Originally posted by Viss1:
For me, the big picture is enough. We're talking about teaching the prevailing scientific theory on how humanity arrived at where it is today. Regardless of whether a group of scientists supposedly has some sort of interest in covering up the theory's "false claims," it is still nonetheless the general theory to which most scientists subscribe.
And for most people the big picture is plenty, and in the big scheme of things, well, most people could give a damn about the origins of life when all is said and done. 
And I'm not screaming cover up here either. I'm simply after the truth. Let's tell the real truth, which is that we empirically know a great deal less than has been claimed by the scientific naturalist community. I'm all for continuing the pursuit of truth no matter what subject we're speaking of. The truth is our friend, and no amount of rhetoric coming from either side is going to help us get closer to the truth.
Quote:
Is there an alternative theory we should look into teaching?
Perhaps it'd be more accurate to ask: Should we formulate alternative theories to eventually teach?
Seriously, I'm NOT saying we shouldn't teach good science. I'm saying let's clearly define what good science is and let's at least admit (as Ruse and even Gould now is starting to do) that there may be some ideological problems and philosophies that have produced bad science that are preventing us from making meaningful forward progress in regard to the origins of life.
In many ways, Darwin, were he alive today and were he to see the empirical evidence that has been uncovered, IMHO, would have fundamentally altered The Origin of Species accordingly, he said as much in his actual text as my other post mentioned.
| 
