quote:
imo you cant have evolution without some form of abiogenesis which is why i include that aspect into my definition...although im aware that evolutionists dont consider abiogenesis as part of the theory.
—peg
This strikes me, not so much as an assumption of the ToE, as an assumption of the PeG.
I think that Peg's assumption is not stand-alone, but rather it is indicative of a deeper, more pervasive assumption: the assumption that evolution is atheistic. After all, what is their synonym for "evolutionist" (a creationist term applied to anyone who accepts the idea of evolution)? "Atheist". They describe their "evolution model" as atheistic.
Now if we assume no creator-god, which would be most atheists' position (atheism covers a wide range of thought; let us please not drift there here), then some form of abiogenesis would be needed to explain the origin of life itself. Hence this probable syllogism of Peg's:
quote:
Premise A: Evolution is atheistic.
Premise B: Atheists need abiogenesis to explain the origin of life.
Ergo Conclusion C: "you cant have evolution without some form of abiogenesis"
Of course, C does not follow, because Premise A is false. Evolution is not atheistic, but rather
non-theistic, just as
all of science is. Science doesn't depend on God not existing; rather, science cannot attempt to use any gods to explain natural phenomena.
I would submit that Premise A is one of the key assumptions that creationists make concerning evolution.
™ Version 4.2
