Scott,
REMOVED is not the same thing as "disprovoved". It is actually surprising that you or others would be so upset about the possibility of an alternative (e.g. creation) being considered equally to abiogenesis, in a classroom.
Had abiogenesis demonstrated evidence which supported it over creation, perhaps this would be understandable (and again, not talking of evolution-that discussion has already taken place and it has been in schools longer than I've been alive) however it has not, and leaves quite a few serious questions unanswered or half-answered by "well, with enough time...." requiring faith that given enough time, normally impossible things can indeed happen. By this logic, not only is creation possible, but so are *all* of the different religions' versions of "God". After all, given enough time....
This is all I keep pointing out. Not that your theory or mine is right, but that as both are equal wrt the evidence-ultimately inconclusive-neither should receive billing as "the way it was" while the other is cast off to theology class.
The argument that your theory or mine is "right" is not winnable by either side at this point, as no evidence supports either conclusively; that is why I only argue that if one is to be taught, so should the other; the various laws of science or how experiments are done will not change at any rate regardless of what conclusions a student may reach in his or her own mind, or which version of which theory he or she believes occurred.
In essence, I am arguing that we keep a truly open mind, at least in the classroom, when it regards things so highly charged and yet not proven for either side.
Beyond the argument for an open mind, all the same experiments can be demonstrated, and students can make up their own minds; once one or the other is a proven "fact" then perhaps one or the other could be excluded from the classroom, but until then, why not educate and not indoctrinate?
That's all I'm asking for.