See, this is what is increasingly baffling to me... Why do people get their panties In such a twist over "science"? It's not a physical thing that you can attack or prove wrong, what! I never said that jonc! Everything we discover through the scientific method already exists, it IS nature. We just may not have realized/stumbled across it yet.

Thrawn's mum > Free's mum.

Also, must admit this "Jon`C: They aren't important, they're serfs" made me chuckle.

Everyone should chill out, we all know the score on this one.

you can have a view on creationism and evolution and everything but if you put it on paper or get quoted on subjects like this you have to be preapired to fight for your reasons.

...in fact, science is a noun.

To be fair mate, most religions will respond in a similar manner.

Assuming that you're talking about the same kind of irritating christians that you only seem to read about in US news.

Nope only the ones in this damn small hick town

What you're referring to is simply a quote from Louis Pasteur

'all life [is] from life'

There was a belief at the time that maggots and mice appeared spontaneously from rotting flesh and foods left out, a somewhat understandable supposition (where there is rotting flesh, maggots appear. therefore, rotting flesh causes maggots to exist!). Pasteur and others rightly opposed this, and demonstrated it to be false. A fully formed organism does not spontaneously come into existence.

However, that is not what we're talking about when we're discussing the origin of cells - the assemblage of non-living proteins to form a very simple protocell is the only possible origin. That isn't a question of supposition, it's a question of scale. Below this scale, there is only the components of life. Each component is not living, but they come together to form something living. Each of these components is made from molecules, and under the right circumstances these molecules can react to form those components - and protocells - again.

None of this is a controversial idea. All of this is supported by experimental evidence (Ferris et al. 1996; Orgel 1998; Rode et al. 1999, Kuzicheva and Gontareva 1999; Schueller 1998, Cody et al. 2000; Russell and Hall 1997). Nor is it especially complicated, so it is entirely reasonable to expect this to appear in a high school textbook.

Indeed, the exact mechanisms of abiogenesis are an open topic of academic research - as to which exact proteins are necessary, and what precisely the conditions ought be. It is ludicrous to think that this undermines the science, this is precisely how science works. Discussing open topics is incredibly useful for high school, showing that science is an investigative process that continually discovers new truths about the origin and future of the world. Science is not a tome of unsupported statements that simply need to be memorised.

When I went to school, I was taught that the Brontosaurus was a dinosaur. This was fact. At the time, there was no reason to think otherwise. However, it is now accepted (and actually has been known for a long time) that the Brontosaurus is actually just an Apatosaurus.
The thing I learnt at school is no longer true! Gasp! I am not eternally scarred by this, nor does this 'call into question' the validity of science. it is a perfect demonstration of the very purpose of science, the continuous investigation of truth - rather than the dictation of truth by authority.

If your concern is about whether abiogenesis should be in a biology textbook specifically, as it rather does involve a lot of chemistry, I could possibly understand why one might prefer it in a chemistry textbook instead. The boundaries between what is 'physics', 'chemistry', 'biology' and 'mathematics' are fairly vague - there are many topics, such as thermodynamics, that have significance in both physics and chemistry. So abiogenesis has relevance in both chemistry and biology, so could be taught in either.

Again, I philosophically disagree with you. The problem with high-school curriculum (and to a large degree, the collegiate curriculum) is that it's taught by memorization and not understanding. Even in this example, I bet the related test question(s) will be fill in the blank or multiple-choice. That's why there's a huge difference in intelligence between those who are book smart and those who are truly intelligent. Today's curriculum generally doesn't test ones reasoning and critical thinking abilities. That's where American curriculum has failed us.

Also, I have no idea how semi-related court cases, political activism, or social/economical impacts, have anything to do with an appreciation for the science. If you love biology because of the drama associated with it instead of the logic and reasoning behind the science itself, then you love biology (or whatever-insert-a-science-discipline-name-here) for the wrong reasons. Then again, that goes back to explaining why reality TV shows are so popular by people of this caliber.

