Why do we let our public schools teach evolution as fact? What happened to the laws of science?

Thanks for the one star. You prove my point.

Including your topic, you have listed 5 completely independent questions in 5 sentences. What exactly are you asking?

Why do we let our public schools teach evolution as fact?

Its.an.idea.man.

Because it makes people thinking there is no god.

According to most polls, the majority of Americans believe in God.

So again I would ask the same question.

Good point OP. We should really be preparing these children for life and not fairy tales. They should be taught there is no cross over between this reality and the next.

But then, there is a huge force out there that likes to indoctrinate these kids from birth, teaching them about a magical fairy in the sky.

I bet that doesn't apply to young people who have just gone through the brain grinder.

Indoctrinate your kids at your own expense. Not with my tax dollars.

Because evolution is a fact. Your question is akin to "why do we teach kids that 2+2=4?"

Evolution happens. That is undeniable. You may take issue with the theory of evolution explaining the multitude of species, but there has been nothing to falsify it as of yet.

Evolution has one purpose, to promote a godless world and universe. That's it, regardless of what anyone says that is the entire goal of evolution and it amazes me that people on here claim to be "in the know" or "awake" yet they put there faith into evolution, possibly the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the people of the world.

Abiogenesis is not a fact. The Law of Biogenesis still stands.

Natural selection is not evolution.

If word of ever got out it would shatter a god universe

I will keep tuning in to NASA and believing everything they say. Because they only look out for my best interests.

Mainstream science is wrong on many levels. Just look at the entire Velikovsky case. He threatened the paradigm of slow, gradual change over millions of years, and showed evidence that mass destructions and extinctions occurred within the last 3500 years.

Or look at the case of that fuzzy-haired fraud, Einstein, whose theories are hailed as being the epitome of genius, but in reality, have dragged science back 100 years.

Why would that be? Doesn't the Bible and other religions talk about angels and demons?

Abiogenesis is not part of the the theory of evolution. I have just checked and it is not included in the A level ( pre university high school ) biology curriculum here. There are no good abiogenesis hypotheses yet, the work is all very speculative, so until something that looks like a demonstrable theory is put forward then it is not science. I would be extremely surprised if abiogenesis is taught in American schools, I mean, what would you actually teach when it is all so speculative?

Again, you are asking completely different questions. Abiogenesis describes how life came to be, evolution describes the diversification of life.

And yes, natural selection is a giant part of the theory of evolution.

You sound very confused.

Abiogenesis is part of the evolution unit of our public science books, and taught as fact.

Children are also taught that the earth was a molten mass, that all life came from a primordial soup, that we come from apes, etc.

The only scientific part of the evolution curriculum is natural selection. They are different concepts though.

Like the poster above you said, abiogenesis is speculation.

Yes, natural selection is what is used to piggy-back all the other speculation into the evolution curriculum.

It's called a hypothesis. Do you have any scans from textbooks that show abiogenesis is treated as fact?

And I have no idea what you are going on about with natural selection.

It was for Darwin. Read his book "Origin of Species"; it's right near the last page.

I will get the textbook info in a bit.

Natural selection is a selection of genetic material which is already there. This runs counter to the idea of molecules-to-man evolution.

Well it shouldn't really be taught, as I said, it's all highly speculative and the proposers of rival hypotheses spend most of their time slagging each other off.

[link to blogs.scientificamerican.com (secure)]

Unless a theory is backed by plenty of obsevational or experimental data and makes testable predictions then it is not science and abiogenesis currently falls into that category. Do you have a link to show what is taught in American schools Re: abiogenesis?

I won't hold my breath for you to post anything to back up your stance. Unless the text is written by creationists I will guarantee you won't find a single textbook stating abiogenesis as a fact.

The difference between speculation and hypotheses are that hypotheses must be able to be tested through the scientific method by gathering data or performing experiments and they must be falsifiable ( Popper ) on the other hand speculation is just an idea floated. I would sugest that most abiogenesis "hypotheses" are currently speculation rather than testable hypotheses.

Evolution is dead ! .

30.000 year old pyramids prove we didn't evolve from apes.

[link to youtu.be (secure)]

correct me if i'm wrong, micro-evolution is observable, but the macro aspect is a theory.
Unless you believe in the pond sludge magic