Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
As far as the origin of life is concerned, consider the fact that scientists have been able to create life in the lab for several years now. Viruses are now routinely synthesized and used as vectors in gene transfers, on a daily basis. So you could say that through scientific progress, we now know how to create life from nonlife, and it is quite easy if you know how.
|
To my knowledge, viruses are'nt considered life because they only meet one of the definitions (replication, iirc). Although it's been a few years since i've had a biology class, so my knowledge could be out of date.
Quote:
There of course is still a lot of controversy about the precise chemical pathways through which this spontaneously happened in the early history of the earth, but it is beyond any doubt that it can happen, in fact very easily under the right circumstances.
ID, on the other hand, is not science. It is completely outside the realm of science, and is completely inappropriate to include in a science class. It has contributed absolutely nothing to scientific knowledge. It is simply a surrogate for creationism.
|
There are many scientists who believe in ID. It is your opinion that it is outside the realm of science, not fact. In either this thread, or another on the subject there were many links giving the scientific basis for ID. That is why I say stick to what is fairly certain to be scientifically accurate (evolution theory post-creation) and leave the rest out.
And honestly, from what I remember we might have spent a whole 2 weeks on evolution in high school, and that was with 2 years of AP classes (bio and chem). IMO many of the nuances required to truly understand the underlying theories can't be covered in classes geared toward high school students, at least if you want anything else to be covered.