Why teach this stuff in the name of Science ?

Question

Science bases its theories on observable facts. In the case of Darwin's theory of evolution it is taught that life began from inanimate matter.

There is not a single evidence of life ever emerging from inanimate matter. In fact, life always comes from other life.
When then is this simple and most basic scientific fact ignored by those who teach the theory of evolution ?

Surely, on this basic and fundamental basis, students are being taught fiction and not science.

Answer 1

Excellent question, hope someone can answer this without going into the realms of fantasy.

Answer 2

I'm not sure that Darwin made the particular point about life arising from inamimate matter. His contribution, I think, was basically just to do with the way in which species evolve. I hope that no-one is teaching that inanimate matter became life under the name of Darwin. I don't think anyone presently has better than a completely speculative view of how life first appeared on our planet, it is simply unknown. No mechanism has been demonstrated.

However, we can reasonably assume that no life existed at the time of the "big bang" from which the known universe emerged, because even the basic constituents of matter such as atoms took a little while to form (this process is quite well understood by physicists and is well supported by evidence). So (as life exists now), at sometime, somehow, somewhere, life did develop from inanimate matter.

Personally, I am not convinced at all that this happened on Earth, I think it at least as likely that life arrived on Earth from space, probably in the form of very tough, simple microscopic organisms on meteorites, having evolved elsewhere in the universe during the billions of years before our Sun and the Earth were formed.

In time we may discover whether this is the case, by finding extraterrestrial life that has common ancestry with us. What fun!

Answer 3

I think you'll find there are various different scientific theories on how life arose. None of these theories is universally accepted. I did a PhD in molecular biology and I only have a vague idea about how life began, but that doesn't in any way invalidate the elegant theory of evolution by natural selection ("this stuff" as you call it).

Science is not about knowing everything and telling people what to think, it's about pinpointing areas of ingnorance and suggesting hypotheses which can then be tested experimentally. As far as I know, experiments have been done on self assembly of amino acids from the kind of chemical mixtures that were around in the primordial soup.

Given your last comment, however, it's obvious you're more interested in grinding an axe than in looking for evidence or changing your "beliefs".

Answer 4

I am very surprised that you say Darwin's theory of evolution is based on life beginning from inanimate matter.
If you man by inanimate matter - single cell life - then that I accept that ... because the cells came together and evolved in many different ways, and changing to accommodate their environments, however, inanimate matter to me means rocks etc.. and that I accept is NOT the case.

Answer 5

I'm not saying that I agree with fundemental Darwinism but the theory goes that the first proteins and amino acids combined with electricity were the jumping block to life as we know it. Proteins and amino acids are biologically based.

We can watch animal adaptation in action. Butterflies which change over a couple of generations when the trees they rest on change in colour because of polution.

Nanotoads are very important in research as they are actually very similar to us and yet have very short lifespans so we can extrapolate data based on observations. That's what science is ... observation and testing ... and a willingness to be open to new ideas.

Answer 6

As a matter of fact life *has* been created from inanimate matter, at the level of viruses. The proteins and other chemical matter in certain viruses were assembled and inserted into certain animals. These then behaved just like any other virus, multiplied within the animal's body and infected the animal with symptoms identical to a viral infection.
I would however agree with you that the manner in which life arose from inanimate matter is not as well understood, as further stages such as the evolution of certain apes to both monkeys and humans, most birds and reptiles having a common ancestor etc, since all these are strongly supported by fossils of intermediate species found exactly in the era that evolution would predict (age of the fossil found by carbon dating and other bullet proof techniques).
So evolution is itself supported by immensely compelling evidence and not one piece of evidence has emerged that falsifies it. However, certainly more research is necessary to understand many aspects of it better, such as life arising from inanimate matter (which by the way is certainly not the central idea in evolution; the central idea is that one species can evolve into another by mutation and natural selection.)

Answer 7

I definitely remember being taught that science didn't know how it all began and that the THEORY was not perfect. However, as theories go, it goes much further than totally unfounded, un-evidenced creationism.

Answer 8

Even if you disagree with the prevailing view, it's not a waste of time to learn what it is, or to teach students what it is. The better acquainted you are with the prevailing view, the more of a leg you have to stand on to speak against it, if you're so inclined.

Answer 9

well they teach religious education , wheres the proof there ?

Answer 10

thats what they have been saying for years, evolution is for idiots.