourself can see through, how could this possibly be the case?