Other Theories of How Life Came to Be?

[Skeptical Greg]

Surfing in the wake of a recent ruling to have Georgia's Cobb County remove " Theory of Evolution " disclaimer stickers from textbooks, Georgia State Representative Ben Bridges is introducing a bill would that allow for broader approaches when schools teach the origin of life..

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/hall/newfullstory.asp?ID=88634

The measure would allow theories other than evolution to be taught in science classes, as long as those other theories are -- quote -- ``scientific.''



Who is going to tell this idiot that there are no other Scientific theories about the origin of life?

Who is going to explain to this idiot, who has the power to affect the passing of laws in the state of Georgia, what a theory is?

[steenkh]

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of the origiin of life. There are other theories that cover this aspect, but none have the kind of supporting evidence that Evolution has in its area.

[drkitten]

Originally quoted by Diogenes
Surfing in the wake of a recent ruling to have Georgia's Cobb County remove " Theory of Evolution " disclaimer stickers from textbooks, Georgia State Representative Ben Bridges is introducing a bill would that allow for broader approaches when schools teach the origin of life..


The measure would allow theories other than evolution to be taught in science classes, as long as those other theories are -- quote -- ``scientific.''





Superficially, I'm perfectly happy with this, but I rather wonder what his misunderstanding is that makes him feel that this measure is necessary. There is no bar to teaching any "scientific" theory in science classes, to the best of my knowledge. (And, of course, if there were scientific evidence supporting anything other than evolution, it would already be being presented.)

So it's obviously a camel's-nose-in-the-tent sort of thing, but I wonder vaguely what he thinks he's enabling....

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by new drkitten

..... but I wonder vaguely what he thinks he's enabling....



Actually, now that I have thought about it, he's not the the idiot I first suggested he was.. He's just courting the religious voting block.. They do not know it's not against the law to teach science in Georgia schools, despite what the test scores may indicate..

[CurtC]

Originally posted by steenkh
The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of the origiin of life. There are other theories that cover this aspect, but none have the kind of supporting evidence that Evolution has in its area.You're being too nitpicky. The Theory of Evolution does not describe how life originated from non-life, but it does describe how current species originated, from earlier species. I think that's what they mean, and if you go off on a tirade about evolution not addressing abiogenesis, you'll miss the point and lose your audience.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by CurtC
You're being too nitpicky. The Theory of Evolution does not describe how life originated from non-life, but it does describe how current species originated, from earlier species. I think that's what they mean, and if you go off on a tirade about evolution not addressing abiogenesis, you'll miss the point and lose your audience.
I have seen several webpages with their arguments, and they usually take evolution right back to start and find it ridiculous that life should have "evolved" from inanimate matter. I think it is important to point out that crtitique of abiogenesis is a strawman argument when you are discussing evolution.

[SGT]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Who is going to tell this idiot that there are no other Scientific theories about the origin of life?



May be he refers to Creation Science. Do you think legislators can make a distinction between Creation Science and real science?

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by steenkh Originally posted by CurtC
You're being too nitpicky. The Theory of Evolution does not describe how life originated from non-life, but it does describe how current species originated, from earlier species. I think that's what they mean, and if you go off on a tirade about evolution not addressing abiogenesis, you'll miss the point and lose your audience.
I have seen several webpages with their arguments, and they usually take evolution right back to start and find it ridiculous that life should have "evolved" from inanimate matter. I think it is important to point out that crtitique of abiogenesis is a strawman argument when you are discussing evolution.
I have to agree with steenkh on this one. I see what you're saying, Curt, but it always riles me the way creationists refer to everything as evolution. When they try to claim the Grand Canyon was formed in six days, they say evolution has it wrong. They never even use the word geology. I don't think it is nitpicking to point out how ignorant these people are. Steenkh is correct in that these people usually criticize evolution by claiming it purports to explain something that it does not even address.

[iain]

I saw an interesting creationist piece the other day on these lines. It used the standard techniques : taking misleading and out-of-context quotations along with things that are just plain wrong to make its case.

The logic went like this :
1. The creation of life can be looked at as a sort of evolution where life evolved from non-life.
2. We don't understand this pre-life evolution very well.
3. Therefore we don't understand evolution very well.
4. Therefore evolution is probably a load of nonsense.

[SGT]

Some creationists include stellar and planetary formation and even the Big Bang as pertaining to the Theory of Evolution.