Anti-Science bill in Indiana.....

So should schools not teach anything on the origin of life, because the answer is not confirmed?orshould they teach a variety of theories, and simply say "these are the various explanations" that we have, but a general consensus has yet to be determined?

Sure, we could teach a variety of things while we're at it! We could teach magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, spells, ouija boards, anecdotes, tarot cards, sorcery, naturalism, seances, black cats, table tipping, witch doctors, divination, "miracles," the unguessable verdict of history, hoodoo, voodoo, and all that other weird stuff.How about we just teach science instead, eh?And please don't use the term "theory" incorrectly. Here are a couple of good definitions:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

try and stay on topic, this is about the origin of life and I asked a specific question about it, or is this just your snarky way of saying you have no clue? after the Bison v Buffalo thing, I learned I could use terms around here however i wanted to. ahh that is right, there isn't a confirmed answer yet on the origin of life as appropriate to teach to kids.are you suggesting we just default to science on this one due to faith in science?

Depends on the grade level...but I would say they should teach the various scientific explanations for the origin of life, but they should be very clear in stating that these are ideas or hypotheses, not theories, and that we may never know exactly how life started on Earth because there was little to no evidence left when it happened.They might even say that various religions have their own explanation, and if they would like to know more about those, they can take a comparative religions course (assuming the school offers one) or they can ask their parents or ministers about the one their religion prefers.

We know how it did not start, and eliminates covers EVERY religious creation tale.

If we limit what is taught to just theories then that excludes all religious beliefs. I think it would be fine to teach students about the latest research dealing with the RNA World hypothesis and various ongoing scientific research that is looking at the origin of life. What is not ok is to teach religious beliefs alongside scientific research as if they are on the same level. I would be fine with an elective Comparative Religions course where religious beliefs can be put in the proper context.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

At least you admit that your arguments are based on semantics instead of substance. There is no faith in science. Science is the opposite of faith. In science, you test your ideas and disregard all ideas that can not be tested.What we should teach in science class is science, including the latest research on the origin of life if it fits with the curriculum. At this point, students are being taught that complex biomolecules do form through abiotic processes. This is backed by mountains of research. It is a fact. Other research on the RNA World hypothesis and other current working hypotheses will probably fly over the head of high school students. Research is being done in this field on these hypotheses, so if students do wish to work in these fields they will need to be educated on these topics, most likely in graduate school.

I can almost guarantee that it will if those laws are put into practice. They want to teach religious beliefs, not theories. If we already knew everything would we need to be educating and training new scientists?So how do we educate these new scientists? Do we teach them that life came about through magical poofing, so there really is no need to do any scientific research on the origins of life?

based on what evidence?

Many many lines of evidence.For example we know that the Bible has two different and mutually exclusive accounts and so one or both must be wrong.We also know that every other religion also has multiple mutually exclusive accounts and so they too must be wrong.Finally, we have evidence of natural causes but no one has ever presented any evidence of any unnatural or supernatural causes.Therefore, until someone presents some evidence of an unnatural or supernatural cause, all such assertions should be rejected as science.

lack of evidence is not evidence, you seem to be saying that because there is no evidence then that is evidence that the bible is wrong.interesting logic you have there

Lack of evidence can most certainly be evidence. If you claim to have shot and hit the target yet there is no hole, then the lack of a hole most certainly is evidence.In addition I made a claim that there was evidence, that the religious fables are mutually exclusive and that in fact Christianity has at least two mutually exclusive creation fables.I also pointed out that there is evidence of natural causes. If and when comparable evidence for unnatural or supernatural causes is presented, then and ONLY then is there anything to teach in a science class.

Ya know, posting obvious misinterpretations, your preferred approach, is only effective if you can somehow have the last word. Otherwise it just forces people to post corrections and wastes a lot of time, not to mention disk space.--Percy

quote:

---

lack of evidence is not evidence, you seem to be saying that because there is no evidence then that is evidence that the bible is wrong.

---

Evidence of a contradictory hypothesis it evidence. There's lots of evidence of models that contradict the literal interpretation of bible.

Which is exactly what you just did with your worthless post. You are part of the problem with posts like this, not the solution.