"Learn the science and not the fluff!"



There's no reason why that should be automatically assumed. It should be used in the correct wording/context as to prescribe it's meaning or intent. If the meaning/intent is ambiguous, then it requires further clarification from the author. Again, not that it should have ever been mentioned in the first place. The word "Myth" doesn't belong in any scientific or mathematical text book. Classroom text books should be like an instruction manual. If the teacher/instructor wants to assign additional work for students to research books that contain related conjecture, then I'm OK with that. But the content of those books should not be a part of the curriculum itself (at the high-school or even undergraduate level).

Wow, really? Brontosaurus was my favourite dinosaur,

A court case about teaching biology in high schools is only "semi-related" to a high school biology class?

They taught us about the Abortion crisis in our Human Sexuality unit.

There's a crisis?

There is, but you aren't invited.

The crisis is that there aren't more abortions or a test to take to qualify as a parent.

You can break any living organism down to its basic chemical components. Let's saw we break down the simplest single cell organism to it most basic chemical components. Can you please tell me how we assemble those components into the organism? You can't or, maybe, if you were given the correct "instructions" on how to assemble the components (along with vastly superior technology), perhaps you could. Now, it is easy to explain the perpetuation of life from life because all of the instructions necessary are passed on but if were supposed to believe that a nonbiological chemical process created our first organism, or components that formed it, we still don't have any explanation for where the instructions came from. Of course you could argue that science with time may explain that. Some might also argue that given enough time that information is bound to assemble through some infinitely random means although that seems more ludicrous to me than religion seems to some.



If you would be kind enough to link to references to those experiments to save me the time to search them I might review them.



I just personally believe that abiogenesis is at odds with biology because, while the biological process is quite obvious (as well as chemistry), abiogenesis is a theory which could very well be sound but has large gaping holes and requires very complex, unknown elements, such as where the information for the components of a cell to properly form came from. Essentially they are stipulated at this point as they cannot yet be suitably explained. Giving abiogenesis much greater credibility than creation, while also disparaging creation, seems hypocritical to me. Simply state, if you must, that religious views like creation exist and mention that the most prominent scientific theory for the origin of life is abiogenesis. Seems like that does enough to satisfy the demands that some have that students be exposed to alternatives.

Also, I think we should keep in mind that the origin of this issue is that the state requires children to be educated. People have a problem with turning their children over to the state to have their religion disparaged by the state. As so many here would point out we have this concept of the separation of church and state.

It seems to me that a creator would also have to solve the problem of creating "organisms" from "non-biological chemical processes". That puts one back at square one. I suppose that one could pull the old "the creator lives on another plane of existence & isn't bound by the laws of nature/science" but that's probably less probable than the problem that you're describing.

YEAH! Where'd the information for the components of the sun to properly burn come from? Why are all you damned liberal-minded christian haters going around so oblivious to the obvious fact that GOD DID IT?

Is this the only 'gaping hole' you find in abiogenesis?

What is this information you think needs to be there for a cell to form?

Is it wrong for me to assume you hold the belief that what formed from non-biological material is the modern cell, rather than what actually happened, which is that a couple of proteins got trapped in a bucky-ball or something like that?

Modern science can perfectly explain where those components came from, science cant answer everything yet, but it has a large track record of answering unknowns so its only a matter of time. Just because nobody knows something doesnt mean God did it. We can't afford to just guess the answer without putting in an effort to search for it.

NO GOD DID IT. Also, ... .

...

You are DUMB.

Holy ****.

Like, so dumb, I'm going to go support wookie now.

Btw; GOD DID IT.

my bad sarcasm detectors are useless on the internet

Since you're in such an obvious sarcastic mode I guess I am unclear as to whether or not you actually understand that each component of a cell composed of whatever various proteins all has instructions as to how to properly form. I don't know where that came from but I do think that to believe it randomly formed is at least as big a reach as to cite religious beliefs as the method.

