2006-12-02 16:43:22 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
They are untestable speculations that beg the question of the origin of life.
2006-12-03 02:51:00 · answer #1 · answered by novangelis 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We don't teach exogenesis or panspermia for the same reason why we shouldn't be teaching creationsim in public schools. All of them are lacking evidence in science. Only science that is supported by evidence and accepted by the scientific community should be taught, and evolution is one such example. The others fail to make the grade.
Those that want to learn about creationism, exogenesis, or panspermia are free to find resources in book stores, libraries, lectures, seminars, internet, even some private or religious schools.
2006-12-02 16:55:21 · answer #2 · answered by Scythian1950 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They both rely on pre-existing 'complicated organisms', which would need to have got there by either Creation or Evolution!!
Where did the 'thing' on which/out of which something grew exo-genetically (and a clue there - genetics depend on things coming before!) come from?
And what created (oops, "or evolved", to be fair) the 'sperm' for 'panspermia'?
Creation/'Intelligent Design' or Evolution are the only two "First Causal" options - whatever you think of Creationism.
And, despite first reply made. "Evolution" is actually still "Darwin's THEORY of Evolution"! No "Missing Links" proving it have been found! In that sense, Creationism/ID should be offered - neither should be 'taught' as fact - as an alternative.
Attempting to put either ahead of the other, in USA, could be interfereing with freedom of speech/thought/religion. 'Believers' in either system would not be free to promote one over the other.
2006-12-02 16:57:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
the theory of evolution is taught because of a fundamental flaw in our science, that being that all things within our universe can be fully understood by our intellect. Our science does not have any methodology to cope with an event that exceeds our ability to comprehend. just as a sparrow cannot not understand calculus and a fish doesn't have the brain capacity to understand fire, perhaps too there are things in this existence that are equally beyond our mental capacity to understand. however, our science is too narrow and arrogant to allow for that to be the answer.
2006-12-02 17:20:57 · answer #4 · answered by Alan S 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No evidence; no science. You need empirical support to teach a science. Take those concepts to the philosophy department, social science department, humanities department, or the theological department and teach them there. To a scientist, they are pure conjecture.
2006-12-02 18:12:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