Evolution and the 'start of life' are definitely two related things, however they are also two different things. As a relativist I'm always arguing a bit for nothing I guess, because we may have an entirely different view on things in about 50 years or so because of better understanding of how things work. In fact, much has changed already compared to say the paradigms of the 80ies. Problem nowadays are certain pseudo-scientific hypes that are created purely for commercial purposes.



In my opinion common sense suggests to go with what's most likely to have happened and teach that, with the knowledge that it may be somewhat wrong, incomplete and so on. Again, science doesn't claim to have omniscient knowledge. I'm a relativist as you might remember, so in fact I somewhat agree with you that we shouldn't teach things if there's reasonable doubt to believe it may not be true. Obviously this is something that valid for the start of life, it is however not true for evolution. It's still a theory because it's not perfect, however there's really enough evidence to suggest that it's correct.



Well, perhaps I am misunderstanding creationism, but don't you believe in instantaneous creation by some supernatural creature? A being that also want to fool us by putting fossils in the ground and so on, or are your views more modern? I'm kidding around a bit, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of creationists also question the involvement of real chemical processes. Also this fact alone implies that it should be possible to recreate that chemical process. (Even if this ultimately would mean something along the lines of if 'God' can do it once, he can probably do it a million times.)



I don't think it's the most likely one, it is a possibility, but like Fastlane stated not a scientific theory by any means.



No, actually it isn't. First and foremost because the concept of God is an invention of mankind. It's easy to prove this. It's only because of the definition of God that it can't be proven in a scientific way, because you have to 'believe in it' for it to be real, more or less.

In fact, I would challenge you to give a definition of God that's simple yet striking / indicative enough so we eventually really could check he or she 'did create' or 'didn't create' by the time we figure it out. For example, what if it turns out that 'aliens' created us and our universe somehow... would that mean that these aliens suddenly are your God? That would mean there are more Gods... I doubt you would agree to that, or?



Actually that's not true and because of the fact that this is not true, science is not a religion. Accepted are those things we can agree upon. We can't agree upon God, because we can't prove nor disprove him/her/it. In my humble opinion science doesn't deal in illusionary absolutes religions tend to and doesn't promise anything but valid or invalid theories until proven otherwise.