Replies

1). I don't know Jack Chick from Chick Hearn.

2). Why must I continue to have my "intelligence" questioned rather than have my questions answered? I see what you are saying about evolution not having to do with the origins, however, I don't see how you get to evolution without a serious consideration of origins and I think an individual's conclusion about origins will seriously flavor his/her belief about the plausibility of evolution.

I don't see how you get to evolution without a serious consideration of origins

Can we discuss meteorology without a serious considerations of how Hydrogen bonds with Oxygen? Or how all the factors causing wind come to be?

Can we discuss the relative merits of the Yankees vs. the Redsox without a serious consideration of Abner Doubleday?

Can we discuss modern corn agriculture without a serious consideration of monocot evolution?

Now... Can we discuss evolution (or astronomy or botany or paleontology, etc) without a serious consideration of "origins?"

The answer is an emphatic "yes."

It doesn't matter what the origin of life was like, be it abiogenesis, the work of the Almighty, or tinkering by aliens -- evolution only deals with what happened afterward. Therefore, the Theory of Evolution does not require "a serious consideration of origins."

And, as for questioning your intelligence, we haven't. We have questioned your knowledge, or lack thereof, which is not the same thing entirely.

I think the problem you are having is that you have a preconceived notion that evolution and creationism are necessarily contradictory. Evolution does not speak to where life came from, no matter how much you want to believe that is does or that it has to. Evolution simply states that the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms changes over time. Evolution only applies at times after the first living cells have formed. Evolution does not care whether that happened via abiogenesis, creation or any other mechanism. You may be confused because there are many proponents of evolution who believe in a form of prebiotic chemical evolution that led to the formation of life without the need for a Creator. This is NOT the theory of evolution, however. This hypothesis is certainly on much shakier ground than the TOE. (note, I don't refer to this as a theory; there simply isn't evidence enough to call this hypothesis a theory). The question of the origin of life and the diversification of life, once formed, are logically separate.