Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?

I'm reading about how perfect the theory of evolution is but I'm troubled by several aspects of it.
1. I've always heard that 'scientific theories' must be duplicatable.
2. I have yet to see anyone duplicate life. I've read all kinds of theories about lightning striking some pool of 'soup' and suddenly there's life. Why have those scientists not been able to apply their theories and duplicate the origin? After all, it had to be totally uncontrolled and accidental.
3. My understanding is that evolution is a 'use it or lose it' situation. However, according to what I've read, the most intelligent, or most efficient, humans use about 15% of their brain. According to the fossels that evolutionists claim are early man, they had smaller brains than we have today. If for example, an eagle's wingspan was compared to the human brain's over abundance, that eagle would have a wingspan of approximately 35 feet.
4. Man's eyes aren't the best, nose isn't the best, ears aren't the best and athletic ability is extremely low compared to animals. Man's 'development' really makes no sense, overkill in the brain and yet lacking in the basic life requirements.
5. Evolutionists have yet to determine exactly what 'life' is. What is it that one minute something is alive and although everything physical is still the same, the next minute it is dead...without life?

Thanks. Answers lead to additional or more focused questions.If 'life' could be accidentally started, and continued, in uncontrolled conditions, shouldn't it be possible within very controlled labratory conditions? I've been hearing about scientists working on this for 50 years.As I see it, evolution is adaptation of a species, not one species becoming something else. I'm not an authority by any means but when I read some report on it there is always a large gap in the line leading up to the 'conclusion'. I could accept that except others use that gap in evidence as 'proof' against an outcome they don't want.It sounds like your position or question about 'life' is about where mine is. Something is alive or dead, to one degree or so, but what is it that makes it live? What is that essense or whatever that causes something to live? If it's chemical, then it should easily be reproducable.If the human brain is 'overkill', then why? Why would anything in nature that is successful be overkill? There are mutations in just about every living organism but something that is overdone is very seldom successful.My college biology prof. was a leading authority on fruit flies, and an extremely interesting lecturer as well, but all he seemed to accept was that evolution is adapting to changing conditions. I don't think he believed that one species became another species, but did modify itself and became a successful species or died out.As for humans being a 'deadend' species, I think we're killing ourselves with our 'lifesaving' medicine and surgery. Problem genes are spread instead of being ended. A high school friend's first child had to have an operation immediately to correct a major throat problem. She lived and has had several kids, who I would think has that problem gene now passed on to future generations. Multiply that by all such operations performed on a daily basis, plus the life saving medications, and the weakening of the human system seems certain.

If I recall correctly, scientists had figured out many years ago what would have had to be included to encourage spontaneous life. If that was the case, then most of the time and number of 'experiments', both in nature and in the lab, would be eliminated.I love science, always have. But one of the basics that I've learned is that scientists are to be taken with a huge grain of salt! They tend to jump onto something that they want to be and ignore obvious proof that doesn't support their position.I think it was Einstein who stated that the probability of life not being of some kind of design was too great to be possible.

That could be so, however, how many actually separate the two? I remember 'facts' in science books that have been completely changed with more knowledge.
What is really important is that so many think they have the answer even if the 'answer' is hypothetical.Personally, I think the idea of 'life' being brought here by some meteor or such would have a higher probably than the 'soup' theory. However, that doesn't answer the question of what is actually 'life' nor how it ultimately got started.

No, as I said, I'm not a scientist but have had an interest in science as long as I can remember.I remember about 10 to 15 years ago many, if not most, scientists were warning us about a coming ice age, that the earth was cooling. Then it became global warming. Are you going to say that they didn't jump to conclusions beyond their knowledge on either side?In high school, in the late 50's we were taught that the oil was going to run out in 20 years or less if there was no increase in demand such as another war. I hated that because I was very much into cars. The scientists who had proposed that must have not had knowledge of the possibility of oil supplies being located, but made the statement anyway.Same time, we were taught that the plate theory of continental drift was bunk. I guess some had pushed that idea but the accepted 'science' was to the contrary. More lack of knowledge before jumping on a theory.Do I think scientists are liars? Of course not. I think most are very dedicated but want their theories or positions to be right and accepted... and many, if not most, want to be the first to expose something.Accepted 'truth' can be very difficult to change as has been shown throughout history. Evolution was not accepted immediately and very well could be proven someday to be totally wrong, just as global cooling has at this point to be 'totally wrong'... but I believe the jury is still out.

