You can make students aware of unanswered questions, and different alternatives without giving supernatural explanations.
Of course you
can in theory but in practise there is little doubt that the creationist lobby will push for the opposite at the slightest opportunity to do so.
I really do not believe that. I think that creationists and ID people are holding other scientists accountable when they attempt to make assumptions that may be way out of line.
I have to disagree. Objective wholly empirical evidence based conclusions are not what the creation and ID people are aiming for. They have a very definite alternative agenda. Your conclusion seems a little naive regarding this point.
How are creationists keeping science from progressing? Are you talking about stem cell research, the use of human embryos, or some other controversial moral type issues that are opposed by creationists?
Nothing so specific. I just meant that by leaping on every unanswered question as a reason to inject mysticism into the science classroom they make scientists defensive and thus effectively stifle debate even where debate might be warranted or conducive to progress. This is my view. I am not sure how widely shared it is by those in the front line of the debate however.
That the theories related to the origin of life have many unanswered questions, and it should not be taught as a scientific fact. Students should be made aware of these unanswered questions.
I agree. How are we to inspire the next generation of scientists if not by exposing them to the great and interesting questions that remain to be answered? Is anyone claiming that we should tell students that we have a fully devloped and tested theory of abiogenesis? I shall have to go back and read previous posts in more detail. But lets also tell students what we do actually know about this area and the reasoning we have for ongoing research.
Do you not feel I need to respond to those people who have already replied to me?
Yes you should respond. I personally would separate origins of life from development of life as a subject area. On the basis that we have a well formed and tested theory for one but not the other if nothing else. However who am I to dictae what should and should not be discussed if you want to cover all areas and others are willing to do so.
I think your general approach is much more reasoned than many many creationists. I do however also think your arguments will ultimately be exposed as wrong. Evolution (abiogenesis apart
) is about as solid a scientific theory as you could hope to find. Others better qualified than I seem keen to demonstrate this so lets see what happens.