And you apparently don't understand that the first cells were nothing like a modern cell. The most primitive protocell was probably very basic genetic material (nucleus) that managed to get lipids to stick to it (cell wall).

Here's an idea, Wookie. Instead of trying to learn little bits of biology in an attempt to refute ideas that you find threatening, actually try learning with an open mind. You'll be a better person as a result.

Oh man, this type of religious debate hasn't changed one bit since I last visited massassi.

This is AWESOME!

The worst high school textbooks are history textbooks. My American History course in high school seemed like it was put together by some hipster history majors who decided that the best way to correct previous generations' rosy accounts of American history was to write an equally biased book that absurdly glorified those that American policy has wronged.

There's this cowardly tendency to build up one side as the good guys and the other side as the bad guys. Just because one group of people did some things that were wrong doesn't mean that the people on the other side were idealistic paragons of enlightenment. The world isn't so easy that vast groups of people can always be categorized as the good guys vs. the bad guys. All the sudden it's trendy to bash America through out history just because it's been given a positive bias in the past. Fixing that positive bias by giving an absurd bias in the opposite direction is moronic. A lot of my American history class was like watching Avatar; the "good guy's" virtuousness was so cartoonishly exaggerated that it was impossible to relate to them at any deep level. And this is stuff that is being taught as fact!

Lower level history classes from elementary school through the ged-ed college level seem to be permeated with this nauseatingly biased, unscientific attitude.They weave these obviously deceptive portrayals of history by exaggerating coverage of one event that is most convent to their story, and even then the facts of that event are selectively recounted in such a way as to paint as black and white a situation as possible. I want to learn about the things our country has done wrong, because I want to know what happened. If I can't be given an accurate portrayal of what actually happened, there's no point in studying history. Ideals that are reinforced by lies are of no value, except to cowards who cannot force themselves to see humanity as it is.

Even worse are the professors who have used their careers to build an enormous sense of self-rightness from the suffering of their ancestors or ethnic/sexual group. They teach every class with the constant attitude that western civilization is the worst thing ever, women/(insert ethnic group here) have never done anything wrong and that society as a whole owes them big time.

**** dude, it seems you actually DON'T understand the general theme of abiogenesis theories. The theories aren't saying there is a spontaneous "random" jump from simple molecules straight to complex macromolecules like proteins. The theories, in general, are proposing the formation of compounds from simple molecules in this sequence of increasing complexity: inorganic nutrients (e.g. H2, N2, H2O, CO), low-molecular inorganic compounds, polymers, and aggregates of polymers. Each step of the way can be explained by thermodynamically-favored, autocatalytic chemical reactions. In other words, it's not "random" and there aren't "instructions" - it's just simply firmly-rooted, basic chemistry (specifically, energetics, redox, transformations of electron configurations, covalent bonding, self-assembly). What's still being actively debated are the "who"'s and "how"'s of this, especially the first step between inorganic nutrients and monomers. Personally, the iron-sulfur-world theory makes the most sense to me, and I can supply you or anyone who's interested with the primary paper. More discussion on this will probably go over your head though (not saying you're dumb), and along those lines, you (probably) don't know enough about chemistry to be critical of abiogenesis theories (i.e. you speak with your "gut feeling").

You remind me of the people who support intelligent design by pointing at the complexity of the human eye.

Obi, History is always in flux. Revisionists come, and revisionists go. The number one skill you learn from doing a good history course is that you look at the facts, look at the available interpretations of those facts and then try to make sense of it yourself. You may agree with one interpretation, you may agree with an opposing view, more likely you'll pick and choose from each. More often than not all of the available interpretations have been marked by famous historians putting their little flags in theories and there's little room for your own view without treading on some facet of someone else's theory.

Dunno if it's in use in American English, but we call it historiography.

Which I personally think is a terrible sounding word, but there you go.

