[Mr. Silverback]

He quite logically, as many of us have, realized that when macro evolution is presented as a totally naturalistic mechanism (requiring no God) to account for the total diversity of life we observe in the present and in the fossil record, then a naturalistic origens of life is also implied. If there is no creator/designer, then life had to evolve/form from non-life.

I only have one word to say to that...

BINGO!

The basic rhetorical strategy for evolution these days is to wait until a person questioning the theory comes up with a good point, and then say, "Well, evolution doesn't address that." A nice parry, but the bottom line is that macro evolution either has to explain (or at least have some bloody opinion on) how life got here or it has to admit that intelligent design is as good an explanation as any.

[Dimensio]

The basic rhetorical strategy for evolution these days is to wait until a person questioning the theory comes up with a good point, and then say, "Well, evolution doesn't address that." A nice parry, but the bottom line is that macro evolution either has to explain (or at least have some bloody opinion on) how life got here or it has to admit that intelligent design is as good an explanation as any.

Why does evolution have to explain exactly how the first life got here? Because you say so?

Evolution has never addressed the ultimate origins of life. Even in Darwin's Origin of the Species, the process of evolution was written as something that occured after the first life forms appeared on Earth.