life might not be composed of "elements".
a certain configuration of these elements might make it possible for life to manifest itself.
Life is the change in energy state of elemental configurations involving self-catalyzing molecules in sequestered environments.
life and the living cell might be 2 entirely different things.
Not entirely separate! No cell means no life. No life means the cell is not living. Life is a process, a change in energy states, a subset of all chemistry, which is in turn, a subset of physics. You cannot separate life from the cell any more than you can separate a ripple from a river.
it could also be that life never arose at all, it has always been here.
Where is "here"? Since the Earth is only about four and a half billion years old, the "here" where life has always existed cannot be the Earth. Since the universe is observable only to the place and time where plasma began to fall to a temperature that enabled electrons to be captured by protons, there could have been no life before that.
i'm not prepared to call college educated teachers "ignorant" or "unqualified".
Admitting your lack of preparation is admirable. It demonstrates that yu are not completely out of touch with reality. But someone who majored in PE, English or even mathematics is not necessarily qualified to teach biology.
when someone brings this up, ask them why they think the way they do.
OK! Why do you think the way you do?
this stuff belongs on the shoulders of those that approve our text books.
But you don't seem to be satisfied with the decisions they have made!
yes, that's what science is supposed to be about.
That is, indeed, what science is about. What is apparent, is that your understanding of science is seriously deficient.
i have clearly demonstrated that this is not the case with evolution.
You have made assertions. I have not seen any demonstrations.
I note that you joined this forum barely two weeks ago, so you may not be aware of the oft-repeated challenge: If you have refuted the theory of biological evolution, publish your findings and buy a trip to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize.
it isn't just the creationists, it's the darwinists too, that are willing to go as far as willful blindness.
Willful blindness and cognitive dissonance are common to all humans. That is why science has set standards for peer review and publication. Science is about exposition.
By the way, you cannot mask the target of your attacks by using the term "darwinists" when you refer to biologists or other scientists you disagree with. It is biology, science itself, that you disagree with, not just Darwin. Of course, religion is always a personality cult, whether the personality is real or not. Science is the universe aware of itself, and thus there are no individual personalities involved.
like i said before: creationists can be excused.
If you are saying they can't help being mistaken, I can give tentative agreement.
there is NO excuse for the other.
Science reports replicable observations which for convenience we call "facts". It explains those facts in well tested bundles of facts and reasoning called "theories". It's all in the open.
Scientists are not required to apologize because the facts and reasoning are offensive to someone's superstitions, or because theories are too difficult for minds insufficiently trained and instructed.