Useless to take a stand either way
l have received two responses concerning the evolution debate, neither of which are relevant to the topic. I am concerned with Darwin's theory for origin of species. He never discussed origin of life. That may have been added later. Both sides of the argument are in the dark about it. The creationists are satisfied with faith whereas scientists are speculating ideas. If the evidence for the physical origin of life no longer exists, they may never find the answer.
Mr. Rother's response begins by making a personal slur. In a friendly debate, we try to discuss ideas rather than personalities. He then refers to A. N. Field. Arthur Nelson Field is an anti-evolutionist who has been accused of being a white supremist, anti-semitic, and a neofascist. But catholic book publishers sanction his off-the-wall logic as long as it concurs with their dogma. The title of his book, "The Evolution Hoax Exposed," was originally, "How Colleges Encourage Communism." I can safely say that most universities accept evolution. Are colleges are a breeding ground for communism because they promote evolution? Communism is just a red herring there. Field's reference to Carr-Saunder, which uses a scare-word like abortion, is a social issue irrelevant to evolution. Mr. Rother does not clearly indicate his stand. He refers to Paul Davies who says that we are all made of stardust and our atoms and molecules get recycled. True, but not relevant because it does not matter where organisms get their molecules, they still evolve. Does Mr. Rother know the difference between recycling and evolution? The reference is an unnecessary extravagance.
Mr. Boyd is more sincere, but his definition of the theory of evolution is not correct. Again, Darwin never tried to explain the origin of life. He explained the origin of species. He said that apes and man have a common ancestor. That upset the creationists. Creationism's version of the origin of life is faith based. It is possible to believe in evolution and creationism at the same time. It all depends upon what level you are at which requires an understanding of creationism and its forms. Mr. Boyd has to clearly state which form he supports. Belief in both disciplines cannot involve A&E. Biblical creationism accepts A&E. When it comes down to the basics of how life first began, one school of thought believes in a natural physical origin and another believes in divine intervention which does not include A&E or Jesus Christ.
I disagree about his cross discipline scientific evidence not proving the theory of evolution. Genetics is the mechanism on a molecular level and the study of embryological development mimics the pathway of evolution. If you google embryonic development, the paragraph on ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny explains it. Truth is associated with other truths. Evolution strengthens other sciences, and vise versa.
I am appalled at Ken Ham's creation museum. It bastardizes knowledge with its outrageous and unsubstantiated claims supporting creation. His entire museum is substantiated by faith only. There is no evidence for anything he declares. Mr. Boyd earlier defined faith as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. That is exactly the same definition for superstition. l have often pondered if there is a distinct difference between the two. Perhaps someone can explain.
There is proof for evolution (that species change) and that is why it should be taught in schools. Creationism involving A&E is purely superstition and belongs on the shelf alongside Greek and Roman mythology.
The answer to the question, "Did life evolve from non-life?'' does not involve Darwin's Origin of Species. During the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, people believed that life came from non-life. It was known as abiogenesis or spontaneous generation. People actually believed if one placed a shirt in a corner with rice sprinkled on it, the rice would turn into mice. People actually believed that the geese flying south for the winter came from flowering trees far to the north. During the 19th century, it was believed that bacteria formed spontaneously. Louis Pasteur painstakingly devised experiments disproving that. Spontaneous generation of the middle ages is not what we are talking about concerning the origin of life.
I am on the fence about the exact origin of life. If evidence for such no longer exists, it would be impossible for us to determine such. l am hoping it is there somewhere and we may someday find it. Meanwhile, it is useless to take a stand either way.
J. A. LANKALIS