Quote:
|
But you ignore the fact that outside of a host cell, viruses exibit none of the evidences of life.
|
The fact that their DNA/RNA codes for very complex life processes that are present only in living organisms certainly constitutes strong (just about all biologists would say irrefutable) evidence that viruses came from living organisms.
Quote:
|
The strand of RNA/DNA they have is useless unless they attach to a cell.
|
And many living parasites are also useless until they attach to another organism. That does not imply they are not living. And, like viruses, many parasites are highly reduced organisms that have lost many processes and structures that they don't need because they exploit the host for those processes. That doesn't mean they aren't alive, or didn't originate from living organisms.
Quote:
|
But there is also no concensus as to how life did originate. So by your reasoning, there should be nothing taught about the origin of life.
|
There certainly is a scientific consensus that life originated in a stepwise process involving simple carbon based molecules similar in structure to biological molecules that are still found in living cells or viruses. The precise details are still a subject of scientific research, but the fact that there are things we don't know does nothing to invalidate the consensus.
Quote:
|
And in many people's opinion, the opposing arguments are also pseudoscience, put forth by people who lacking evidence have imposed their own beliefs as to how things originated.
|
But the difference between the two sides is simple: one side always allows evidence and intellect to guide their theories, and the other side does not.
Here's a simple thought experiment: what would you have to observe that would absolutely refute the hypothesis of ID? If you can specify what that observation would be, then ID is indeed a scientific hypothesis.
The trouble is, there is nothing that can be observed that can refute the hypothesis, because ID contains within it an intelligent, all powerful actor who can apparently orchestrate all kinds of phenomena across the entire universe. Hence this actor is outside the realm of physical constraint. Hence anything you observe is consistent with ID.
Quote:
|
How can it be when the current science isn't consistent with itself?
|
You don't have to tell the students every detail about every controversy, just the basic scientific consensus. And this is exactly what students are taught in public schools. For example they are taught the scientific consensus and the scientific theories involved in the origin of life. I don't see any reason to change this.
Quote:
If you expose the current theories, you have to allow ID. That is why I say teach evolution, but leave out origin.
|
No you don't have to allow ID, because it is not science, for the reason I summarized above. Allowing it would bring the supernatural into the science class, which is educationally completely inappropriate.
But sure, teach ID in a theology class in public school, or in a mythology class. I have no problem with that.