OK. Let's keep abiogenesis out of the curriculum. I don't think it is taught in schools anywhere, is it? It is not part of evolutionary science, as has been explained.
It is just one example that shows "belief" in spite of science fact to the contrary.
In any case in the OP I point to the two opposing doctrines on origins in the case of evolution and creation -- and push for the idea of keeping doctrines on origins out of the science classroom.
I have updated the OP to help clarify the "belief" or "religion" part that could easily be avoided - and just stick with observable science.
No, we're not going to stick to "observable" science. That would be silly.
There's a great deal of science that we'd have to throw out.
well then welcome to "religion" when you start doing that with origins and biology.
Not in biology.
Doing research - collecting the data, then doing the analysis
That is why I included this link in the OP -- #278
That you do not know shows why you can't effectively argue against evolution. You can't argue against a concept you do not understand.
Observation is essential in science.
A family of ancestral apes was isolated from the main population and developed without further interbreeding outside that family.
Yes and you can observe the DNA, the fossils and everything else, you don't require direct observation of the event, this is a lie and nonsense creationists make up to try to pretend evolution isn't science.
How exactly were they isolated?
To start off, you would do well to understand the difference between an argument and a question.
From there, if you had understood the concept; you might have been capable of answering the question.
To start off, you would do well to understand the difference between an argument and a question.
From there, if you had understood the concept; you might have been capable of answering the question.
Actually I didn't introduce the expression "direct observation" to this thread; and I don't believe that the person who did was a Creationist. You might want to check it out.
I introduced a definition of science. It did not qualify the word "observable."
Do you consider that a strawman argument might be a lie?
Fair point, but remember proverbs 22:6.My suggestion is that both of these religious views be left out of the science classroom - and just the actual science part should be taught.