Ray Rider wrote:I haven't really studied into this debate very much, and was just reading in the
encyclopedia about abiogenesis. Seems to me like the debate continues even in scientific circles.
"By the middle of the 19th century Pasteur and others had demonstrated that living organisms did not arise spontaneously from non-living matter...."
Then it says that others are still forming theories to answer how life came about from a naturalistic standpoint.
"There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life."
"As of 2008, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach")."
They might not have synthesized protocells yet (I cannot check the validity of your reference), but they HAVE synthesized the more basic building blocks .. last year, if not earlier (I heard the report last year).
Since creationists cannot prove conclusively that God created the earth and evolutionists cannot prove conclusively that life arose from nonliving matter
both evolutionists and creationists believe that life arose from somewhere .. we are here, after all. The disagreement is over how and why.
it appears to me that the debate is more about whether to approach science from a naturalistic/atheistic philosophy or a theistic/deistic philosophy. Since there are many scientists who are/have been on both sides of the debate, I believe they should both be considered "models of origins" and taught in schools as such. This would have the positive effect of encouraging students to study it out for themselves, in process of which, students would learn more about science. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't feel like studying into something if everything is already known. But if there is much room for new discoveries in an area of research, it arouses my interest (such as quantum mechanics).[/
quote]
No, the philosophy is one issue -- definitely debateable. But what is taught in science is fact ... and theories based upon large volumes of evidence.
For example, no one that we know of actually observed Tyrannosaurus Rex, but while there can certainly be debate about details (was T and other dinosaurs truly cold-blooded, warm blooded, or somewhere in between?, was it really a predator or a scavanger, etc.), there is very, very, very little doubt that it existed. At this point, most people would call fossil evidence proof, however, from a scientific standpoint it is not quite the same as, say the fact that black bears exist. It is still basically considered a theory.
BUT here is where the creationists typically err. The fact that the mere presence of dinosaurs can be called "theoretical" does NOT mean that any idea that anyone else comes up with is equal. It does NOT mean that there is no basis. In the case of dinosaurs, it is essentially a "theory" only in the strictest of sense. To disprove that dinosaurs exist, you would have to come up with an explanation for how these things we call fossils could have arisen OTHER than through replacement of living tissue with minerals. (and, by-the way, that PROCESS is actually fact, not theory ..)
That said, I already acknowledged that some creationist do acknowledge that dinosaurs might have existed... but some still don't.