ME ME ME!

Cerberus did it

Also.

Evolution is not random.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=7Y56XFM2

It's a review paper, so it's long and dense as ****. Be prepared...

There was an interesting debate between the two major camps regarding the origin of life (prebiotic soup vs. iron-sulfur world) in Feb 2007 issue of Science, and the theory is criticized from so-called "big" people in the field. Most damning is probably the lack of empirical evidence.

Well, my intention was not to really debate the merits of abiogenesis but merely to point out that it is a very incomplete theory, I would say controversial due to the major components of it that haven't been fully understood, and I wonder if it is disparaged like creation. As I've further explained, I don't think alternate theories should be disparaged. Mention them if there is some sort of requirement and then move on to the material that is relevant to the course.

My general problem with the theory lay in the fact that even the most basic cell would require a complex process for the components to assemble. I doubt the components would form due to a chemical process. The methods by which proteins assemble and form the components of cell, for example. The more of this we attempt to explain away, the further we get away from the understanding we have of life in the biological sense. Of course biological evolution is not an attempt to explain the existence of a common ancestor for life, merely to stipulate it existed and pick up from there.

In general, the instructions I have been referring to is mostly in reference to how proteins need to fold very specifically and I don't believe that could be the result of a random process.

Bah, of course, I'm not a scientist and I'm not debating the merits of abiogenesis. I've actually said that it could be a very sound theory (or words to that effect) but I've also said that there are some significant holes. Keep in mind that my entire purpose with regards to bringing up the topic is generally to respect other's opinions. I don't disparage a theory, abiogenesis, that I have reservations about just as I don't disparage those who believe in creation or intelligent design, etc.



But evolution and abiogenesis are in no way related. Evolution theory is a biological theory while abiogenesis is not which is basically why I brought it up in the first place.

I think that many theories could be thought of as "incomplete" (maybe even most or all). For instance, any reputable scientist will tell you that evolution occurs but there is debate over the mechanisms (e.g. Genetic Drift, Natural Selection). Creationism is "disparaged" because few of its proponents are actually attempting to put forth a scientific theory. They'll throw out ridiculous ideas like "Irreducible Complexity" & spread it around to their followers (the religious) as if they've finally "proven evolution to be a farce" but then they conveniently forget to mention to their followers that those types of ideas are destroyed by some of our leading evolutionary biologists. It's nothing but an attempt to muddy the water because some of these people actually know better (*cough* Behe *cough*). We had to go through the same thing w/ ridiculous books/ideas like "The Genesis Flood" by Whitcomb. There are Christians today that will still quote this book even though its contents have been destroyed a hundred times over. My father keeps a copy right next to "Josephus" which he attempts to use as proof that Jesus existed & that he was the son of a god.


Alternative "theories" aren't generally disparaged. Wikipedia lists at least 12 different models for which scientists think that Abiogenesis may occur. You don't see Creationism in there because it's not a theory (in other words, there's not a shred of evidence so it can only be a hypothesis at best because it doesn't meet the criteria). Besides, saying that god did it just puts you in a worse position (it doesn't explain anything).


I think that it's important for students to be aware of the debate between fundamentalism & science. They need to be aware of just how far fundamentalists in various religions will go to protect the sanctity of their holy book. It's important that teachers let students know the difference between evidence & bull**** & teach them how to identify both. Students are young & impressionable & the religious have known that for quite some time & have taken advantage of it. If we don't teach them the skills necessary to build their own bull**** meter, the chances of them accepting fundamentalist lies as truth are far greater.

Maybe I don't understand how the book is written, but does it really need to even address creationism theories with any word, much less the word "myth?" It seems like this would be a piece of information better addressed by the teacher in the classroom when someone raises their hand and says "But my daddy says..." instead of trying to address something like that in a biology textbook.

Mentat, I'm speaking in much more generalized terms than I would if I was really trying to debate the issue. There isn't much sense in having another abiogenesis/creation/evolution/etc. debate.

