Because of the mass confusion of fifty kids screaming out "Amen!", "Praise Allah!", and "Hooya!" all at the same time?
So what?
I mean honestly though, why does it have to be narrowed down? It can't simply be presented as: an alternative theory for the initial existence of life is that of an intelligent creator
I'm not talking about a scientific unit on this, as obviously that's not possible... I'm not even sure if it should be TAUGHT, as in tested on, etc. But I'm not opposed to it being thrown out there as a possible solution, since we can't eliminate it as a possibility.
34. Please select all of the theories on the creation of the first primitive life forms:
A. Biopoesis
B. Intelligent creator
C. RNA Crystal development
D. Seeding
E. All of the above
If that was a test question... the answer would be E.
35. The theory of _______ states the first primitive life forms were brought into existence by a knowledgeable creator.
A. Evolution
B. Intelligent Design
C. Biopoesis
36. We have universally-accepted scientific theories that successfully explain the existence of the first primitive life forms.
A. False
B. True
Teaching it as a scientific theory? Of course not. But I will state again: the theory of an intelligent creator is not diametrically opposite of the theory of evolution. Teaching one doesn't eliminate the other. Offering it in a higher level class as a potential solution for the question isn't stamping crosses on everyone's foreheads--it encourages debate and critical thinking.
