We’re all somewhat agnostic. If it were true, it still wouldn’t be science, though.

Though science is made up of truths, something being a truth or truths doesn’t qualify it to be science. Just for your information!

2. I’m not sure. I’d assume amino acids, carbon, a few other choice things, and the right timing.

3. Why do I care about what, exactly? I care about our education because I’m not a monkey. However, if we are what we came from, I’m a one-celled organism, and still not a monkey! Monkeys are modern too y’kno. (and for that matter, what defines conscience? It’s logical to assume animals have it as well, they’ve got brains, which is the only requirement!)

4. I’d assume the first creature to live would be a witness to origin. Or at least close. If not, could’ve been some alien watching from afar that lost interest after a few hundred million years… My doubt for this is actually up there with the whole god thing. But again, the origin of life is not my topic.

Because…

The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

I assume you mean that Sir Isaac Newton wrote about god or some nonsense? I’ve not went too deep into his writings, as his main subjects also aren’t my thing.

Even so, I won’t pretend to know how life arose. However, it’s fairly safe to say that it wasn’t a creator, designer, god, et. al.

Personal beliefs are irrelevant. One of my most respected biologists and my personal role model, Kenneth Miller, is a devout Roman Catholic and argues against Intelligent Design as science. There are also many other religious folks within the scientific community that support evolution.

Then there are the pretentious liars like Michael Behe and William Dembski…

1. Where did origin begin?

2. What material had to come into existence for origin to begin?

3. And, as a glorified “super-evolved monkey”, why do you care? (and for that matter, where did conscience come from – seeing it is an intangible itself?)

4. Was there a witness to origin and if so, does He have a name?

Sir Isaac Newton knew these answers and wrote more on these subjects and all his lifetime scientific letters combined! Just a thought….

The point of this journal is to say that the entire reason for wanting so-called academic freedom is to cast doubt on a well-documented and extremely supported science to let in creationism masquerading as science.

If you can’t see how that’s wrong…

Ironic, since no religion allows itself to indulge in the thought process or considers any evidence other than its own teachings.

However, saying it like that is lame.

Academic Freedom is a bill aimed only at evolutionary theory. I would be perfectly fine with mandating teaching of the supposed holes in every scientific theory, but to single out one over another makes a profound statement: only this one could be wrong!

Besides, academic scrutiny is nothing to scientific scrutiny, which proves evolution in itself. If you don’t profess to ‘believe’ in evolution, don’t get a flu shot this year.

IMHO any thought process that won’t allow itself to be held up to scrutiny probably doesn’t have much thought in it.

Shalom