Theoretical origin of life; new earliest? (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, October 08, 2017, 13:23 (2603 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You had said that Darwin’s theory “dismisses God out of hand”. It doesn’t. […]

DAVID: Gradual change by chance mutations is still evolution by chance.

dhw: But it does not explain how life and the mechanisms for chance mutations came into existence, and that was not Darwin’s focus: “How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated.” (Difficulties on Theory)

DAVID: It is unusual for you to tie origin of life into Darwin! God did it does not solve Darwin's problem.

What problem are you referring to? The problem Darwin set out to solve was how all the different life forms came into being (most people at the time believed in separate creation) – i.e. Chapter Two in life’s history. In Origin of Species he explicitly did NOT set out to explain Chapter One – i.e. how the first form(s) of life and the mechanisms for evolution originated. His theory of evolution is as open to theism as it is to atheism. See below.

DAVID: That is why atheism sticks to a Darwin style evolutionary process. Pure Darwinism supports atheism, no matter how Darwin himself felt as he reacted to criticism.

dhw: What do you mean by “pure Darwinism”? Of course atheists twist the theory to support their atheism. Now find me one single passage in The Origin of Species or anywhere else in which Darwin – the prime exponent of “pure Darwinism” – dismisses God out of hand. (Elsewhere he does attack religious dogma, but then so do you and lots of other theists and agnostics.)

DAVID: You miss the point. Darwinism is how Darwin is interpreted by atheists to use him. His theory opens the door. Of course Darwin cannot defend himself.

The theory of common descent as opposed to separate creation is interpreted by theists, including yourself and the Pope, as perfectly compatible with the existence of God. The question of the origin of life and of the mechanisms of evolution remains unanswered, but God could have devised a system of random mutations (Darwin) just as easily as a computer programme (you) or an autonomous inventive mechanism (me). Darwinism IS no more “how Darwinism is interpreted” by theists/atheists than your God IS how he is interpreted by atheists, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and panentheists. Most of reality (and in God’s case, possibly non-reality) is open to a thousand different interpretations. That does not mean reality IS how it is interpreted by every different interpreter.

And finally, to remind you of the starting point of this particular discussion: there is absolutely no justification for saying that Darwin’s theory “dismisses God out of hand”. Come on, be fair to Darwin for a change!