Hi, Cedre.
You write well: is English your first language?
Cedre writes:
However as you and your colleague Mr Jack may already be aware evolution, as a process can only take affect if it has something on which to have an affect on...
This is certainly true. And, it is precisely why we have to distinguish evolution from abiogenesis: because evolution can't happen until
after life has been formed.
In science, we have to partition our studies into specific theories, because each physical phenomenon is distinct from the others. The creation of a lifeform is different from the alteration of that lifeform into something new.
Thus, the two phenomena
must be treated separately, and must be described by different theories.
-----
Cedre writes:
...that being so the theory hasn't yet made a clean escape from the daunting question of how the first cell came about from abiotic material.
It makes a clean escape from this for the same reason that gravity makes a clean escape from the question of how protons and neutrons stick together to form the nucleus of an atom---it is formulated to explain something else.
-----
Cedre writes:
It turns out that the best Mr Jack and his colleagues can do and have been doing since 1882 is twiddle with a series of hypothesises.
Of course. And, neither Mr Jack nor any of his colleagues has said anything differently. When Mr Jack says something like, “we know abiogenesis has happened in the past,” he is not actually supporting a specific theory: “abiogenesis” actually accurately describes any hypothesis that posits a beginning to life.
Let me explain a bit.
I am a theistic evolutionist: this means that I am a proponent of evolution who still believes in God. Although I do not currently embrace
any tenet of the creationist worldview, I maintain that a divine initiation of life is still a possbility. However, even if God created the first life, the Theory of Evolution can still be correct if that God-created life evolves over time by means of diversification and selection.
Now, let’s assume for a moment that God created the first life form from the dust (as is written in the Bible). This would still be considered Abiogenesis, because what was once inanimate is now alive*. The only scenario that does not involve Abiogenesis is one in which life has always existed, throughout the infinite past, and will always be, throughout the infinite future, and thus, was never created or originated in any way.
*”Life,” in this case, refers to a biological entity, not to a quality of spiritual existence. Spiritual “life,” if it exists, undoubtedly obeys it’s own set of rules. It does not fit the definition of “life” used to formulate biological theories and hypotheses such as Evolution and Abiogenesis, and so, is not relevant to them.
-----
Cedre writes:
I must wonder is the scientific community afraid to admit the wrongness of this (abiogenesis) hypothesis, because the only other alternative is creation, so they deliberately mislead the masses and kill off their faith in a higher being.
Be very careful making this sort of statement.
Here’s an opposing statement with the same flavor, only directed at you:
“The creationist community is afraid to admit the wrongness of creationism, because the only other alternative is evolution, so they deliberately mislead the masses and kill off their ability to think rationally and coherently.”
Is this true? Are you deliberately trying to mislead people in order to destroy their belief in the Theory of Evolution? Are you afraid of evolution?
I don’t think so: I think you are entirely sincere about your arguments, and I feel that I have so far treated your arguments as such. Please extend the same courtesy to your opponents. Insinuating ulterior motives, even in a non-commital fashion, is wholly inconducive to the spirit of logical debate.
-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
