Another problem with this argument is that evolution does not always lead to improvement and greater complexity. Either an organism is well adapted to its environment or it is not. Some organisms even developed too many complexities, called subspecialization, and therefore disappeared. Evolution is simply a self-sustaining system driven by variation and environmental/natural selection. “Evolution as a whole seems to explain the variation in life, but it does not explain where the first living thing came from! » Yes, that's absolutely true. Evolution does not explain the origin of living things. It's not supposed to. Evolution explains how living organisms have changed over time. The origins of life on Earth from non-life are a separate field of study called Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is still only a hypothesis and has not yet reached the status of a scientific theory like evolution has. It could have started from self-replicating RNA, or amino acids, or proteins, or Yahweh, or Allah, or Zeus, or Panspermia, or aliens. We don't yet have evidence to say how life began. Scientists are looking for evidence showing how life began. The fact that abiogenesis is a separate field of study from evolution should make creationists more amenable to evolution being taught in schools. In fact, this was one of the main arguments plaintiffs used in the aforementioned Kansas Board of Education hearings to justify teaching evolution in the science curriculum. Mr. Irigonegaray said in his final statement: “Version 2 accurately represents science as being neutral with respect to the nature of spiritual reality. " (7) This means that science has no mission... middle of paper ... what they want people to do is allow them to cheat and give them a shortcut to get around this rigorous process. This would be very bad science policy and would be even worse in terms of education policy. The educational policy does not allow this cheating in any of its other programs. Let's say I believed that 2+2=5. I have every right to believe that. I can teach this to my children at home. It doesn't matter what other people think. However, the only thing I can't do is integrate it into a math curriculum. Should a teacher say that if we want, we can believe that a triangle has four sides or that 2+2=5? Should an English teacher say that if you want, you can say the phrase "I brought my books to class." instead of “I brought my books to class.” » ? These ideas seem absurd to us, but many are willing to let religious privilege take precedence over educational policy in the case of science...