Theoretical origin of life: more ruminations (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 15, 2015, 22:23 (3048 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: This is Cornelius Hunter again. He does not believe in evolution. I'm not sure what he does believe in, but his comments about OOL are right on, and my point that we cannot separate origin from evolution is endorsed by him:-http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/12/biologos-and-science-case-of-ool.html-QUOTE: "Finally, there is the ultimate argument which firewalls OOL off from evolution"".
QUOTE (meant ironically): "Finally, as a purely technical matter, the theory of evolution does not propose an explanation to the question of the origin of life at all. The theory of evolution becomes relevant only after life has already begun.”-Absolutely right, and I would also have to agree that evolution cannot be classed as a fact, even though it has been so widely accepted. However, from this point on, he goes off the rails, as you will see from a different quote: -QUOTE: “Evolutionists believe that the species, life, the Earth and planets, the Sun, the galaxies, yes the entire universe arose by chance events. There is no limit to what evolution can create, but when problems arise, the topic is simply dismissed as extraneous to the theory.”-That is what atheistic evolutionists believe, but the theory of common descent, as opposed to separate creation, has been accepted by millions of believers, including Catholics and my favourite panentheist, David Turell. We both disagree with Darwin's explanation of the driving force (random mutations), but the above is a deliberate attempt to discredit the WHOLE theory by conflating it with a totally different theory (that of abiogenesis). Yet another shameful distortion.-QUOTE: "As if sensing a problem, and just in case we were beginning to have doubts, we are told to forget about the whole thing. Forget about all those journals, conferences, textbook claims about the origin of life, popular books and newspaper articles, speeches and blogs. It all has nothing to do with evolution after all."-David's comment: Darwin used this as a crutch, and its been used ever since.-No he didn't, and you know he didn't. He emphasized that his theory was perfectly compatible with religious belief, and so it is, though it is not compatible with the story of Creation told in the Bible. As you and I agreed recently, the problem of the origin of life is crucial to concepts of evolutionary purpose, but that is a separate issue from the question of whether we did or did not descend from earlier forms of life.