No, evolution just doesn't claim to answer origins of life questions and nothing about the creation of life has any effect on evolution. It could be life evolved from collected matter binding in tidal pools or it could be pan-spermia or it could be a divine being created life in the most basic form. Doesn't matter evolution is about how life changes the origins of life are fundamentally not a concern of people who study evolution.
No, evolution just doesn't claim to answer origins of life questions and nothing about the creation of life has any effect on evolution. It could be life evolved from collected matter binding in tidal pools or it could be pan-spermia or it could be a divine being created life in the most basic form. Doesn't matter evolution is about how life changes the origins of life are fundamentally not a concern of people who study evolution.
Right, but how many people do you know that believe in evolution AND intelligent design? I know exactly one person who fits that description. It's for this reason I lump it all in together, because far more often than not proponents of evolution are completely against intelligent design. I'm fully aware of the fact that evolution and abiogenesis relate to two different matters.
evolutionists love to dance around saying what they really believe. So bypass the BS and READ it for yourself in the text books...you know....the ones being used in the pubic schools . It plainly states what they are trying to teach. They teach God did not create anything. It certainly does - without any doubt. But the adherents to the theory like to use fancy nomenclature to befuddle the issue rather than to state plainly what they believe.
Well but ID implicitly questions abiogenesis there is nothing about ID that expclity rejects a non-divine model of creation - aliens in theory could work just as well as god for example. What it does challenge directly is the fundamental tenets of evolution. I know a lot of people who believe in evolution, like myself, who freely admit that the "how" of the creation of life has not been full explained. The are good models and theories but nothing definitive exists. That said the idea that an abiogenesis scenario is mathematically impossible is also wrong. It assumes any number of things that aren't true:1. Biochemistry and chemistry aren't random die rolls, there are rules about how chemicals can form and bond lowering the odds dramatically. 2. You are trying to build life as wel know it, not really life as it might have been. Current theories on abiogenesis do not assume you build something 300 proteins long but more like 50. So what is being built isn't nearly as complex as the math assumes. You are actually ignoring steps that go from chemicals to polymers to self replicating polymers to protobiotics to bacteria. 3. You are not running sequential trials but simultaneous trials. In other words, nature isn't trying one combo and moving onto the next it is trying all of the combos at the same time.
evolutionists love to dance around saying what they really believe. So bypass the BS and READ it for yourself in the text books...you know....the ones being used in the pubic schools . It plainly states what they are trying to teach. They teach God did not create anything. It certainly does - without any doubt. But the adherents to the theory like to use fancy nomenclature to befuddle the issue rather than to state plainly what they believe.
Find me any textbook that says god created nothing. You can have a full abiogenesis scenario where life on earth is created by lightening strikes, in scummy pools with no god and that doesn't mean there is no god. God can step into the process much, much earlier. Isn't the much more fun place to go for god the atom that started the Big Bang and let him create that? Omniscience is nifty because it doesn't require twiddling around with every outcome since you already know all the outcomes of what you create...right?