I would say that it is attitudes like yours to disparage and dismiss people's religion that fuels these kinds of events in the first place. While I am not particularly religious, it seems ignorant to me to out rite dismiss and insult the beliefs of the religious. I understand that religious or supernatural thought is not consistent with the scientific method but to condescendingly dismiss it because it does not fit within the manmade rules of science is not very open minded, the epitome of what a scientist should be.



Well, often states mandate that alternate ideas (basically creation or ID) be introduced to satisfy the vocal religious. I think it is fair to mention it, either in print or as you suggest, and then move on. Teach science but don't demean those who have religious beliefs as well.

Scientists aren't good at their job because they are open minded. Religious claims about our universe are entirely inadequate at describing anything to any measurable degree of usefulness. It is not general disregard to ignore the theological "sciences," but it is the epitome of good science. The only thing that could possibly infect our science are these opinions and bible-based theories. All opinions are not created equal in science, else we'd believe in humors.

I figured I was unclear. I'm not saying to include any religious belief in a non religious science. Just a sort of live and let live philosophy, if you will.

Maybe it's not necessary to have that debate here since we've had it so many times before but it's essential that students have it.


I find it humorous that you see fundamentalists as the victims here when the real victims are the children that are being turned away from science by fundamentalist ideology. It's alright for fundamentalists to attempt to undermine the educational system by brainwashing children in to believing that science is evil but it's not acceptable for the educational system to do anything to counter/prevent this. These children are taught not to respect the "beliefs" that these teachers have (as if evolution is a belief & not a theory) & to reject them if they don't support the fundamentalist "world-view". It's tough to counter that type of fanaticism w/ a textbook that pretends as if Creationism is a valid alternative (it needs to at least explain that it's not an alternative at all). There's no balance there & there needs to be. I think that classes such as biology, philosophy & physics are the perfect places for these types of discussions.


There's no evidence to show that anything exists beyond the realm of science. Let's take something supernatural as an example. How about ghosts? If it's ever determined that there's a shred of evidence for the existence of ghosts, scientists would then march off in the direction to establish theories. This is a perfect example of an area that many people are attempting to discover evidence. There may be things that we don't yet understand but there's no reason to think that we won't understand a great deal more. We'll probably understand an infinite (or at least until we're extinct) amount more. I don't dismiss the possibility of a creator although I think it's unlikely. I simply dismiss religion. I think it's possible that there's one or more creators but I don't think it's probable. There's simply no evidence & until there is I think it's a waste of time to consider when there are far more immediate & probable things to deal w/. We certainly shouldn't be pretending that Creationism is on an equal footing & that it somehow deserves respect (are we then going to give validity to the million other religions in human history?). I would just like to add that I'm not a scientist in any sense of the word but I do try to be open-minded. However, it's rather difficult to take fundamentalists serious when I was one for the better part of my life.


Will the fundamentalists give us the same respect in their churches? I doubt it. Why don't they just teach religion & not demean science? This goes both ways. I don't think that we should be giving up on fundamentalist children. We need to attempt to reach them while they're young because their parents & pastors are already way ahead of the game. Some of these children will never recover & many of them will end up at bible colleges when they could've become scientists.

Sure, but not in required classes in state run institutions and certainly not where the state advocates an anti-religious position.



Well, as I've already alluded to, there is this concept of the separation of church and state. State institutions are prohibited from interfering in religion. Attending a church that demeans science is purely voluntary where as the state requiring children to attend an institution that does so with regards to religion, is not. Of course you can elect to educate your children either at home or in a private school where bashing religion could be a perfectly acceptable part of the curriculum.

The Blind Watchmaker describes a superficially plausible explanation of how life could have originated. Whilst I have no doubt it's been discredited and better theories exist, it is a useful educational aid because it's easy to understand. I suggest that anybody who is interested gives it a read.