I think 'human origins' is a subject which should not be treated in science classes. 'Evolution' by natural selection is a valid scientific study, but not to explain the origin of life.

Due to the contentious nature of the 'origin of life' Evolution and/or Intelligent design, or outright Creationism should be taught in a more 'civics' type class.

I don't think many of us here would have the academic experience to succinctly outline the whole debate in 350 words, and anything we say will surely lead to so many side roads.

Human origins is a most important subject. I feel that the various approaches should be treated, along with the moral/ethical implications of each one.

EXAMPLES.

1/ 'God created'... thus we have His commands, ethics, and law as a basis for our own. We will limit ourselves such that we don't overstep the mark. e.g. We would not allow mob 'justice'.

2/ 'Primordial soup', we just happened by chance. Implications: Nihilism, and so today I heard on the news how scientists are producing COW/HUMAN HYBRIDS for cloning research. Cow eggs, Human sperm. From there on, its all downhill. There is no foundation for morality, ethics, we have the simple law of the jungle.

The present absence of total nihilism is a testimony to Chrisitan 'salt' preserving not to inherrent morality of man.

"Evolution has fossil,genetic,evidence,and logical hypothesis to back up it's credibility."

I didn't say it lacked evidence or credibility. I said it wasn't scientific.

"Over a number of years,I have witnessed it in my own back yard"

You are confusing it with natural selection. See the fourth paragraph.

"To start with freediver, please tell us what you think a theory is and what a hypothesis is."

This is getting into the philosophy of science a bit: http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

"If evolution is not scientific, what is creationism? Black magic and card tricks? "

Creationism is religion.

"Occasionally, a mutation will be beneficial"

That's a pretty big assumption that is based on faith, not observation.

"So - which are you? Evolution or magic?"

I believe you are creating a false dichotomy: http://www.ozpolitic.com/logical-fallacies.html#false%20dichotomy

"geologists work is indeed leading to lifestyles contary to those we were designed to have - automobiles, electricity, this computer etc etc"

Wow I didn't know your colleagues had achieved so much on their own. You must be very proud to be a geologist.

"I don't think many of us here would have the academic experience to succinctly outline the whole debate in 350 words"

I've had a fair crack at it in those articles.

"'Primordial soup', we just happened by chance. Implications: Nihilism"

That doesn't mean it is wrong: http://www.ozpolitic.com/logical-fallacies.html#argumentum%20ad%20consequentiam

Freediver, the theory of evolution does not deny or disprove religious beliefs.No one to my knowlege has come up with better theory that matches all the fossil and genetic evidence we have before us.Why do you find the theory of evolution so threatening,when clearly it was your God who created all the rules and laws of the Universe?

"Freediver, the theory of evolution does not deny or disprove religious beliefs."

I am not claiming that it does. I agree with you.

"No one to my knowlege has come up with better theory "

That's kind of beside the point. That kind of logic would have you believing in UFO's every time someone saw a light in the sky.

"Why do you find the theory of evolution so threatening"

What makes you think I fell threatened by it?

"when clearly it was your God who created all the rules and laws of the Universe"

How do you know that?

Freediver,I'm just trying to view the world from your religious perspective.You don't have to believe in enternal existence to be religious.All you have to do is be honest,do the best for your fellow man and expect no rewards in the here after.That is the greatest sacrifice which many in our society endure with no accolades and they are not religious by your definition.

Freediver, I’ve read your three posts and ozpolitic…and I’m confused.

So a couple basic questions;

Do you believe evolution is fact?

Do you think it is not scientific because of a flawed definition of what is scientific?

“The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws.”

What about observations?

As a scientist in the field of botany, ecology, geomorphology and geology, observations count for just about everything! My science, especially the botanical side, has been centred on observations of plants within a population, between populations, in widely separated localities for entities deemed to be the same species, and between species (hybrids and intergrades).

In the plant world, I can see evolution in action staring me in the face all the time.