Posted by: FLPatriot | March 27, 2009

Theory of Evolution is not abiogenesis.

I have read many comments where defenders of evolution point out that the theory of evolution does not explain the origins of life, that is the theory of chemical evolution (better known now as abiogenesis).

In the government schools today though kids will be learning about evolution and how life forms change over time through natural selection and mutations. They will also be taught that all life on earth is descended from one common ancestor. That last statement is speaking to the origin of life on earth. 

If the theory of evolution does not try to figure out the origins of life, should it not be taught this way? Would you defenders of evolution that say that the general public is against evolution because we do not understand it properly want to make sure it is taught correctly? Would you be for the correcting of any text book that uses evolution to explain the origins of life on earth?


Responses

  1. “That last statement is speaking to the origin of life on earth. ”

    No it isn’t. It doesn’t say how that ancestor came to be.

    Acknowledging that there was some sort of origin is not the same as explaining what that origin is.

    And as abiogenesis is the best scientific theory out there, the one with the most evidence going for it, I have no problem with that being taught in public schools.

    To throw you a bone, science class should not be taught like a religion class. There should be know ‘this is absolute, this is 100% correct and we’ll never say any different”. People say that in religion class. In science class, you must be clear to say that the things we know are known because all the available evidence points to it being the truth. If new or different evidence comes along, science will change. (Which makes it superior to religion, in my book.)

    “Would you defenders of evolution that say that the general public is against evolution because we do not understand it properly want to make sure it is taught correctly?”

    Well, some of you don’t understand it properly. Others are just against it ideologically, so even if they do understand it, they’re against it.

  2. What text book? Who wrote it.

    “They will also be taught that all life on earth is descended from one common ancestor.”

    No. Common ascestor(s.)

    Before you write things like this you really need to examine the syllabi and the text books.

  3. I suppose Goddidt is a more acceptable explanation ?

    Unless, of course, your speaking about something distasteful or evil, then god did not do that, right?

    Science is not religion. Religion is not science. Don’t teach science in church, and don’t try to teach religion in class !

  4. I agree with those that says Abiogenesis is not Evolution per se.

    But the two are forever linked because Abiogenesis provides for evolution what it needs to begin with: The first living cell.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: