Schools Req'd to notify parents before teaching evolution

[troutman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

No it's exactly what we are talking about. These private and charter schools are doing just that with the a la carte menu. They are filled with the son's and daughters of every elite you can name and everybody else who can get them in . And guess what they want to be able to pick and choose and opt out. Heck they will opt out of field trips for a host of reasons(religious ones being just one of many). You might find it funny. But I've never met a parent who does. They can't get them into a charter or private school fast enough. The competition to get them into these schools is fierce. And they sit on the boards and wield plenty of power. That they are better than public schools isn't even a discussion--it's a slam dunk.

Your view of educators is seriously off. It ain't the hallowed halls of academia we are talking about--this is the school down the road and there is plenty of reasons why they have been called sad. More choices and ability to influence and opt out are bad--funny how many people with kids are banging down the doors trying to get their kids in to just that system.

Who is an "elite"? What is the goal of private schooling? Matriculation?

Public education is good for my children. The teachers and principal at their school are fantastic. I think my children would be missing out on something if they only socialized with "elites".

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by troutman

Who is an "elite"? What is the goal of private schooling? Matriculation?

Public education is good for my children. The teachers and principal at their school are fantastic. I think my children would be missing out on something if they only socialized with "elites".

The elite comment was in response to the how "fools" spend their money. They are far from fools. What pray tell would they be missing out on? I've worked in both and they yak/do the exact same things. The only difference is the rich kids have an ipod touch and the public school ones have a nano as a poor example. Extrapolate that to all toys, devices, number of opportunites to do the same things. They watch the same tube, view the same youtube offerings, have their facebook page as well as anybody else. Charter school kids are simple public school kids who are opting out. So once again the "class" comment is a little weird.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

I've heard the academia argument before. Amazing how many times it comes from people removed from the scene or those without kids.

Who are you even talking to? You don't know anything about me--and your assumptions about who I am and where I'm coming from are completely wrong.

You clearly have strong convictions. That's fine. But believing something strongly, and belittling anyone who disagrees doesn't make you right.

And as it happens, your argument is very weak, when evaluated on its merits. Consider what you've argued:
1. Some private schools offer a higher quality product.
2. Some of those private schools allow parents to opt out of whatever subject they like.
Therefore:
3. The a la carte approach is what makes private schools superior.

#1 is a doubtful claim on its face anyway; forgive me if I don't simply take your word for it, as a person "on the ground" who sends his children to school with "the elites." However, you must see that even were it true, 3 does not follow from 1 and 2. In fact, it's much likelier that #1 is true in spite of #2, and that the real reason is resources.

[troutman]

http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/5

In conclusion, you will find that there is no overall right or wrong answer regarding whether private or public school education is best for children today. The best thing to do when making this decision is to consider the factors and weigh which ones are important to you. Many people are so polarized around the option of having a religious affiliation that this may be the only thing important to you. For others, the costs of private school rule it out outright for them.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

NM--no need to sink to his level

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

That's my point, take an obvious case like reading. What if there was a parent who thought reading would let their kids learn new ideas so didn't want them to read? Would you support that?

Parents do object to reading materials and replace the books with others that they find less offensive. In fact many of the "see dick run" readers that your parents might have learn to read from are being reproduced because there is a demand.

No parents in Alberta are refusing to allow their children to learn to read. If they did the State could require the parents to explain how doing so would be in the best interest of the child. If they had a reasonable arguement the State should respect the parents decision even if they disagreed. You obviously haven't presented a reasonable argument to disallow your child to read.

Now you obviously believe that rejecting the evolution theory is unreasonable and ignorant. The thing is there is thousands of parents in Alberta and across this country that would disagree with you. The volume of parents who hold this position and obviously do so for thought out reasons suggest they pass the reasonable test. They should be respected even if you don't agree.

Originally Posted by photon

They still have the final authority. Governments can be voted out, members changed, the process can be readdressed, curriculums change, get engaged in the process.

We don't vote in governments to make every decision for ourselves or our children. It is reasonable to allow evolution to be part of the curriculum because the majority of Albertains want it there. It is not reasonable to allow the majority or the government to interfer with the rights of the individual.

Originally Posted by photon

You seem to be proposing an alternative where there is no curriculum. Anything goes, teach kids whatever?

No I'm suggesting that you respect these parent's choices just like your Alberta government has. Don't blow this out of proportion. I'll wager these children won't have any problems passing their exams without this instruction.

Originally Posted by photon

History, like science, isn't an ideology.

History isn't science either. Science observes the natural world. Science can't observe history. All that science can do is observe what is here and make educated guesses about what happened before. History is subjective and easily manipulated. Take a Jehovah Witness, a Catholic, and a Baptist and ask them to each explain the development of the Doctrine of the Trinity historically and you will get three very different answers that sight the exact same historical evidence.

Originally Posted by photon

Of course there will be teachers who aren't professional and let their personal views influence their teaching, just like there's YEC scientists who allow cognitive dissonance and let their faith influence their reasoning. That's a staffing issue, not a reason to throw out the whole education system.

How does that disagree with what I said? I said they're TRAINED for it, I didn't say they were all perfect.

Again, if you see bias in the teachers, you have the option of home schooling, or alternative schools. No reason for this silly administrative nightmare.

In Alberta the government has afforded a third option of notification which will keep more of these students in public school. Apparently they see that as good for these kids.

Originally Posted by photon

Your analogy is incomplete.

What you don't take into consideration is that it's more like dozens of mathematical formulae which all come to the same answer. Each one is independent of the others and arrived at through completely separate methods and disciplines.

No what you have is scientists coming up with formula's in order to comfirm the theory. The base theory (all things evolved by chance without a creator) isn't questioned. Everything else can be tweeked just as long as the changes continue to confirm the base theory.

Originally Posted by photon

And again you miss the whole point of science, changing the theory is a good thing, not a bad one. The theory of evolution has changed significantly since Darwin because of mountain of transitional fossils that have been discovered, DNA evidence, developmental biology, etc..

But what you seem to miss is it isn't evolution that's changed, it's the theory of evolution. Evolution is what is observed in nature, descent with modification, or more recently change of frequency of alleles in a population over time. The theory of evolution is what changes; the how what is observed happens. Natural selection, mutation, gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer, etc etc are all parts of the theory.

But the basic premise has not changed, and has only been more and more well supported over time.

When Darwin published his book he created a fire storm. There were public debates all over England. Some were even published word for word in the local papers. The reason of course was that Darwin suggested a world without a Creator which was among other things a threat to a foundation of Christianity. Darwin was an intelligent man and I'm sure he would have foreseen the uproar his little theory would cause. What I'm not sure he would have foreseen was the zeal in which others defended it and expanded upon it. A Universe without God can be either frightning or a freeing depending on your prospective. Heaven might be be a comfort for the dying but, the possibilty of a judgment day and the confines of a moral code isn't very appealing. You could have been an agnostic or an atheist before Darwin but, it would much harder to justify your position.

These zealots who embraced the foundational assertion Darwin's theory proposed(A world that wasn't created but, rather evolved) quickly expanded on that foundation looking under every rock and in every test tube for evidence supporting their foundation. Sure both theories and evidence has been rejected after it became clear they couldn't stand up to scrutiny any more. The only thing that was/is sacred is the foundation. It can't be questioned.

And again the evidence is subjective because it is historical. That chemical soup that supposedly created life doesn't exist anywhere on the planet but in a lab some place. Because that is the best hypothesis anyone has come up with for the origin of life you go with it and develop another theory on how and when the planet might have had this chemical mix in nature and another in how it got that mix and yet another in how that mix changed into what we have today. Of course all this is subject to change if someone else comes up with a more believable theory that doesn't include God. This is what you call Science.

I will respond to the second part of your post when I have more time. That will probably be Monday as I'm going out of town(to Calgary actually).

The reason why I skipped this earlier is because it isn't really relevant to the issue of parents refusing to allow the schools to teach there kids evolution. These parent's world view and understanding of evolution could be wrong and still be a "reasonable" position. "Reasonable" dosn't equal "Right". When I posted my "reasonable" view of evolutionary science it was to extablish that that view wasn't/isn't attained by blindly following some spiritual leader. I expected you to question the reasoning because you wouldn't let my assertions go unchallenged. What I didn't expect is for you to demand an answer to your rebuttal. I thought the last word would be enough for you and didn't want to run down a rabbit trail. In any event: I's hunting rabbat now.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Who are you even talking to? You don't know anything about me--and your assumptions about who I am and where I'm coming from are completely wrong.

You clearly have strong convictions. That's fine. But believing something strongly, and belittling anyone who disagrees doesn't make you right.

And as it happens, your argument is very weak, when evaluated on its merits. Consider what you've argued:
1. Some private schools offer a higher quality product.
2. Some of those private schools allow parents to opt out of whatever subject they like.
Therefore:
3. The a la carte approach is what makes private schools superior.

#1 is a doubtful claim on its face anyway; forgive me if I don't simply take your word for it, as a person "on the ground" who sends his children to school with "the elites." However, you must see that even were it true, 3 does not follow from 1 and 2. In fact, it's much likelier that #1 is true in spite of #2, and that the real reason is resources.

Who cares if you take my word for it. The simple fact is charter schools which you ignore for the weak class type argument offer the same opt out, opt for more of what parents want and are exploding in popularity. Yeah wonder of all wonders I send my kids to get the best possible education---ahh duh I want the best for my children and I'm not settling for less.

Resources? As I pointed out my wife's school is changing completely. They are doing zip to the school and it ain't getting any more cash. They are just going to cater COMPLETELY to the way some parents want their kids taught. And they have taken over that school because they need yet another bigger one than their last one. Not resources and not cash to get it either. Just a matter of getting your kid in the program.

The facts are clearly in my favor so whether you want to take my word hardly matters. Charter schools and private ones are springing up everywhere. Why would that be? This ain't the States so although they are a few religious ones they are a tiny minority and that's just among private schools. Vast majority have a calling card of better teachers and higher academic standards. Charter schools are popping up even moreso because parents don't want your version of utopia. They want to tailor their kids education as they see fit.

Fart just try finding a school these days that isn't tailoring more and more to what parents want. The one down the block from my house goes year long. My nephews go to a modified school (start earlier with more holidays during the year) which also has a emphasis on kids needing extra one on one resource assistants. Even the public school does not think like you do--they are splitting up their offerings more and more and more to try and retain students. Allowing parents to just pick and choose and opt out of anything they want including heck even having their kids taught in English. They can choose language of instruction, what days they even go to school, opt them out of anything they don't like etc.

So go ahead and make the lame "class" play but it don't change the facts. Parents have been on the move for years demanding changes so that's it's tailored the way they want it even at public schools nevermind the charter school explosion and the growth in private schools.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Now you obviously believe that rejecting the evolution theory is unreasonable and ignorant. The thing is there is thousands of parents in Alberta and across this country that would disagree with you.

So... thousands of parents in Alberta and across this country are unreasonable and ignorant. Hooray!

I've run into enough people that thought that the value or pi was 3 or that 3 was close enough. Does that make them right just cause there's a few hundred/thousand of them in the country? Should we change our education standards?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The base theory (all things evolved) isn't questioned. Everything else can be tweeked just as long as the changes continue to confirm the base theory.

I've fixed what you've defined as the base theory to be more accurate. I'm pretty sure nobody would have problems changing that base theory if someone can point to evidence that the base theory is wrong or at least puts it into a category of reasonable doubt. Until that happens, its the best theory we have that fits the evidence.

[RougeUnderoos]

After all this yammering, I gotta admit we (myself included) are making a big deal out of something that really isn't a big deal.

Teachers lay out the curriculum at the start of the year anyway. Maybe the parents who disagree with it can just read it and keep their kids home that week, or month that something they don't agree with might get mentioned.

Of course, someone has to look after the kids who are opting out of the offensive lessons, and that won't be free. Perhaps the local churches will cover this cost. Or maybe members of the clergy can look after the children?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Who cares if you take my word for it. The simple fact is charter schools which you ignore for the weak class type argument offer the same opt out, opt for more of what parents want and are exploding in popularity. Yeah wonder of all wonders I send my kids to get the best possible education---ahh duh I want the best for my children and I'm not settling for less.

Resources? As I pointed out my wife's school is changing completely. They are doing zip to the school and it ain't getting any more cash. They are just going to cater COMPLETELY to the way some parents want their kids taught. And they have taken over that school because they need yet another bigger one than their last one. Not resources and not cash to get it either. Just a matter of getting your kid in the program.

The facts are clearly in my favor so whether you want to take my word hardly matters. Charter schools and private ones are springing up everywhere. Why would that be? This ain't the States so although they are a few religious ones they are a tiny minority and that's just among private schools. Vast majority have a calling card of better teachers and higher academic standards. Charter schools are popping up even moreso because parents don't want your version of utopia. They want to tailor their kids education as they see fit.

Fart just try finding a school these days that isn't tailoring more and more to what parents want. The one down the block from my house goes year long. My nephews go to a modified school (start earlier with more holidays during the year) which also has a emphasis on kids needing extra one on one resource assistants. Even the public school does not think like you do--they are splitting up their offerings more and more and more to try and retain students. Allowing parents to just pick and choose and opt out of anything they want including heck even having their kids taught in English. They can choose language of instruction, what days they even go to school, opt them out of anything they don't like etc.

So go ahead and make the lame "class" play but it don't change the facts. Parents have been on the move for years demanding changes so that's it's tailored the way they want it even at public schools nevermind the charter school explosion and the growth in private schools.

You made the class argument, not me. Specifically, it's called the appeal to wealth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_wealth I do like how you make an argument and then accuse me of making that same argument.

Clearly a debate with you is a waste of energy. You make hasty generalizations about who I must be, then claim that the "facts" are in your favor when all you've offered is unsubstantiated anecdotes and ridicule for everyone who disagrees with you.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

And again the evidence is subjective because it is historical. That chemical soup that supposedly created life doesn't exist anywhere on the planet but in a lab some place. Because that is the best hypothesis anyone has come up with for the origin of life you go with it and develop another theory on how and when the planet might have had this chemical mix in nature and another in how it got that mix and yet another in how that mix changed into what we have today. Of course all this is subject to change if someone else comes up with a more believable theory that doesn't include God. This is what you call Science.

Sorry for singling out just one part of your post, but I think it's warrented because we've been over it countless times in countless different threads, and it's constantly ignored. The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how life was created. Let me repeat: The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how life was created.

You're a Christian. Your religious beliefs give you a theory of everything: the creation of the universe, the earth, life on earth, mankind, our intelligence, our moral code, human history, everything in one package, even how the world will ultimately come to an end. They're such a complete package that it's difficult for you to remove any single part of this theory without the entire thing collapsing. Fine. But that's not the way science works. Science is full of small, discreet theories that each explain and predict a limited scope of things. Do we have a complete picture of life on earth? Nope, not by a long shot. Do we have an excellent understanding of the mechanisms through which life on earth continues to change? Yup. You accuse scientists of constantly revising what evolution means, but it is you who are adding less developed theories on to evolution as though they're the same thing, and then attempting to discredit these theories as a way of discrediting evolution.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You made the class argument, not me. Specifically, it's called the appeal to wealth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_wealth I do like how you make an argument and then accuse me of making that same argument.

Clearly a debate with you is a waste of energy. You make hasty generalizations about who I must be, then claim that the "facts" are in your favor when all you've offered is unsubstantiated anecdotes and ridicule for everyone who disagrees with you.

Ahh concession. I accept your lack of an argument.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Ahh concession. I accept your lack of an argument.

[peter12]

You're both right. The point of diversifying the school system is to allow each facet to have the resources and space to practice their own strengths. There is no "model" framework, only model education.

[John Doe]

It has been mentioned in this thread a few times that private school teachers are better paid than public school teachers. Can anyone comment on this? I was always under the impression that it was the other way around.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The base theory (all things evolved by chance without a creator) isn't questioned.

In a mere 8 words you have managed to show that not only do you not understand the theory, but that your misunderstanding is so profound that it is questionable whether or not you ever could.

1. Evolution does not happen by "chance".
2. Evolution does NOT say there is no creator.

You aren't rejecting the theory of evolution, you are rejecting what you THINK is the theory of evolution. That isn't a subjective opinion, that's just wrong - and that's why almost all opponents of the theory are just wrong; they are arguing with straw men like so many asylum inmates set free in the fields to attack invisible scarecrows.

