Some evo-phobes try to score a "point" against the science of biological evolution by pointing out that we do not have a complete plausible pathway from inorganic matter to life.
They refuse to be corrected about this, repeating the "argument" with such tedious regularity it becomes ad-nauseam.
1 ) Darwin's first publication was entitled "On the Origin of Species" and not "On the Origin of Life".
Its topic was the fact, and the way, in which existing organisms could give rise to new species.
The full title, BTW, was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
Here "races" does not refer to the current and erroneous conceptions of race, but varieties. Origin did not talk about humans. "Races", at the time meant varieties, such as varieties of pigeons or cabbages.
2 ) No sane person would try to argue that life does not exist. But however life first arose, either naturally, or by the magical meddling of some unnatural entity, it promptly began evolving by the natural selection of heritable variations. Whether it was naturally created or unnaturally created in the first place makes not one iota of difference to evolution.
3 ) Some claim that Genesis is literally true. Yet if it is, it says that the earth and the waters, inorganic elements, "brought forth" life. But these people are the same ones who refuse to believe it! It seems that they do not have enough faith in a creator to credit him with the ability to create a world that could bring forth life. IMO this betrays a lack of faith. Instead, there is a need to believe in spooky magic.
4 ) Some say that "evolutionists" think they know how life arose. This is a lie. Nobody claims to know. Yet.
5 ) Some confuse abiogenesis with biogenesis. Biogenesis held that living organisms are constantly and spontaneously emerging from once living matter. This was the idea that was disproved by Spallanzani and Pasteur.
6 ) We know that life consists of matter. There is no special spark, or élan vital, that requires any non-prosaic, unnatural "explanation".
7 ) "God-of-the-gaps" arguments are theologically risky. If a gap tightens up, your God gets squished.
8 ) "I don't understand how the natural, inorganic world could have brought forth life so It can't have done" is an argument from incredulity - a basic fallacy. Your lack of ability to understand something has no bearing on whether or not it is true.
9 ) Although we do not have a complete plausible path from non-life to life, science has made considerable progress towards developing one, whereas magical thinking has made none whatsoever. "It was magic" does not constitute an explanation, and never can.
No comments:
Post a Comment