The interesting thing about abiogenesis is that thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no empirical evidence at all to support it yet itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s taught in a vacuum absent any other explanations of how life may have first appeared on this planet.
The ONLY thing we have empirical evidence of is that living things come from other living things. That is biogenesis. Abiogenesis is a living thing coming from a non-living thing. In point of fact over the course of recorded history there have been billions or trillions of observations of living things coming from another living thing and not a single observation of a living thing coming from a non-living thing. In any other science such unexcepted observations become laws of nature.
Living things come only from living things is indeed a law of nature.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â The latin form isÃ‚Â Ã‚Â omne vivum ex ovo which literally translated is everything comes from an egg.Ã‚Â Abiogenesis, also known as spontaneous generation is a concept that finally died in 1862 when Louis Pasteur conclusively proved that a truly sterile medium remains sterile.Ã‚Â Today this baseless, falsfied conjecture has been born anew.Ã‚Â Reborn not because there is new evidence of it but because it is required to tie up a big loose end in the philosophically materialist view of evolution.
What should be taught to school children is the law, not the imaginary exception to the law. The exception to the law (abiogenesis) is taught in a vacuum like it was proven to have happened that way and only the details are missing.
Someone needs to explain to me why a conjecture with no empirical support whatsoever (abiogenesis) that violates a law of nature (biogenesis) is taught at all much less taught in a vacuum like itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a fact instead of a bassless conjecture. The only conclusion I can come to is that abiogenesis is the product of materialist dogma, predominantly if not exclusively driven by a desire to have biology accomodate an atheist worldview.
I suppose itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s time to remind everyone again that over 72% of the National Academy of Sciences is composed of positive atheists and that this organization is the single most influential organization in the country on science education policy. If anyone thinks for a split second that the organization isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t biased by its super-majority of positive atheists then that someone is clearly in a blind state of denial.