You're doing just what I said scientists do. You're going from a point that is known and expanding on it way past the known or the possibly known.The oil situation, for example. If oil is found in some parts of the world and there are other parts of the world that hasn't been explored, why would scientists make a statement that wasn't tentative, but absolute about the oil supply?The plate theory is the same. Jumping to conclusions beyond knowledge just because of the accepted theories... the present status.Until a situation is solved, 'scientific statements' should be considered tentative, just as I stated in an early post. I've seen too many 'facts' and 'truths' turned on their head by later information.Q. What's the difference between a scientist and God?
A. God doesn't think He's a scientist!(>;

Oh, my... you're one of those???!!!!

Ya gotta be a rare bird... haven't seen many scientists in the wheat fields in Kansas!If you're into this... when was the last time you saw real evidence, not conjecture, of one species turning into a different species?

"That's funny, because 10-15 years ago I remember hearing from scientists that we were actually at the end of the last ice age.Which scientists said that we were coming into a new ice age, again?"My scientists must have been louder than yours. I remember articles in several magazines on "The Coming Ice Age". It may have been 20 years, but it was the accepted 'truth' of the day. They were talking about how the temps had been rising for about 50 years and that they were about at the end of the cycle and would start cooling again.The scientific community changed almost overnight from cooling to warming.

You may want to check this out...Top News, Latest headlines, Latest News, World News & U.S News - UPI.com

I'm sure that this is exciting to a scientist and probably is some sort of a different species by scientific definition. I see it more as an adaptation than an evolvment into something new... like what happens when a larva turns into an adult. If an earthworm were to become a winged or legged creature, with all the intermediate creatures exhibiting the changes in development, then I think scientists could state positively that evolution is no longer a theory.

"That's not adaptation; that's metamorphosis, a programmed body development in the organism. Insects metamorph no matter what environment you place them in; adaptation is inherently environment-dependant."I know it's metamorphosis. What I said and gave an example of was changing from one type of creature into a different creature. Metamorphosis would be an example if it weren't the same life, just in different stages.We've not even mentioned intelligence. That's way beyond evolution. I asked if there were any definite changes into a different form that has been observed without big gaps that have to be filled by speculation.Proof is proof. Speculation is not proof, nor should it be.

It appears the 'goal posts' are being moved here. If evolution is the answer, and the sole answer, then shouldn't there be proof that such has happened and is happening?

I saw an article several years ago, I kept the magazine until I moved and it went out with a lot of other stuff, but it talked about an 'explosion of life' and the sudden appearance of thousands of different types of animals some millions of years ago. Don't remember the number nor the way they came up with their conclusion.If, as you say, life has evolved from simple animals to more complex, etc. why would a worm evolve into a legged or flying creature of some sort. I'm not talking about a single worm, but a species (maybe I'm not using the correct scientific term) of worms. I would think that would be the natural progression?

Several posters here seem to think I'm against the teaching of evolution. I'm not. I think it's interesting and does answer some questions as animals adapt to conditions, but I don't see it as an 'ends all' theory. A bird changing it's mating call, to me, is only adapting to what may be an area that's too crowded or has other pressure to change. Does that make it a 'new' species? Scientifically it sounds like it does, so maybe the word 'species' isn't the correct one for a real change that someone outside a limited 'expert' would observe. Real change would be when a fin becomes a leg or a leg becomes a wing, etc. I know that those changes would take a long time in nature, but shouldn't that line be observable through fossils? Especially if the 'where we should look' concept is leading the search.From the link in your post:
"These include a legislative bill in Missouri which seeks to ensure that only science which can be proven by experiment is taught in schools."
I think this is dumb. If something is a solid theory, it should be taught, with the supporting evidence AND the questions unanswered by the theory, as a theory. If there is more than one strong theory for something then they all should be taught.
I'm not convinced that adaptation is how things get more complex in nature. I lost most of my hearing through my profession and seeing the complexity of the ear and everything that must be perfect to allow it to work at all is mind boggling. What I observe in nature is more a simplification process, complex being made simplier.
ID doesn't answer all questions either, but a combination of the two would seem to answer all.
Maybe the answer is to admit that we just don't know!