If anything, your argument illustrates the opposite of what you intend, as it makes it clear that personal bias of the parent shouldn't override the right of the child to learn, simply because the parent (in general) is not an infallible judge of what is and isn't true or important.

In an ideal system, there is no problem with parents being involved in what kids should learn, but never what they shouldn't. There is a difference - if you want emphasis on arts and literature, that's fine, but what isn't fine is censoring what arts and literature that involves; similarly if you want children to learn about science, there should be nothing that is outside the bounds of enquiry. If you are afraid of your child learning, believing, or thinking differently than you do, you fail as a parent - your duty is to teach and encourage that child to be better than you, and not the same as.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If they did the State could require the parents to explain how doing so would be in the best interest of the child. If they had a reasonable arguement the State should respect the parents decision even if they disagreed. You obviously haven't presented a reasonable argument to disallow your child to read.

having a personal meeting for every single parent that wants to opt their kid out of a specific topic that could occur many times in a class, and have an evaluation process to determine if it's reasonable or not, PLUS the infrastructure to inform every parent when something specific is coming up in every class..

And reasonable to whom? If the parent is making the case obviously it's reasonable to them.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Now you obviously believe that rejecting the evolution theory is unreasonable and ignorant.

Ignorant is a good word yes, because it's typically due to a lack of knowledge and comprehension. Which education remedies.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The thing is there is thousands of parents in Alberta and across this country that would disagree with you.

So? The whole point of a public education system with an established curriculum is to give every kid a foundation to work from despite any limitations a parent might have. Kids shouldn't be hindered by their parents' ignorance.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The volume of parents who hold this position and obviously do so for thought out reasons suggest they pass the reasonable test. They should be respected even if you don't agree.

It may suggest that to you, but it doesn't pass the "reasonable test", that's a foolish thing to propose. At any given moment, whatever anyone thinks is the most reasonable thing to them. If that was an effective measure or instrument, no one would ever change their mind or realize they were wrong.

In the case of evolution, I have yet to meet someone who rejects it for thought out reasons. The two most common reasons I find are lack of understanding of what evolution actually says, and "believed out reasons", or rejecting it not based on any understanding but simply out of the misguided belief that evolution contradicts the Bible or that it says there's no God.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It is not reasonable to allow the majority or the government to interfer with the rights of the individual.

Sure it is, that's the whole point of governments and laws, is to limit peoples' rights when appropriate, appropriate being defined by society. The discussion is about what's appropriate.

(This is an amusing comment when the government's ability to interfere with the rights of an individual are exactly what's desired by groups trying to, oh, restrict homosexuals from marrying or people getting abortions.. it's ok for the government to limit rights as long as those limitations are ones that one agree's with )

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

No I'm suggesting that you respect these parent's choices just like your Alberta government has. Don't blow this out of proportion. I'll wager these children won't have any problems passing their exams without this instruction.

Sure but there'll always be the borderline cases.. the kid who would have gotten 80% but missed the chapter on evolution so got 75% overall, and couldn't get into University as a result. Plus the complexity this introduces. If there's a further chilling effect remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

History isn't science either. Science observes the natural world. Science can't observe history. All that science can do is observe what is here and make educated guesses about what happened before. History is subjective and easily manipulated. Take a Jehovah Witness, a Catholic, and a Baptist and ask them to each explain the development of the Doctrine of the Trinity historically and you will get three very different answers that sight the exact same historical evidence.

Science can observe the products of history, and apply the exact same reasoning, standards of evidence, processes, methodologies, statistics, etc that are useful in science to history.

Of course if I ask a layperson about it I'll get different answers.. heck I could ask 3 baptists and get 3 different answers.

If I ask 3 historical scholars who's area of expertise covers that area I'll get far less variance between the answers, and I'll also get an overview of all the relevant considerations.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

In Alberta the government has afforded a third option of notification which will keep more of these students in public school. Apparently they see that as good for these kids.

Or they are just giving special treatment to a group of people who are important for them to maintain their power and don't think the negative impact will be significant.

In practice I don't think the negative impact on kids will be all that significant really, kids being raised ignorant are going to be raised that way regardless of this. It just adds more work for teachers and the system.

