Most people have deeply vitalistic views of what constitutes "life" when it's just just an arbitrary point on the continuum of the complexity of natural processes.
Well said.
Of course it does. There are plenty of non-living processes that evolve. Abiogenisis was simply such a process evolving into "life".
Agreed, and as you say later, there is no clear line where 'life' begins. While it is possible to talk about more recent speciation without any reference to abiogenesis, both the study of 'biologogical evolution' and abiogenesis are the studies of the history of life and how the earth has come to bear its current life forms.
Furthermore, if we as a society agreed that only 'biological evolution' should be taught in school, then the next question to await would be: 'should we teach abiogenesis?' So obviously, Abiogenesis is relevant.
Hence the broader question which our society should have to deal with, is: How do we control what ideas are passed down to our children through their education?
And it applies much more broadly than just science: to other fields including:
*History (Do we want to have our public schools read Chomsky with their standard text books?)
*Our general curriculum
As I see it, the question becomes: Do we want to have the government regulate a single answer to what the young are taught in school, or do we want to have options and get to pick?
To me the answer is clear. I sound like a broken record, but I think that the real solution to the evolution v ID problem is the voucher system. (
http://en.wikipedia....School_vouchera)
If I were a young earth creationist then I may or may not want my kid to be taught evolution in school, so I would send them off to a christian school and that should be my prerogative. (However I am thankful every day that I'm not a YE Creationist)