Why can't they just send home the outline of the curriculum for the year and be done with it? Better yet, put it online.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

No what you have is scientists coming up with formula's in order to comfirm the theory. The base theory (all things evolved by chance without a creator) isn't questioned. Everything else can be tweeked just as long as the changes continue to confirm the base theory.

You hold that view because that's the view you require for your opinion of science to make sense to you, but that's not correct.

For a scientist disproving a theory is far more interesting than proving it (unless it's their own theory I guess).. proving it just means that nothing changes, while disproving it opens the floodgates to a new way of seeing things.

This small paragraph shows two things.. First, that you don't understand science and second, that you don't understand evolution.

And yet you think you are in a position to judge if something scientific should be tought to your children. "I don't know what it is but I don't like it." If you want your kids to be able to combat evolution you would think you would want them to at least understand it so that they don't look as foolish.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

When Darwin published his book he created a fire storm. There were public debates all over England. Some were even published word for word in the local papers. The reason of course was that Darwin suggested a world without a Creator which was among other things a threat to a foundation of Christianity. Darwin was an intelligent man and I'm sure he would have foreseen the uproar his little theory would cause. What I'm not sure he would have foreseen was the zeal in which others defended it and expanded upon it. A Universe without God can be either frightning or a freeing depending on your prospective. Heaven might be be a comfort for the dying but, the possibilty of a judgment day and the confines of a moral code isn't very appealing. You could have been an agnostic or an atheist before Darwin but, it would much harder to justify your position.

Actually it's not quite how you represent it, the idea of evolution existed before Darwin's time. Darwin was just the one who came up with the theory to explain what people already saw.

And I find it amusing that you jump instantly from evolution to a universe without God. This is how evangelicals like to "frame" the debate, and it's very intentional (at least by people like the Discovery Institute, maybe not on purpose by yourself, if not you've just bought into their propganda).

Accepting evolution does not equate to atheism. There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution. Francis Collins headed up the human genome project and is a brilliant scientist. He accepts evolution. And he's an evangelical Christian. Maybe take a look at his site: http://www.biologos.org/

Most Christians accept evolution.

Are you aware that Micheal Behe, the poster child for Intelligent Design and the go-to guy for the Discovery Institute and all the efforts to introduce religion into the sicence classroom ALSO disagrees with you? Behe fully accepts descent with modification and that all life is descended from a common ancestor, and that the earth is very old. This is the #1 guy for the anti-evolution crusade!

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

These zealots who embraced the foundational assertion Darwin's theory proposed(A world that wasn't created but, rather evolved) quickly expanded on that foundation looking under every rock and in every test tube for evidence supporting their foundation.

Actually it's called testing. When a theory is proposed, everyone tests that theory, in the hopes of disproving it so that they can come up with something new. The theory makes a prediction, you test to see if that prediction is true.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Sure both theories and evidence has been rejected after it became clear they couldn't stand up to scrutiny any more. The only thing that was/is sacred is the foundation. It can't be questioned.

Again so you need to believe, but as history has shown it's demonstrably false.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

And again the evidence is subjective because it is historical. That chemical soup that supposedly created life doesn't exist anywhere on the planet but in a lab some place. Because that is the best hypothesis anyone has come up with for the origin of life you go with it and develop another theory on how and when the planet might have had this chemical mix in nature and another in how it got that mix and yet another in how that mix changed into what we have today. Of course all this is subject to change if someone else comes up with a more believable theory that doesn't include God. This is what you call Science.

None of this has anything to do with evolution you realize.

And yes science is coming up with better and better hypothesis to explain a phenomenon, I've explained that over and over.

What you don't get is that ultimately for something to become a theory it has to not only make sense, it has to explain and predict things. In the case of a theory of abiogenesis (which is what you're talking about now) because the evidence is long gone and the only remaining evidence we have is rocks, geological evidence, and the genetic information in all life on the planet, we'll probably never know for sure how life first arose. Chains of amino acids don't leave behind fossils.

If you want to take that gap and say that God sparked the first life, go for it. A god that can create a universe that gives rise to life seems even more powerful and wise than a god that has to intervene to get things to happen, to me anyway.

[photon]

I'm sorry, it's pathological I think.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by photon

I'm sorry, it's pathological I think.

That rock keeps rolling right back down that mountain, doesn't it?